Sitting of 27 April 1910

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Glasgow Gas Consolidation Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Standard Life Assurance Company Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Blackpool Improvement Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
South Lincolnshire Water Bill [Lords],
To be read a second time to-morrow.
Yorkshire Electric Power Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
City of London (Tithes and Bates) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Beading deferred till Thursday 26th May.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill,—"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Bolton, Burnley, Oldham, and Sheffield," presented by Mr. HERBERT LEWIS; supported by Mr. Burns; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Shipbuilding Programmes (Austria-Hungary).
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any information in regard to an agreement between the Governments of Germany and Austria-Hungary whereby, should there be any difficulty in obtaining a grant to cover the cost of their construction, the German Government will purchase from Austria-Hungary the four large armoured ships now building or projected?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): We have no official information.
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked whether either of the four proposed Austrian battleships have yet been laid down, and, if so, when they were commenced?
  Mr. McKENNA: We have no official information.
  Mr. REESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any information that the Stabiliminto Tecnico of Trieste is proceeding with the construction of one or more of the four "Dreadnoughts" for the Austria-Hungarian Government in anticipation of the provision of funds?
  Mr. McKENNA: We have no official information.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Has not the right hon. Gentleman received reports from our Naval Attaché to Austria-Hungary with reference to this question?
  Mr. McKENNA'Sreply was not audible.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked a further question which was also inaudible.
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. Official information would be such information as we might receive officially.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask whether he distinguishes between the official information he obtains from his own subordinates and the official information he obtains from foreign Governments, and whether it is only the latter kind he communicates to the House, and not the former?
  Mr. McKENNA: On matters affecting foreign Governments I communicate to the House such information as the foreign Governments communicate to me. As regards any information which I receive from our Naval Attachés, I can make no statement.
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to obtain official information on this matter, which is so very important in regard to our naval defence?
  Mr. McKENNA: I can assure the hon. Member that the Admiralty will not be behindhand in obtaining all information.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Am I to understand that he will not give any information to this House which has been received by him from Naval Attaches unless the Naval Attaches have received that information officially from the Governments to which they are accredited?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. I have stated nothing in regard to information in general, but such information as would be only desirable to quote from official sources. I should only quote from official sources.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to suppose that the statements which have appeared in newspapers with regard to the commencement of those ships in Austria are, as a matter of fact, incorrect?
  Mr. McKENNA: The House, so far as unofficial sources of information, are just as well able to form an opinion as I am. So far as official information, I have given all the official information I have.
  Mr. REMNANT: In view of the fact that the so-called unofficial information generally proves to be correct, and is usually in advance of the Admiralty information, will the right hon. Gentleman call for a specific report on these matters?
  Mr. McKENNA: I must dispute the statement made by the hon. Gentleman that unofficial information has been in advance of the Admiralty information. The Admiralty, I can assure the hon. Member, are fully informed of all the facts of the case, but I am unable to state to the House any information except such as I have received officially.

  Australia and New Zealand New Armoured Vessels.
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked whether names had yet been allotted to the two armoured vessels ordered for the Commonwealth of Australia and the Dominion of New Zealand, and, if so, what these names were?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir.

  Dilke Return.
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked when the Dilke Return is to be issued?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Return will be delivered to the House on Friday morning.

  Construction of Destroyers (Great Britain).
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked whether tenders have been invited for the twenty destroyers of the current naval programme; whether such tenders have been received; and, if so, from which firms have they been accepted?
  Mr. McKENNA: Tenders have been received, and are now under consideration.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when this consideration will materialise in fact.
  Mr. McKENNA: Very shortly.
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked whether the designs for the twenty destroyers of the current naval programme have been prepared by the builders tendering for their construction or by the Admiralty; and, if by the latter, whether the whole twenty are to be of one type?
  Mr. McKENNA: Tenders are under consideration for some destroyers to the builders' design and for some to that of the Admiralty.

  Cordite Supply (Navy).
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG (for Captain Faber)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will give a Return of the quantities of cordite during the last three months which have been destroyed, or used at practice, or passed into the Service?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is not in the public interest to supply the details asked for.
  Mr. C. CRAIG (for Captain Faber)asked if he will state whether several recent deliveries of cordite for big guns supplied by the Government factory and private manufacturers have been found too unstable after forty days' storage to warrant admission with safety into the Service; and, if so, what steps are being taken to provide a stable explosive for the Navy?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is not in the public interest to give the information asked for in the first part of the question. Investigations and experiments are continually in progress with a view to further ensuring the stability of cordite.
  Mr. C. CRAIG: May I ask if he can assure us that there is no truth in the reports which have been published in certain papers that owing to the stringency of the tests which are now imposed by the Admiralty for cordite that a large quantity of Government made cordite and privately made cordite have failed to pass the test; and that owing to that fact there is a certain amount of shortage in cordite for the Navy?
  Mr. McKENNA: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no truth in the statement that there is any shortage of cordite. With regard to the first part he is merely repeating the question.

  Destroyers (British and German).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked how many destroyers of the British 1908–9 programme are now in commission; and how many of the German destroyers provided for in the same year?
  Mr. McKENNA: According to recent information in the Press, seven of the twelve German destroyers of the 1908–9 programme are now in commission. Not any of the British destroyers of the 1908–9 programme are yet in commission.
  Mr. ASHLEY: May I ask why His Majesty's Government allow the English shipbuilding programme to be so much outdistanced by the German?
  Mr. McKENNA: I can only repeat that this matter was very fully debated on the Estimates, and it would be very undesirable to reopen it in question and answer.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked if he can state how many destroyers were provided for in 1907–8 by the British and German Naval Estimates respectively; and on what dates the last boats of the respective programmes were commissioned?
  Mr. McKENNA: Twelve destroyers were provided for in 1907–8 by the German Naval Estimates. The last of these commissioned on 15th December, 1908. Five destroyers were provided for in the British programme for 1907–8. Four of these are in commission. The remaining boat, the "Viking," will be completed next month.
  Mr. ASHLEY: What steps have been taken to speed up our shipbuilding programme as compared with the Germans?
  Mr. McKENNA: This subject was very fully debated.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked how many destroyers of British 1909–10 programme have been launched; and how many of the German destroyers provided for in the same year have been completed?
  Mr. McKENNA: Three of the German destroyers provided for in the 1909–10 programme are understood to have been completed. None of the British destroyers of the 1909–10 programme have yet been launched.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain why it was that one of the German programme was in commission before the first of ours was laid down?
  Mr. McKENNA: That fact was fully explained in the Debate on the Estimates.

  Home and Atlantic Fleets.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked on what date did the Home and Atlantic Fleets leave their respective ports to take part in the combined exercises now in progress; what is the number of battleships, armoured cruisers, protected cruisers, and destroyers respectively nominally composing the participating squadrons; and what was the number of vessels of each class unable to leave port on that date with the main body?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Home and Atlantic Fleets sailed on 18th April. The nominal strength of the squadrons participating in the cruise is twenty-two battleships, thirteen armoured cruisers first class, six protected cruisers second class, two unarmoured cruisers, two destroyer depot ships, four scouts, forty-nine destroyers. Of these, five battleships, four armoured cruisers, two protected cruisers, second class, two destroyer depot ships, one scout, fifteen destroyers, did not proceed with the main body, as the vessels were refitting or being docked, or preparing to refit, or were employed on other duties.
  Mr. ASHLEY: May I ask why our first striking force should be short one-third of its strength, and unfit for commission after a fortnight's notice?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir; that is not so. The fact that a ship is being repaired or refitted does not imply that it would be unfit for action if called upon, but all ships in this or any other striking force must be repaired from time to time.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Are we to always dock one-third of our strength as compared with other forces.
  Mr. McKENNA: German ships, like ours, have to repaired.

  "Dreadnoughts" in Commission.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked how many battleships of the "Dreadnought" type were now in full commission; and how many were taking part in the combined exercises?
  Mr McKENNA: The reply to the first part of the question is six—and to the second part, two.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Arising out of that reply—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman must really exercise some restraint. There are 125 questions on the Paper to be got through in three-quarters of an hour. The hon. Gentleman has asked certainly one if not two supplementary questions on every question he has put.

  Painted Hall, Greenwich. (Expenses).
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the expenses in regard to the Painted Hall, Greenwich, could be paid by the State instead of out of the Greenwich Hospital funds?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is not considered desirable to alter the present arrangement whereby the expenses in regard to the Painted Hall, the contents of which are the property of Greenwich Hospital, are charged to its funds.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the question, because if the expense were charged on Navy Votes, all the money now devoted to this purpose could go to the men?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am aware of the circumstances of the case.

  Navy (Shipwrights' Petition).
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he had received a petition from the Associated Shipwrights' Society respecting the pay and position of their trade in the Royal Navy; and, if so, when a reply might be expected?
  Mr. McKENNA: A printed but unsigned statement has been received. The representations in this document will receive consideration, but it is not anticipated that it will be practicable to accede to the requests.

  Royal Fleet Reserve (Payment of Retainers).
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether men belonging to the Royal Fleet Reserve whose quarterly retainers were due on the first day of the quarter had to wait till the 15th or 16th day; and, if so, whether he intended to take steps to pay these men their retainers on the first day of the quarter, as was the case with Army Reservists?
  Mr. McKENNA: The payment of these retainers is made at the Reserve Divisions, and inquiry is being made as to the practicability of issuing the money orders in time for payment on the first day of the quarter.

  Royal Dockyards (Ex-Apprentices).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention had been called to the fact that there were in the Royal dockyards instances of ex-apprentices who had been on the hired list for fifteen to twenty years; and whether, on the ground of efficiency alone, he would consider if it was possible, when establishment was reopened, that provision be made to meet these eases of long service?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir, the dockyard regulations provide for preference to be given to men who have served apprenticeships in the dockyards in selecting work-ment to be placed on the established list, but the number of men who may be established is restricted by the number of vacancies.

  Rnssia and Finland.
  Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention had been drawn to a manifesto on the subject of the relations between Russia and Finland, signed by eight prominent European authorities on international law; and whether he was in a position to make representations to the Russian Government on the subject?
  The HON. MEMBERalso asked whether the autonomy of the Grand Duchy of Finland was guaranteed or recognised by any international treaty?
  Mr. REES: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask whether the Imperial Russian Government has made any representations to His Majesty's Government with regard to Home Rule, or any other domestic question?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to reply to these questions together, as they deal with the same subject. I have seen the manifesto in the Press. Great Britain is not a party to any international treaty of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend, and I am not prepared to interpret the provisions of treaties to which Great Britain is not a party, nor am I in a position to make representations.

  Suez Canal Concession (Extension).
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the late Boutros Pasha, Prime Minister of Egypt, before his assassination expressed his approval of the proposal to extend the Suez Canal concession, and objected to that question being submitted to the General Assembly because of the revolutionary sympathies of that body; whether he was aware that El Wardani, who was awaiting trial for the murder of Boutros Pasha, gave as an excuse for his act the approval which Boutros Pasha had given to the proposal of the Suez Canal Company; and whether these facts were known to the Agent-General, and to the Foreign Office, when the British Government consented to the question of the extension of the Suez Canal concession being decided by the vote of the General Assembly?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not aware of the views of the late Boutros Pasha on this question, nor do I consider it desirable to discuss the circumstances of his assassination pending the conclusion of the trial of Wardani. If the hon. Member will refer to the reply given to a question by Dr. Rutherford in the House of Commons on 4th November last he will see that the decision to submit the question to the General Assembly had been taken several months ago.
  Mr. LAWSON: What course do the British Government propose to take in respect of the concessions?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That hardly arises out of the question.

  Chinchow-Aignn Railway.
  Mr. REMNANT (for Earl Winterton)asked whether the objections raised by Russia to the construction by China of the Chinchow-Aigun Railway were consistent with the undertakings given by Russia in the Portsmouth Treaty of Peace, and especially Articles 3 and 4 of that treaty, and with the Russia-China Secret Treaty of 1895, and especially Article 4 of that treaty?
  The HON. MEMBERalso asked whether the attitude of Japan towards the proposed construction by China of the Chinchow-Aigun Railway was consistent with the Portsmouth Treaty of Peace, and
  426
  especially with Articles 3 and 4 of that treaty; and whether this attitude vas consistent with Clause 7 of the Treaty of 1905 between China and Japan and with paragraph (b) of the preamble of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance of 1905?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I beg to reply to the Noble Lord's two questions on this subject together. I have nothing to add to the replies which I have already made in regard to this matter to the effect that there appears to be nothing unreasonable in the attitude of either Russia or Japan, and that it is not for His Majesty's Government to define the rights and interests of other Powers in the regions affected.
  Mr. REMNANT: Will the Government give the same backing to the representative body acting for us as the other nations give to theirs?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by the representative body acting for us.
  Mr. REMNANT: There is one body for each Government.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: If the hon. Member refers to the financial group, their action is entirely independent of His Majesty's Government.

  Egypt (British Influence).
  Mr. FELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he had received any reports from Egypt of a disquieting nature, that the influence of this country was rapidly weakening, and that English residents in many places could not go out without running the risk of being insulted; and if any papers relating to the question could be laid before Parliament.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Recent reports respecting the situation in Egypt with special reference to the assassination of Boutros Pasha, are not as satisfactory as could be desired, but I have not heard of any cases of insult to English residents. There are no papers which can be laid.
  Mr. FELL: Apart from official information, have the Foreign Office had an opportunity of meeting any residents who have returned from Egypt lately, and do they bear out the statements in the question?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have not seen them.

  Railway Termini (Post Offices).
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the Postmaster-General whether he would consider, for the advantage of the public, the advisability of establishing a post office at each of the large London railway termini, such as Euston, London Bridge, Paddington, King's Cross, Waterloo, Victoria, St. Pancras, Liverpool Street, Gharing Cross, and Marylebone?
  The POST MASTER - GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I recognise the advantage to the public of postal facilities being available at important railway stations. There are already telegraph offices at the large London termini, provided by the railway companies, and there are also posting-boxes. At some stations stamps are on sale, and I am now taking steps to arrange that stamps shall be obtainable at all such stations. To establish offices for all branches of postal work at these stations is not practicable, as there is reason to believe that in some instances accommodation could not be obtained at all, and in other instances could not be obtained on terms which could properly be accepted. Nor does experience show it to be necessary, for when a post office was open at King's Cross station it was found that very little general postal business was done. With facilities for obtaining stamps, for posting letters, and for despatching telegrams, I trust that the convenience of the public will be met.
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the Postmaster-General whether, in the event of post-offices being stationed at the various railway termini in London, he would decide that the work should be done in connection with the various branch offices, and that only established staff should be employed in any offices so created?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth on this subject.

  London and Paris Mails.
  Mr. PIRIEasked the Postmaster-General whether the matter of the conveyance of the mails between Paris and London was being carefully considered with a view of lessening the number of mails carried at present via Dover and Calais as compared with Folkestone and Boulogne, in view of the fact that there were forty-one services per week carried by the
  428
  former and longer route as compared with only nineteen by the latter and shorter route; and whether he was aware that if all the mails were conveyed by the shorter route there would be a reduction in mileage traversed of 59,864 miles a year?
  The HON. MEMBERalso asked the Postmaster-General (1), with reference to the conveyance of mails between London and Paris, if he would before making further contracts consider the desirability of a certain proportion of the mails at least being carried by the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway and Etat of France Railways, via Newhaven and Dieppe; if he would communicate with the French Government as to the practicability of this proposal, more especially as the railway system between Dieppe and Paris belonged now to that Government, and that there was a project of shortening the Dieppe and Paris transit by thirty-two kilometres (twenty miles) by doubling the line via Pontoise, together with the placing of faster vessels on that Channel service; would he also state the mileage between Paris and London, via Dover and Calais and Newhaven and Dieppe, respectively, and if such a project was adopted, whether economies would be effected owing to the shorter mileage of the latter route; and if he was aware that, even at present, one service via Dieppe and Newhaven occupied eight hours and forty minutes as compared with one of the mail services via Dover and Calais which occupied eight hours fifty minutes, and that the adoption of such a project would lessen the effects of the monopoly which had hitherto been used by the South-Eastern and Chatham Railway and the Chemin de Fer du Nord both as regards the conveyance of mails and passengers, to the detriment of the public interest? (2) With reference to the carrying of London and Paris mails, if he had considered the disadvantages of the present arrangement of train services whereby three out of the four day services from London left between the hours of 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., and the corresponding services from Paris, although more evenly distributed, between the hours of 8.20 a.m. and 12 noon; if he would endeavour to minimise this inconvenience to business men and the general public, against which the Chambers of Commerce had protested, by securing from the railways concerned a more equable distribution of train ser-

  429
  vices throughout the day, together with the starting of one of those services at an earlier hour from London so as to obviate London evening letters of the previous day and the English morning newspapers not reaching Paris for delivery until about 7 p.m., long after business hours; and if he was aware, with a mail service leaving London between 6 and 7 a.m., that correspondence and newspapers could be delivered in Paris before 3 p.m., thus enabling an answer to be sent the same day, and in this way effecting a great postal economy of time?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It will be convenient if I deal with the hon. Member's three questions together. The figures quoted by the hon. Member are substantially correct, and I am fully alive to the advantage of encouraging competition between the several steamer services between England and France. The Newhaven and Dieppe route is already used for the service of certain French towns, and I am in communication with the French Postal Administration as to the possibility of making a more extended use of that route. The distance between London and Paris via Dover and Calais is 287 miles, and via Newhaven and Dieppe 244 miles. I am at present in negotiation with the South-Eastern and Chatham Railway Company with regard to the general question of the mail service between London and Paris, and while it would not be expedient for me to deal specifically at the present time with the points raised by the hon. Member, I can assure him that full weight shall be given to the considerations which he has advanced.

  National Telephone Exchanges.
  Mr. JOHN WOODasked whether the night and day service at present existing throughout the National Telephone Company's exchanges would be continued when this service was taken over by the Post Office?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The answer in general is in the affirmative.

  Elections (Postmaster as Presiding Officer).
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked if there was any regulation prohibiting a postmaster from acting as presiding officer at a Parliamentary or municipal election?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, Sir.

  Telegraph Messengers (Meal Times).
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the Postmaster-General if he had inquired into the case of the telegraph messengers only being allowed twenty minutes for their meal time; if he could state to the House the result of this inquiry; and whether he was aware that under the rearrangement of the duties of the telegraph messengers at Portsmouth they were unable to get the relief allowed by Orders in Paragraph 2 of the General Post Office Circular Letter (Registered No. 508,824, 1908) of 14th February, 1910?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The inquiry is not yet completed. I will look into the arrangements at Portsmouth, but I should explain to the Noble Lord that the scheme set forth in the Circular he mentions applies only to officers employed upon indoor work.

  Sutherlandshire (Postal Addresses).
  Mr. MORTONasked the Postmaster-General whether the Post Office authorities had been frequently asked to insist on letters for Angus Mackay, Knockan, Gordonbush, Sutherland, being addressed to Brora instead of Embrace, where they were now sent, a change which would entail an additional walk of ten miles to Angus Mackay and his family; whether he was aware that this change in the addressing of letters was sought for so as to prevent Angus Mackay or his family from using a pathway which led to Kin-brace through a deer forest tenanted by a Mr. Frank Sykes, of Bonobol, Kinbrace, Sutherland; and, if so, whether he would refuse this request?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am inquiring into the matter, and I will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  Rasharkin, County Antrim (Postal Facilities).
  Mr. KERR-SMILEYasked the Postmaster-General whether he was aware that money orders could not be obtained or cashed at Rasharkin, county Antrim, and that as a result people in the district were put to inconvenience; and whether he could see his way to provide the facilities demanded?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I will have inquiry made, and consider whether anything can be done in the matter.

  Action of Irish Justice of the Peace.
  Captain COOPERasked the Attorney-General for Ireland whether he was aware that a Mr. Morrin, president of the local branch of the United Irish League and a justice of the peace, ordered certain persons to graze their cattle on the lands of Mr. John O'Hara; and whether he would bring the action of this magistrate to the notice of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland? I regret that owing to a clerical error the name of the place is not given in the question. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes I shall be glad to postpone it, and supply further details.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): No; the Attorney-General has asked me to answer the question in the following manner: From the information supplied to him, consisting merely of hearsay statements, my right hon. Friend is unable to form a conclusion as to whether or not the magistrate referred to did in fact give the direction indicated in the question. It is not his intention to bring the matter to the notice of the Lord Chancellor.
  Mr. PEEL: Is it only Conservative magistrates who are to be condemned in this House?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No. So far as I am concerned, on the facts proved I either hold my tongue or speak.

  Ordnance Survey (Pay of Ex-Royal Engineers).
  Captain COOPERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he would state by what authority the Director-General of the Ordnance Survey issued an order deducting the military pension and Reserve pay from the scale rates of pay of all ex-Royal Engineers serving in his Department?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Edward Strachey): It has for very many years past been the practice to take into account military pensions when fixing the pay of ex-Royal Engineers employed on the Ordnance Survey. The Director-General, when he issued the order mentioned, exercised the authority of long usage handed down to him by his predecessors. The Committee which it is proposed to appoint to inquire into the pay of employés on the Ordnance Survey will no doubt consider and report upon the existing arrangement.

  Sudden Death of Animals (Billingsley, South Shropshire).
  Mr. HUNTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he can give any information as to the cause of the sudden death of three horses and twenty-six bullocks at Billingsley, in South Shropshire?
  Mr. STANIERalso asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if his attention has been called to the death of three horses, ten yearlings, and two fat cattle on Mr. Millings' farm at Billingsley, near Bridgnorth; and if he can give any information as to the cause of death?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: We are in communication with the local authority on the matter. It is under investigation, but the Board are not in a position as yet to give the information for which the hon. Members ask.

  Oysters (Native and Foreign).
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the near approach of the months of May, June, July and August during which the native oysters cannot be lawfully sold in this country but during which foreign oysters are freely imported, his Department can take any steps to protect the community from foreign oysters no more seasonable than British oysters; and whether, if the Board has no adequate legislative powers, the Government will introduce legislation to relieve the British oyster trade from the present preferential position of foreign oysters in the British market?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The Government are not prepared to introduce legislation with a view to protect the home oyster industry from legitimate foreign competition, but if oysters are imported which are unfit for human food steps can, of course, be taken for the protection of consumers; and, perhaps, the hon. Member will bring any information in his possession on the subject to the notice of my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, with whom it falls to deal with questions affecting the public health.
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Will the Government give orders that prosecutions for the sale of oysters shall not be carried out so long as foreign oysters are permitted to be sold at the same time?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: That depends upon the circumstances of the case.

  Public Elementary Schools (Lancashire and Yorkshire).
  Mr. CLOUGHasked the President of the Board of Education whether he can state the capital cost and the number of the new public elementary schoolhouses completed, or in course of erection, between the appointed day and 31st March, 1910, provided by the local education authorities of Lancashire and the West Riding, respectively?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): The official information in the possession of the Board does not enable me to answer this question. If my hon. Friend desires it, I will make inquiries from the local education authorities concerned.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman extend his inquiry to Durham?

  Half-Time Exemption in Elementary Schools (Abolition).
  Mr. A. G. C. HARVEYasked the President of the Board of Education if, before introducing any Bill to abolish half-time exemption in elementary schools, in accordance with the recommendation of the Departmental Committee, he will take steps to ascertain whether the instruction given in the upper standards of the schools in which the children are to be retained is of such a character that they will be spending their time profitably in the schools, and not be merely marking time?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I shall certainly not take any steps to deal with the half-time question without considering it in all its bearings. The character of the instruction given in our public elementary schools, particularly in the upper standards, is a matter to which I am giving and shall continue to give careful attention with a view to securing such improvements and developments as are necessary and practicable. My hon. Friend is, I think, aware of the efforts which are being made by the Board to improve the opportunities for efficient instruction in respect of teaching rooms, staff, and curriculum.

  British Boys' School, Maldon.
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERYasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that, on the 3rd De-
  434
  cember last, the head teacher of the British Boys' School, Market Hill, Maldon, used for dictation exercises the following words, namely: "Freedom of trade and the vast increase in our commerce have enabled the working man…with cheap and varied food. No longer is he restricted to the products of his own country"; and again: "Mr. Asquith had first to deal with the immediate financial crisis created by the action of the Peers; he had secondly to answer the challenge so audaciously thrown down by them on the constitutional issue. In neither case did his reply fall short of the occasion. It was as conspicuously abundant in fairness and decision of purpose as in splendour and dignity of phrase"; whether the Education Department sanctions the ratepayers' money being used for instilling partisan politics into the minds of school children; and whether he will give instructions that the practice shall be discontinued?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no information on this point beyond that conveyed by the question. With regard to the general inquiry contained in the last paragraph but one of the question, I may refer the hon. Member to an answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich on 7th March.

  Oxford Street School, Swansea.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the President of the Board of Education whether he intends to compensate the managers of the Oxford Street School, Swansea, for the expense and inconvenience to which they have been put by the misconstruction of the law on the part of the Board, as shown by the recent judgment of the Court of Appeal?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot admit the assumption on which the question is based. Notice of appeal to the House of Lords is being given, and, as I understand, that a speedy decision may be expected, it seems better to postpone discussion in this House until the case has been finally decided.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman and the Attorney-General pay the Court of Appeal costs out of their own pockets; the expense was utterly unnecessary?

  Cheshire County Education Authority (Proposed School at Willaston).
  Mr. STEWARTasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has

  435
  received a petition from the ratepayers of the parish of Willaston, in the county of Chester, praying him to protect them against the proposal of the Cheshire county education authority to force a new school on the village at the cost of about £4,000; and whether, in view of the fact that the existing schools provide ample accommodation for the parish and have been recently altered by the managers to satisfy the requirements of the education authority, and that there is a practically unanimous local feeling against the necessity of this heavy outlay, he can see his way to institute an inquiry on the spot, so that the locality, which can ill afford it, may be saved from this heavy expenditure?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board have received two appeals, one signed by ratepayers of the parish and the other by the managers of the Church of England school, against the proposal to provide a new council school. They have also received a resolution passed at a meeting of ratepayers to the same effect. These protests have been referred to the local education authority for their observations. Pending the receipt of their reply I am not prepared to say whether it will be necessary to hold a local inquiry. I must not be understood to accept without qualification the statements implied in the concluding paragraph of the question.

  Police (Weekly Rest-Bay) Bill.
  Mr. ALDENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the long period which must yet elapse before all sections of the police force under his control receive one day's rest in seven, he will consider the possibility of providing some extra pay in the case of those men at least who are compelled to wait for more than six months?
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the question of giving extra pay to Metropolitan Police who are not receiving the one day rest in seven promised?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): The one day's rest in seven is a large concession, to be granted wholly at the expense of the London ratepayers and without any deduction from the pay of the men 'who are to enjoy the benefit of it.
  436
  From the first it has been stated that it would have to be introduced gradually, and that it might take four years to complete the necessary addition to the force; but the first instalment has already been given to all the men in the force, and the other instalments, as they follow, will extend in the same way to the whole force. In these circumstances, I am sure my hon. Friend will see that there is no case for any Grant of extra pay.
  Mr. BYLES: Is it at all possible to give some Imperial assistance to carry out this useful reform without imposing upon the local ratepayers the whole burden?
  Mr. REMNANT: Can the right hon. Gentleman make some statement as to any assistance that may be given to bring the Bill at present before the House to a final issue?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: With regard to the first question, it is not one that I can answer at all. It is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister, seeing it has reference to the relation between Imperial and local taxation. With respect to the question of the hon. Member opposite, I have carefully considered the matter, and if he brings his Bill on I will use any influence I can on its behalf to secure its passage through the House. But, as I say, I am not authorised to make any promise in regard to it.
  Mr. ALDEN: When will the second instalment come?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: We are labouring to carry out the matter as quickly as we can with regard to the Metropolitan police. The number of extra men to be recruited is, I think, 1,600. A very large number of men have to be recruited every year as it is, and the facilities for recruiting and training are limited, and so also is the supply of high-class men required. Therefore it is not possible to accelerate the augmentation of the force beyond a certain point, but we are getting on as quickly as possible.
  Mr. WATT: Why is Scotland excluded from the Bill brought in by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Holborn?

  Forcible Feeding (Prisons and Asylums).
  Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether ha will now favourably consider the holding of an inquiry into the practice of forcible feeding in prisons and asylums?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: If the hon. Member considers that any improvements can be effected in the methods employed in asylums and prisons for administering food to persons who refuse to take food naturally, and will give me his reasons for thinking so, I will consider whether further inquiry in the matter is desirable, but at present I do not know to what end such an inquiry would be directed. The methods now employed are, I believe, those recommended by the highest medical authorities, and I know of no reason for modifying them.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is the Home Secretary aware that quite recently, within the last fortnight, a man who had been forcibly fed subsequently died suddenly, and the cause of death was held to be largely due to the forcible feeding employed? If so, does the right hon. Gentleman not consider the case one for some inquiry?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not recognise in any of the cases that have come before me one that answers to the description given by the hon. Gentleman. If he knows of such a case and will give me the facts I will consider it.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I will send the facts on.

  Metropolitan Police Courts (Fines for Betting).
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the Home Secretary if he will state the total amount of the fines imposed in the Metropolitan police courts in connection with prosecutions for betting during each of the three years 1907–9, and also the particular fund or funds to which such fines are allocated?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It is impossible to obtain this information except by an examination of the books at each of the police courts for the past three years—a work which would involve more labour than the value of the result would justify. The fines paid go to the Metropolitan Police Fund.

  Cavalry Horses.
  Mr. HUNTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture why, in the photographic illustrations issued by the Board of the types of horses required for the Army, the photographs show horses with their tails closely docked and their manes hogged; and is at intended that these are the conditions required by the Army?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Mallet): My hon. Friend has asked me to answer this. No special significance is to be attached to the illustrations on the point referred to. All horses purchased for the Cavalry are required to be undocked. It is not absolutely essential for the horses bought for other branches of the Service to be undocked, but it is preferred. Horses are not as a rule purchased with hog manes, and the practice of hogging the mane in the Army is discouraged.
  Mr. HUNT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the photographs do give the horses as I have stated, and is the hon. Gentleman aware that a long undocked tail is necessary for the horses, and that a mane is most necessary to enable a man to mount quickly, and also to prevent him from dismounting without being ordered?
  Mr. MALLET: It is perfectly true that the illustrations in this pamphlet to which the hon. Gentleman refers are faulty and imperfect, and if we issue a fresh edition of the pamphlet I shall ask my hon. Friend to see if the illustrations can be improved.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Is the hon. Member not aware that the photographic illustrations of the horses show that they are whole hoggers?

  House Breaking and Burglary (Metro- politan Police District).
  Mr. MORTONasked how many of the arrests resulted in conviction, and how many of the 169 cases of house-breaking and burglary in the City, and of the 3,423 cases within the Metropolitan police area were, respectively, cases of burglary, house-breaking, and shop or warehouse-breaking; how many in each class were accompanied with personal violence; and how many of those arrested were found in possession of firearms or other dangerous, implements?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Of the 3,423 cases in the Metropolitan police district, 1,739 were cases of housebreaking, 520 of burglary, and 1,164 of shopbreaking. All the 169 cases in the City of London were cases of shopbreaking. The number of convictions in the Metropolitan police district cannot yet be given, as the figures are not completed, but I am informed that in the City of London twenty-six of the thirty-five arrests resulted in conviction. I regret that I cannot give

  439
  the other particulars desired by my hon. Friend, which would involve a long and troublesome search.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Are the police in the exercise of this dangerous duty entitled to get compensation if injured, as they are in Ireland?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

  Welsh Church Commission.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked whether the Welsh Church Commission have concluded their sittings; and, if so, when he expects the Report to be published?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am in communication with the Chairman of the Commisision as to the date when the Report is likely to be published.

  Detectives at Harrod's Stores.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Secretary of State if he is aware that two detectives from Scotland Yard stand at each side of the turnstiles at Harrod's Stores when the employés are leaving work; and if he intends preventing detectives from Scotland Yard being used by this firm inside the stores?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Member appears to have been misinformed. No officers belonging either to the detective or the uniform branch of the Metropolitan Police are so employed at Harrod's Stores.

  Employment of Children By-Law (Ilford).
  Mr. PARKERasked the reason for the delay in the sanctioning by the Home Department of the employment of children by-laws proposed by the urban district council of Ilford?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I can only refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to his previous question on this subject on the 10th of last month. I am still awaiting the council's reply.
  Mr. PARKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the council, by a majority, have again passed these by-laws?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I will look into it. I am still waiting a reply, but I think I ought not to wait very much longer.

  Solitary Confinement of Prisoners.
  Mr. HUGH LAWasked what are the terms of solitary confinement served under existing regulations by various classes of prisoners; and whether he proposes to make any changes in this matter?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: There has not for many years been solitary confinement in the proper sense of the term, except for very short periods as a punishment for graver prison offences. Separate confinement (that is, separation from other prisoners except during daily exercise and chapel) has formed a part of the severer sentences, the periods being:—For hard labour prisoners, one month; for convicts of good character, three months; for convicts not previously of good character, six months; and, in the case of recidivists, nine months. The whole question is now under consideration.

  Pauper Lunatics (Ireland) Capitation Grant.
  Mr. MacVEAGH (for Mr. Lardner)asked why payment has been refused to the committee of management of the Monaghan and Cavan District Asylum of the Capitation Grant in aid of the maintenance of pauper lunatics for the period from 1st January, 1899, to 31st March, 1899; if he is aware that the Corporation of Dublin brought a petition of right in reference to the payment of the Capitation Grant in aid of the maintenance of pauper lunatics in Richmond Asylum, and that the petition was decided in favour of the corporation; and whether, in the face of this decision, the Treasury propose to still withhold payment in the case of the Monaghan and Cavan Asylum?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Government have not yet decided whether they will or will not appeal against the decision referred to, and meanwhile no payment can be made.

  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Mr. LUNDONasked when the payment of the old age pension to Ellen Hayes, of Castleconnell, county Limerick, was stopped; when was her case adjudicated on by the Local Government Board; at what date payment of the pension to her was resumed; and whether the arrears of pension, if any, due to her were paid?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The pension granted to Ellen Hayes as from 15th January, 1909, was stopped by the pension

  441
  officer under a misapprehension, as to which I am enquiring, as from 22nd July, 1909. The case was adjudicated on by the Local Government Board on 1st February, 1910. Payment of pension was resumed on the 5th instant, and the arrears of pension due to her will be paid.
  Mr. SCANLANasked if pension officers in Ireland have been deprived by the Board of Customs and Inland Revenue, or by the Treasury, of the right to exercise their discretion as to appeals from decisions of local pension committees; if he will state whether instructions have been given to these officers to appeal against every decision of a local pension committee granting a pension where the applicant's claim is not supported by extracts from the Census Returns; and whether he will cause these instructions to be withdrawn?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The right of pension officers to exercise their discretion as to appeals is subject to Article 34 of the Statutory Regulations. The instructions with regard to cases of the kind mentioned in the second part of the question allow a discretion to pension officers whether an appeal should or should not be lodged, as I explained in reply to a question put to me by the hon. Member for West Kerry on the 5th instant. These instructions have not been altered, and accordingly the third question does not arise.
  Mr. SCANLAN: Is it a fact that instructions have been given by the Treasury or the Board of Customs and Inland Revenue to the pension officers in Ireland to enter appeals in every case where pensions are granted unless there is an entry to support the claim in the Census?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have already explained no instructions of that sort have been given to pension officers. Of course, every person who applies for a pension has, under the Act, to establish his or her right to that pension by some documentary evidence.
  Mr. SCANLAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the Pension Act makes it obligatory upon the applicant to satisfy the requirements as to age by producing documentary evidence? I think that is absurd.
  Mr. STEPHEN GWYNN: Are the payments of the pensions suspended from the time the pension officer makes his appeal to the Local Government Board, or are
  442
  the pensions only suspended from the time the Local Government Board gives its decision?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That particular subject is occupying my attention at the present moment.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: On what authority does the pension officer call for documentary evidence of age?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: If the hon. Member consults the Act he will find it.
  Mr. S. GWYNN: When the Local Government Board decides in favour of the applicant, does) the Treasury pay the arrears from the time the pension has been stopped?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must put that question on the Paper.
  Mr. KEELYasked if Mary M'Daid, of Letterkenny, county Donegal, has recently been deprived of her pension; if so, whether he can state from what date the pension has been stopped, and on whose authority; and in what cases is a pensioner liable to be deprived of his pension after he has satisfied the Local Government Board of his eligibility?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Local Government Board decided on appeal on 11th ultimo that Mary M'Daid attained the age of seventy on 5th August, 1909. The amount of pension drawn by her prior to that date, when she was legally ineligible for pension, is a debt due to the Crown under Section 9 (2) of the Old Age Pensions Act, and, in the absence of direct repayment, is being liquidated by suspension of the current pension.
  Mr. KELLY: Will the pension be restored when the arrears are paid up?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes.

  Chinese Pork Importations.
  Mr. HAMILTON BENNasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the quantity of Chinese pork imported into the United Kingdom in March, 1910, and the ports of arrival; and whether he can state the quantity which was refused admission and the grounds upon which this refusal was based?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Sydney Buxton): The information is being procured, and will be forwarded to the hon. Member.
  Mr. HAMILTON BENNasked the President of the Local Government Board what quantity of Chinese pork was refused admission into ports of the United Kingdom during March, 1910; upon what grounds was this admission refused; and whether he can state what became of these carcases?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns): So far as my information goes, some 16,800 carcases, which arrived during last month, did not comply with the foreign meat regulations, and were re-exported. As to the last portion of the question, perhaps I may be allowed to refer the hon. Member to my replies to similar questions on this subject.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by re-exported? Does he mean sent back to China?
  Mr. BURNS: They were refused at the port where they went. I have no further knowledge on the point.
  Mr. HAMILTON BENN: Are we to understand that some 16,000 hundredweights of Chinese pork have got into consumption in this country?
  Mr. BURNS: No. The hon. Member is confusing hundredweights and the carcases refused, which numbered 16,800. The carcases arrived in March, 1910, and were refused admission.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: What were the grounds on which they were refused?
  Mr. BURNS: They were refused not because they were unsound or unfit for food, but because they did not comply with the foreign meat regulations under the Food Regulations Act, which stipulate that carcases should be imported whole. It was because the backbones were taken out, and did not comply with that condition, that these carcases were rejected, and for that reason only.
  Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS: When the right hon. Gentleman uses the term re-exported, does he mean re-exported out of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. BURNS: They were refused at the port at which they were landed.
  Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS: But were they re-exported out of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. BURNS: I presume so.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Is the right hon. Gentleman still of opinion that all these pigs were white pigs, and that none of them were the black scavenger pigs of China?
  Mr. BURNS: Yes, I am.

  Russia and Finland (Finnish Customs Control).
  Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked whether, under the new Russian proposals relating to the government of Finland, the control of the Finnish Customs will pass into the hands of the Russian Customs authorities; whether he can state the general ratio between the existing Finnish and Russian import duties; and whether he has received any protest from associations of British traders against the proposal to transfer the control of the Finnish fiscal system from the Finnish Diet to the Russian Duma?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have received no information as to any new Russian proposals with regard to Customs administration in Finland, nor have I received any representations from British traders on the subject. Under the Russo-German Supplementary Commercial Convention of 1904, Russia is required to give two years' notice of any decision to apply the Russian Customs tariff in Finland, and as far as I am aware no such notice has been given. The scale of duties imposed by the Finnish Customs tariff is in general on a lower level than that in force in Russia, but it is not possible to express the difference between the two tariffs in the form of a simple ratio.

  Labour Exchanges and Unemployment.
  Mr. GUINNESSasked what are the average numbers per week of unemployed registering at the Labour Exchanges and of the vacancies filled?
  Mr. BUXTON: Statistics relating to the work of the Labour Exchanges are published monthly in the "Board of Trade Labour Gazette." I am causing a copy of the last issue of the "Gazette" to be sent to the hon. Member. The next number will be published on 16th May.

  Loss of the Steamship "Thistlemoor" (Coming Inquiry).
  Mr. KINGasked whether the inquiry into the loss of the steamship "Thistle-moor" will take place on 3rd May; if not, when it will take place, and where; and whether, when the inquiry is held, the

  445
  scope of the inquiry will embrace the questions if on the night of the wreck there was adequate watch kept on shore for danger signals, and if, generally, extended arrangements for coast watching are needed along the shores of the Bristol Channel?
  Mr. BUXTON: The inquiry into the loss of the steamship "Thistlemoor" has been fixed for 3rd May, and will be held at Bide-ford. The scope of the inquiry will include the arrangements made for coast watching on the shores of Barnstaple Bay on the night of the wreck. The question of the coast watching beyond this district will be dealt with by the Board of Trade in connection with the local investigations which we are now making on the subject.

  Crews' Provisions on Vessels.
  Mr. MORTONasked whether representations have been received from the Port of London Sanitary Authority with reference to the unsatisfactory condition of crews' provisions on vessels; whether he is aware that in many instances the meat and other food on board vessels intended for the use of crews has been found to be in a putrid condition; and whether, inasmuch as the matter is of importance to the health of the sailors, he will consider if any steps can be taken to provide for a more efficient and satisfactory supervision of provisions supplied to ships for the use of seamen?
  Mr. BUXTON: Representations have been made to the Board of Trade from the Port of London Sanitary Committee to the effect that the medical officer of health has on several occasions condemned provisions found on ships within the Port of London, and I understand that such provisions were in almost every case very properly destroyed. The crew of any British ship have a right of complaint and compensation under Sections 198 and 199, Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, in cases where bad or inadequate provisions are supplied to them. It is the desire of the Board of Trade, within the limits of the powers conferred on them by the Merchant Shipping Acts, to deal effectively with this matter. As at present advised, I am not convinced that the powers of the Department, taken in conjunction with those of the Port Sanitary Authority, are insufficient for the purpose, but the matter will be carefully watched. If my hon. Friend will submit any cases to me I shall be glad to consider them.

  Cheap Trains Act.
  Mr. CLYNES (for Mr. William Thorne)asked the right hon. Gentleman if he can give any information as to the delay in dealing with the petition presented to the Board in 1908, requesting the Board of Trade to use the powers conferred upon them by the Cheap Trains Act, 1883, to cause the Great Eastern Railway to run a service of workmen's trains on the Loughton and Romford branches of this railway?
  Mr. BUXTON: In pursuance of Section 3 of the Cheap Trains Act, 1883, this matter has been referred to the Railway and Canal Commission, at the request of the Great Eastern Railway Company. There have already been some preliminary proceedings before the Commission, but a final decision has not yet been given.
  Mr. CLYNESalso asked the right hon. Gentleman, having in view the need for an early amendment of the Cheap Trains Act, and the promises made by his last two predecessors that the Government would be asked to deal with this matter, if he can inform the House when he will be able to promote a Bill for this purpose?
  Mr. BUXTON: I fear that I am not at present able to say when it will be possible to introduce legislation on this matter.

  Sick Pay.
  Mr. CLYNES (for Mr. W. Thorne)asked the President of the Local Government Board if he can state whether any distinction is made between sick pay received from a trades union and that received from a friendly society when a person applies for outdoor relief?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): Section 1 (2) of the Outdoor Relief (Friendly Societies) Act, 1904, provides that, in granting outdoor relief to a member of any friendly society the board of guardians shall not take into consideration any sum received from such friendly society as sick pay except in so far as such sum shall exceed 5s. a week. The question whether a particular trades union was a friendly society within the meaning of the Act would probably depend on what was the main purpose of the association, as determined by their rules, and whether it was a benevolent or a trade purpose. I have, however, no authority to determine the question.

  Poor Law Administration (Welsh Appointments).
  Mr. REESasked how many of the new appointments lo be made in connection with the Poor Law administration will relate to Wales; and whether Welsh-speaking candidates from the Principality will receive a proper preference?
  Mr. BURNS: I am not at present making any fresh appointments, but I can assure my hon. Friend that in connection with any Welsh appointments the question of language will not be overlooked.

  Censns (Great Britain) Bill.
  Mr. M'ARTHURasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in the event of the Census (Great Britain) Bill becoming law, the full particulars specified by Clause 4, Sub-section (1), will in practice be required in the case of all inmates of institutions or establishments, including conventual institutions; and whether the chief resident officer or head of such institutions, if appointed enumerator, will in practice be required to make the declaration imposed by Clause 11?
  Mr. BURNS: Full particulars will be required in the case of all inmates of institutions or establishments, and if the head of the institution is appointed enumerator he will be required to make a declaration under Clause 11.

  Ontdoor Belief (King's Norton Union).
  Mr. BOWERMAN (for Mr. Pointer)asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that at the King's Norton Union workhouse, Selly Oak, an inmate named George Hooley, of good character, who has had twenty-two years' service in the Army, applied to the guardians for outdoor relief with a view to being in a better position for finding employment; that the guardians informed him that before his application could be considered he would have to take his discharge from the workhouse, find lodgings as a place of residence, and then report himself to the relieving officer; whether he is aware that the chairman of the board has stated that if they granted outdoor relief to a single able-bodied man they would be surcharged; and, if this statement is correct, whether he can take any action in the matter?
  Mr. BURNS: I have had some correspondence with reference to a case in the King's Norton Union, which I take to be
  448
  the one referred to, but I have not had before me all the details mentioned in the question. The regulations in force in the union provide that every able-bodied person requiring relief shall be relieved wholly in the workhouse, unless his case comes within one of the exceptions specially provided for in the regulations. Subject to the regulations in force, it rests with the guardians to decide in what manner relief, when it is needed, should be given, whether in or out of the workhouse. The Local Government Board cannot interfere with the discretion of the guardians in this respect, nor for the purpose of ordering relief in any individual case, being expressly prohibited by law from so doing.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. REMNANT (for Earl Winterton)asked the right hon. Gentleman whether this attention has been drawn to the case of James Champion, a resident of Horsham, and, up to 16th March, 1910, a recipient of an old age pension, who, owing to illness and upon medical advice, went into the infirmary of the Horsham workhouse for treatment, and in consequence was notified that his pension would cease; whether he intends to support the appeal which has been made, and which was acknowledged by his Board on 24th March, against the cessation of his pension; and whether, in view of the unusual circumstances in the case, he will advise the continuance of the pension?
  Mr. BURNS: I have received the appeal referred to, and I am in communication with the board of guardians with respect to the circumstances of the pensioner's treatment in the infirmary.

  Unemployed Grant.
  Mr. BARNESasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Grant for the unemployed made last year has been all expended: if not, can a portion of the remainder be allocated to Scotland for the purposes of the Scottish distress committees; and can he state if and when another Grant will be made?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The savings upon the Grant which have up to the present been reported to the Treasury amount to £6,528 17s. 10d., but final accounts have not yet been received from Scotland and Ireland. These savings are upon the terms of the Grant surrenderable to the Exchequer, and are not available for further allocations. As regards the last part

  449
  of the question. I am not in a position to make a definite statement at present.
  Mr. BARNES: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when a statement will be made in regard to the latter part of my question?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, Sir. I do not think it will be possible to fix the precise time.

  Greenock Magistrates (Sentences).
  Mr. CLYNES (for Mr. William Thorne)asked the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the case of two men named Andrew Morrison and Patrick Boyle, who were sentenced at the Greenock Police Court to forty days' imprisonment each for the offence of stealing forty fathoms of rope; and whether, in view of the fact that the rope was lost overboard from a Clan liner and the men trawled for it, he intends taking action to get the sentences reduced?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): I have no information about the case referred to, but inquiry is being made.

  Scottish Education (Teachers' Super- annuation).
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Lord Advocate when the Scotch Education Department will be able to issue the teachers' superannuation scheme under Section 14 of the Education Act of 1908?
  Mr. URE: The very laborious work of obtaining the complete information as to the records of past and present teachers in Scottish schools which the actuaries deem necessary for the preparation of a scheme is now almost completed, but it is not at present possible to make any statement as to when the scheme will be ready for issue.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered that the various stages through which the scheme has to pass before it comes into effect will not permit it to come into operation on 1st January, when the Department said it would, and has he considered the hardship caused to teachers by this delay?
  Mr. URE: It is impossible to expedite it.

  Justices of Peace (Scotch Pawnbrokers' Disqualification).
  Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate whether the office of justice of the peace is in Scotland withheld from all engaged
  450
  in the trade of pawnbroking; and whether, in view of the fact that members of that trade have held high positions in town councils, county councils, and school boards, he will introduce legislation enabling them to sit as justices of the peace?
  Mr. URE: So far as I am aware there is no statutory disqualification of pawnbrokers for the office of justice of the peace; it is unnecessary, therefore, to introduce legislation.

  Carter Charities, Clanfield, Oxfordshire.
  Mr. HAMERSLEYasked the hon. Member for the Stroud Division, as representing the Charity Commissioners, when will the institute erected at Clanfield, Oxfordshire, and completed in 1908, under the provisions of the Carter charities, be fully opened for the use of the inhabitants at Clanfield and those entitled to use it; what has been the reason of the delay in opening the said institute for the use of the public; why the provisions of the Carter charities have not before this been carried into effect and made operative in the villages of Clanfield, Filkins, and Kelmscott, in the county of Oxfordshire; and when the trusts of the said charities will be given effect to?
  Mr. CHARLES P. ALLEN: The Commissioners understand that the Clanfield Institute is opened and in use. Effect is already given to the Carter charities, with the exception of the trusts for the establishment of reading-rooms in Filkins and Kelmscott, and for the application of the resulting balance of the charity estate. A scheme was found to be necessary for carrying into effect the trusts for these purposes. On the publication of the draft scheme various objections were raised and an Assistant Commissioner was instructed to visit the places interested and to report on the objections. In the result considerable alterations will be made in the proposed scheme, and effect will be given to the trusts mentioned as soon as a revised scheme can be established.

  FINANCE BILL, 1909–10.

    INLAND REVENUE APPOINTMENT (WALES).
    MR. RESSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a due proportion of the appointments to be created under the Inland Revenue Department to deal with the valuation of land under the Land Taxes of the Finance Bill be allotted to Welsh-speaking candidates from

    451
    Wales, in view of the small number of appointments under Government which have been conferred on candidates from Central Wales?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: In making appointments of the character in question, the Board of Inland Revenue will take into account all relevant circumstances, including the one to which my hon. Friend refers.

    DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION.
    Mr. REESasked the right hon. Gentleman whether Wales will be specially represented by a Member on the Development Commission; and whether any sum will be allocated to Wales out of the £200,000 set aside as a Grant to be paid last year to the fund or from a similar allotment for the current year?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: My right hon. Friend hopes to be in a position to announce the names of the Commissioners to night. As regards the second part of the question, it is not proposed that there should be any allocation of the Development Fund in fixed proportions to the several parts of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Shall we be able to get the names before the Debate to-night?
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Will there be any request from any country or any particular section to be represented?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I distinctly repudiated last night that any interest is to be represented. This body, to be useful, must be a totally judicial body.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the last part of the question?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That question was discussed upstairs in Committee, and the Committee almost unanimously were of opinion that it would be unfair to go into any question of allocation between the different parts of the Kingdom, and I think that is certainly a question which ought to be left to the Commission.

    INCOME TAX.
    Mr. GUINNESSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a person whose income is under £400 a year is allowed to pay Income Tax for 1909–10 at the lower rate only if he has put in his claim before 30th September, 1909; whether a person with an income between £2,000 and £3,000 a year can pay the tax at the lower rate
    452
    on the unearned portion of his income if he makes application after the Budget has become law; and whether he will do anything to redress this inequality of treatment?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the third part there is an important distinction between the two cases which the hon. Member appears to have overlooked. The fact that the Finance Bill for a particular year may not have passed into law by 30th September does not affect the provisions of the Finance Act, 1907. On the other hand, delay in the passing of a Bill, which introduces a further measure of relief, necessarily affects, for the first year, the conditions under which that relief can be claimed.

  Local Taxation (Customs and Excise Residue) Fund.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the exact source from which he proposes to make good to the local education authorities the deficiency of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise Residue) Fund hitherto applied for the purposes of higher education; what is the amount expected to be derived from such source; when this amount will be available; and what provision he proposes to make, pending its availability, to enable local education authorities to tide over their present financial difficulties, and maintain their secondary schools and other higher education institutions, classes, and schemes?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have nothing to add at present to the statement made in the Debate on Friday last.
  Mr. WILLIAM PEEL: Arising out of that answer, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that, in consequence of the shortage of this Fund, several local education authorities are reconsidering their educational schemes for secondary education?
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: May T ask whether it is a fact that the old Sinking Fund automatically absorbs any balance?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think that is quite relevant to the question, because the half of the Land Tax I propose to allocate to this purpose is that half which does not interfere at all with that Fund. I may say, in answer to the hon. Member for Taunton, that I shall be sur-

  453
  prised to hear that any local authorities are prepared to cut down their expenses when there is every anticipation that the whole of their losses, within a few thousands, will be refunded.
  Mr. G. A. FRANCE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when he expects to be able to make this statement with regard to this additional payment to the local authorities?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think it will not be possible to do it until after the Recess—until I sec how the taxes are coming in.

  National Galleries (Scotland and Ireland).
  Mr. WATTasked what are the respective sums given for the upkeep annually of Scottish and Irish National Galleries?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Estimates for the National Galleries of Scotland and Ireland are included in Class IV. of the Civil Service Estimates, 1910–11, Votes 9 and 12, on which full particulars are given.

  Vote on Account (Agriculture and Technical Instruction).
  Mr. WATTasked, in view of the fact that in the Vote on Account passed on Thursday last £50,000 was taken for the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in Ireland, what corresponding sum has been granted to Scotland for the above purpose?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: There is no Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in Scotland, the analogous services, in so far as they are paid for out of moneys provided by Parliament, being distributed between several different Votes. As the provision made in the Vote on Account under these Votes is in each case in respect of the Vote generally it would not be possible, without a considerable amount of investigation, to say what proportion of the sums provided on account of these Votes will be available for the services in question.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Might I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can say how much of this £50,000 given to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in Ireland is taken by Scotchmen?

  Income Tax (Scotland).
  Mr. GEORGE YOUNGERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in Scotland large amounts
  454
  of interest and feu duties are collected at 15th May, being the Whit-Sunday term, and that from those payments Income Tax is deducted at a rate calculated according to the rate of tax for the past and current financial years; whether, as the Budget is not to be introduced till after that date, he can state what rate should be deducted from those payments; and whether, if the rate is increased for the current financial year, the payer of interest will be entitled or bound to recover the amount short deducted when making payment?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the rate of deduction would normally be that applicable to the financial year 1909–10. The answer to the last part is in the affirmative.

  Old Age Pensions (Pauper Disqualification).
  Mr. HICKS BEACHasked whether fresh legislation will be necessary to legalise the payment of old age pensions to paupers over seventy years of age on 1st January, 1911; or whether persons who have received Poor Law relief before or during 1910, but are otherwise qualified for pensions, will automatically receive them on 1st January, 1911?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Fresh legislation will not be necessary to legalise as from 1st January, 1911, the payment of old age pensions to persons who fulfill the other statutory conditions, but who have been in receipt of Poor Law relief since 1st January, 1908.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: May I ask whether it is a fact that the right hon. Gentleman has undertaken to remove the disqualification before 1st January, 1911?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think it will be necessary. The only reason why legislation is necessary is rather for the protection of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS:Did not the right hon. Gentleman inform me the other day that the first step in the alteration of the Old Age Pensions Act would be the removal of the pauper disqualificaition?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The dealing with that question will undoubtedly be the first step, and the making of financial provision for it is far and away the most important part of the operation.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say that the first step would be the removal of the pauper disqualification?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am making provision for it, and that is the most important part. The first thing is to make financial provision for the payment of the old age pensions.
  Mr. JOYCE: Does not the pauper disqualification cease automatically at the end of this year?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is so.

  Indian Army (Officers' Pensions).
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether officers who entered the Indian Army from the Royal Marines are allowed to count as service for pension more than two years of their Royal Marine service, as is the case in regard to officers transferred from British regiments to the Indian Army?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The answer to the Noble Lord's question is in the negative, but the Secretary of State is now in correspondence with the Admiralty regarding a proposal to permit such officers to count as service for pension more than two years of their Royal Marine service.

  Training Colleges (Ireland).
  Mr. THOMAS O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, seeing that the Irish training colleges, as disclosed by the result of the last examinations in Irish, have wholly failed to discharge their duty to the educational interests of Ireland, he will cause an inquiry to be made by an independent educational expert into the professors who teach, the time given each day by students to the study of Irish, and the various other matters relating to this matter in the various training colleges in Ireland?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The training colleges referred to in my reply to the question asked by the hon. Member on the 20th instant, were not established for the purpose of training teachers to teach the Irish language. The Commissioners of National Education giant aid to special colleges for that purpose. In the training colleges Irish is an extra and optional subject, and, as the
  456
  standard of qualification is high, it is not to be expected that a large proportion of Students should at the end of two years qualify in Irish in addition to the ordinary programme of the colleges, however good a foundation they may have laid for future acquaintance with the language.
  Mr. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Do these training colleges consider it part of their duty to Irish education to teach properly the language of the country?
  Mr. BIRRELL: They discharge the duties which are properly entrusted to them.

BILLS PRESENTED.
The following Bills were presented and read the first time:—
BILLS PRESENTED.
  EDUCATION (PHYSICAL TRAINING) BILL.
  "To provide for Physical Training in elementary and other schools," presented by Mr. FRENDERICK WHYTE; supported by Mr. Samuel Butcher, Mr. Roden Buxton, Mr. Edmund Harvey, Mr. George Roberts, and Mr. Whitehouse. (To be read a second time upon Thursday, 2nd June.)
  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (WHITE SLAVE TRAFFIC) BILL.
  "To amend The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, and The Vagrancy Act, 1898," presented by Mr. BURGOYNE; supported by Mr. Hamersley, Mr. White-house, and Mr. Bowerman. (To be read a second time upon Thursday, 26th May.)
  DOGS (EXEMPTION) BILL.
  "To exempt dogs from painful experiments," presented by Mr. O' GRADY; supported by Colonel Sandys, Sir Francis Channing, Mr. Field, Mr. Weir, Mr. MacNeill, and Mr. Ellis Griffiths. (To be read a second time upon Tuesday, 31st May.)
  CORONERS' LAW AND DEATH CERTIFICATION (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Coroners' Law and the Certification and Registration of Deaths and Burials," presented by Sir WILLIAM COLLINS; supported by Colonel Lockwood, Sir Philip Magnus, Sir Luke White, Dr. Hillier, Dr. Chapple, and Mr. O'Grady. (To be read a second time upon Monday, 6th June.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I will ask the Prime Minister two questions: The first is when the Veto Bill will be circulated to Members, and the second is what will be the business for the week after the meeting of Parliament?
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): With regard to the first question, the Parliament Bill will be circulated this week.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Before the Recess?
The PRIME MINISTER: Either on Friday or Saturday, I am not sure which. As announced yesterday, we intend, when the House reassembles on Thursday, 26th May, to get the Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates, and to take the Local Government Board Vote on the Friday.
On the Monday and Tuesday in the following week (30th and 31st May) it is our present intention to proceed with other Government measures already on the Order Paper.
On Wednesday and Thursday (1st and 2nd June), we shall take Supply, probably the Post Office Estimates. I will make a more detailed announcement when the House reassembles.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is it the object to postpone the circulation of the Veto Bill until Members have left London?
The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly not.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Then why could we not have it earlier?
The PRIME MINISTER: It will be circulated as soon as it is ready.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he proposes that the Supreme Court of Judicature Bill shall be one of the Government Bills to be dealt with in the second week after the Spring Recess?
The PRIME MINISTER: I would rather not make a definite statement.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Budget Statement for 1910–11 will be made?
The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.
Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: Will there be one?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  SUSPENSION OF ELEVEN O'CLOCK RULE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Proceedings on the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act (1909) Amendment Bill 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.]
  The House divided: Ayes, 267; Noes, 174.

  Division No. 66.]

  AYES.

  [3.50 p.m.

  Abraham, William

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

  Dillon, John

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Byles, William Pollard

  Doris, William

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cameron, Robert

  Duffy, William J.

  Alden, Percy

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs. Heywood)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Allen, Charles Peter

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Edwards, Enoch

  Armitage, Robert

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Elverston, Harold

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Clough, William

  Falconer, James

  Barnes, George N.

  Clynes, John R.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Barry, Edward (Cork, S.)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Barton, William

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

  Ferguson, Ronald C. Munro

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

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Field, William

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Black, Arthur W.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Boland, John Pius

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Gibbins, F. W.

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Gibson, James Puckering

  Bowles, Thomas Gibson

  Crossley, Sir William J.

  Glover, Thomas

  Brace, William

  Cullinan, John

  Greenwood, Granville George

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Grenfell, Cecil Alfred

  Brigg, Sir John

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

  Griffith, Ellis Jones (Anglesey)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Guest, Capt. Hon. Frederick E.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Gulland, John William

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Delany, William

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Hackett, John

  Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Hancock, John George

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

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Middlebrook, William

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Molloy, Michael

  Schwann, Sir Charles E.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

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

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

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Seddon, James A.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Mooney, John J.

  Shackleton, David James

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Sheehy, David

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Muldoon, John

  Snowden, Philip

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

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Soames Arthur Wellesley

  Higham, John Sharp

  Muspratt, Max

  Soares, Ernest Joseph

  Hindle, Frederick George

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Stanley Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Hodge, John

  Nolan, Joseph

  Summers, James Woolley

  Hogan, Michael

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Sutton, John E.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Nuttall, Harry

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Donnell, Thomas (Kerry, W.)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Dowd, John

  Thomas, David Alfred (Cardiff)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Ogden, Fred

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Grady, James

  Toulmin, George

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Twist, Henry

  Johnson, William

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Ure, Rt Hon. Alexander

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Shee, James John

  Verney, Frederick William

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Sullivan, Eugene

  Vivian, Henry

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Pearce, William

  Walters, John Tudor

  Joyce, Michael

  Pearson, Weetman H. M.

  Walton, Joseph

  Keating, Matthew

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Kelly, Edward

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Wardle, George J.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Waring, Walter

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Lambert, George

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Waterlow, David Sydney

  Leach, Charles

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Lehmann, Rudolf C.

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

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Pringle, William M. R.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Radford, George Heynes

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Lincoln, Ignatius Timothy T.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

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

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Raphael, Herbert Henry

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Lunden, Thomas

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Reddy, Michael

  Wiles, Thomas

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Williams, Aneurin (Plymouth)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Rees, John David

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Rendall, Athelstan

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

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Richards, Thomas

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

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

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

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Mallet, Charles Edward

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Wing, Thomas

  Manfield, Harry

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Martin, Joseph

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Meagher, Michael

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  of Elibank and Mr. Fuller.

  Rowntree, Arnold

  NOES.

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

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Brackenbury, Henry Langton

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Brassey, Capt. R. (Oxen, Banbury)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Attenborough, Walter Annis

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Bagot, Captain J.

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Crean, Eugene

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Calley, Col. Thomas C P.

  Croft, Henry Page

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

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

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

  Balcarres, Lord

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cator, John

  Du Cros, A. (Tower Hamlets, Bow)

  Barnston, Harry

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Duncannon, Viscount

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Fell, Arthur

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Coates, Major Edward F.

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Collings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Bird, Alfred

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

  Foster, John K. (Coventry)

  460

  461

  Gardner, Ernest

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Lawson, Hon. Harry

  Proby, Col. Douglas James

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Gilhooly, James

  Llewelyn, Venables

  Rankin, Sir James

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Goldman, Charles Sydney

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt

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

  Ridley, Samuel Forde

  Coulding, Edward Alfred

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Guiney, Patrick

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

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

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Wor. Droitwich)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. T. M. (Bootle)

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Macmaster, Donald

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Stanier, Beville

  Harris, F. L. (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Mason, James F.

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Heath, Col. Arthur Howard

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirral)

  Henderson, H. G. H. (Berkshire)

  Mitchell, William Foot

  Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkc'dbr'tsh.)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Strauss, Arthur

  Hill, sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Morrison, Captain James A.

  Sykes, Alan John

  Hills, John Walter (Durham)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Thompson, Robert

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Newman, John R. P.

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Nield, Herbert

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Hunt, Rowland

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

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

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

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

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Paget, Almeric Hugh.

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

  Kirkwood, John H. M.

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Peel, Hon. William R. W. (Taunton)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount Valentia and Mr. H. W. Forster.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do meet To-morrow, at Twelve of the clock."—[The Prime Minister.]

FINANCE BILL, 1909–10.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Chancellor of the Exchequer.]
Mr. BONAR LAWmoved, as an Amendment, to leave out the word "now" and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
4.0 P.M.
We have now reached the final stage in this long discussion, and the Government are generous enough only to give us four hours out of the time set apart for legislative work to-day. That time, however, would be sufficient if we concentrated ourselves—if the whole House concentrated itself on one detail and considered, for instance, the way in which the present Government have fulfilled their pledge to exempt agricultural land from the scope of this Bill. They took care in framing
462
the Closure Resolution to say that in Committee we should have an opportunity of dealing with this point. The Debate yesterday, however, was not without its value, for even under this guillotine Resolution the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave one explanation which is important. He said that he had always intended not to tax agricultural land but that he had never refrained from intending to tax, and he did intend to tax, agricultural value. That is a very interesting distinction for agricultural Members in all parts of the House. Personally, from the point of view of the duty which I am now attempting to perform, I am not sorry that the Government has given us so little time. The subject is stale to me. I have nothing new to say upon it, and I have no hope of saying anything old, even in a new way. I am not sorry, therefore, as far as I am concerned, that it is necessary for me to be brief. Apart from that, the Budget really has no interest for the present House of Commons. There has been plenty of interest connected with the Budget, but it has not been in the House of Commons. Here the Government have been simply marking time; their real activities have I been elsewhere. Their energies have been

463
concentrated upon those underground burrowings—on the mines and countermines— by which for two months they have been endeavouring to obtain a majority for the people's Budget by securing the vote of hon. Members who have told us in this Parliament that, on its merits, they are opposed to the Budget.
They have succeeded, and from the day of that memorable Thursday, which will be the one enduring monument of the present First Lord of the Treasury—from the memorable evening when the right hon. Gentleman told us, clearly and precisely, the real terms of the bargain by which he had created a majority for the Budget, there has been no interest in the Budget discussions in this House. In spite of this, I must say something to justify the Motion which I am driven to move, and to this extent I am sure the whole House will agree with me—and I do not expect hon. Gentlemen opposite to agree with much that I am going to say—this Budget has excited a greater amount of interest, it has aroused a larger amount of hostility than has ever been encountered by any previous Finance Bill What is the explanation? Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have a very simple explanation to give to the House, to put it in the concrete form in which it was given by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Churchill) during the election. He has one great advantage, he is always able to describe most minutely the motives of his opponents, and he does that by a process, simple but not always accurate, of measuring them by the same standard which he applies to himself. He told this particular audience that the Lords had rejected the Budget to save their own pockets and to transfer taxation from the banking accounts of the rich to the weekly wages of the poor. The right hon. Gentleman is not singular in that, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with that pleasant humour which characterises his platform speeches, put the same thing in a different way. He said, Lord Rosebery sincerely objects to the Budget because he sincerely objects to pay. That is a very simple explanation, but there is one objection, and that is that it does not explain. The hostility to this Budget is not confined to the House of Lords. It is felt, with I believe equal unanimity, by the whole trading community of this country.
I will give one illustration, and I think one proof. A meeting of the Glasgow
464
Chamber of Commerce was summoned to discuss the Budget. It is perfectly true that there is a majority of Unionists in the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce, but it is perfectly true, also, that on every other subject there is a strong minority. The question of Tariff Reform has been raised several times, and there has always been a majority for it, but there has also always been a strong minority against it, and the minority has been on strictly party lines. On this occasion party lines were absolutely obliterated. There was an attendance of 400 people—a very large attendance—and a motion hostile to the Budget was carried against a minority of two only, and those two were avowed Socialists. That explanation does not account for that opposition. These Glasgow business men are not interested in land—not one in ten of them are interested in land or in the trade in it. They felt precisely the same hostility to the Budget which we feel, and they felt it for the same reason. They opposed it, and we oppose it, not because, as hon. Gentlemen opposite say, the Budget imposes too great a burden on the rich and too small a burden on the poor. Not at all; we oppose it because it is our belief that it imposes burdens upon the rich and poor alike in the worst possible way, because for the first time in our history the Government has gone out of its way deliberately in arranging its Finance Bill, not to put the burden of taxation on men in accordance with their ability to bear it, not to put it upon them in accordance with their wealth, but with the particular intention of selecting particular forms of wealth which are obnoxious to them to put upon them crushing burdens which were bound to destroy the trade on which they were inflicted. That is the reason, that is the explanation, of the hostility to the Budget. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer took my right hon. Friend beside me (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) to task, for smiling when he spoke of the Finance Bill as a great financial instrument. It is no wonder he smiled—financial instrument is good, but what has it to do with this Budget?
This Budget, it is perfectly true, does raise money, but so far as the controversial parts of it are concerned, that is an accident—it is incidental—it is not the purpose of the Budget. This Budget is not in the ordinary sense a Finance Bill at all. It is a Penal Code—it is a means by which the Government are trying to

465
get even with their enemies, as they call them, throughout the country. As I have said, I am going to be brief. I am not going to deal with many of these taxes. I shall take one of them only in proof of my statement that this Budget is penal and intended to be penal, and that is the method in which they deal with what they call "the trade." [An HON. MEMBER: "What trade?"] I think hon. Members opposite know what I mean, at all events, they always use that expression in regard to it. Look at the first duty—the Spirit Duty—is that a financial instrument? What happened? The right hon. Gentleman selected a trade which was admittedly a falling one, and he imposed upon it in the shape of new duties burdens so crushing that in spite of his putting on taxation one-third heavier than it was before, he derived actually less revenue at the higher rate of taxation than he did before from the lower rate. If that is a financial instrument, it is one which has broken in his hands. Instead of getting more money, he has got less, but he has got something else. He has seriously injured, and in some cases almost ruined that trade whether he likes it or not. The distilling trade in Ireland and Scotland is one of the most important trades in those countries. He has injured them in many cases to the verge of ruin, and he has done more than that. The indirect injury which he has done to other trades dependent upon that industry is greater than the injury inflicted upon the distilling trade itself. He has inflicted a great hardship on all kinds of industries in Ireland and Scotland. Why? To gain money? He has lost money. What has he gained? Revenge upon a trade which he thought was responsible for his reverses.
But as the right hon. Gentleman beside me pointed out, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has always two strings to his bow. He admits that as a question of finance these extra duties have been an actual failure, but he says, "Look at the great temperance reform which they have brought about." I wonder whether there is any hon. Member on that side of the House who seriously believes that the temperance of the working classes can be promoted by raising the price of alcohol? What a simple process that would be if it were true. If hon. Members wish to see the truth of it, let them take the reverse way. There is another way in
466
which they can do it as well. They can procure precisely the same result by creating bad trade and by producing less employment. By the man getting lower wages in the one case, the result is achieved, and by the man having to pay more money for the commodity in the other it is also brought about, because the man has less money to spend on the commodity in either case. If that is temperance, and if that is the way the working classes are to be made temperate in this country, I am bound to say the present Government are the greatest temperance reformers the world has ever seen. They promote temperance in both ways—they have promoted it by raising the price of the commodity, and they have also promoted it still more by giving the working classes less money to spend upon it. Look at the Licence Duty, which is now, for the first time, going to come into effect. Does the right hon. Gentleman still pretend that it is a financial instrument? Does the right hon. Gentleman still pretend that this duty is put on mainly for the sake of raising revenue? If he does he gives the lie to scores of statements made by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen sitting on those Benches. I have the extracts here from their speeches, but I will not repeat them, though everybody knows that man after man on those benches has stated over and over again in the country that what the Government are doing and intend to do is to carry by means of the Finance Bill that the House of Lords would not touch, as they thought, the same provisions with regard to the reduction of licences, which they failed to carry by their Licensing Bill. That is the object of this particular Clause of the Finance Bill. Is that an object which any Government has a right to have in raising money? I should like in this connection to remind the House of what happened during one of the Committee stages of this Bill last year. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) objected to these taxes as they affected Ireland—he wanted some relief. The words he then used express so exactly my own feeling on this matter that I shall read them to the House:—
"I daresay, if you look forward to twenty years hence, Ireland will be all the better if the number of these small houses be small. But what this Bill proposes is by a wholesale and violent process to destroy thousands of these houses, and, if it is permitted to do that, it will undoubtedly inflict the greatest possible suffering, misery, and injustice upon thousands of people in Ireland."

467
The arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman had their effect. The Prime Minister was immediately convinced—he always is—iby the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He at once made a concession. It was pointed out afterwards, I think by the hon. Member (Mr. T. M. Healy), that the concession was not of much value, but it was good enough to be of some value. But this is the point I wish to put, even to hon. Members on the other side: If it is not right to inflict the greatest possible suffering, misery, and injustice upon thousands of people in Ireland, why is it right to inflict the same misery and injustice upon a far larger number of thousands of people in England? What is the answer? The Chancellor of the Exchequer the other night told us that the Leader of the Opposition had created a freehold. He admits that it is a freehold, but he is taking away that freehold, although in many cases the men who possess it have, since 1904, paid large sums of money by way of compensation in order to secure that the freeholds should continue for their benefit. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to take it away. On what grounds? They are carrying out, as they have themselves told us, the principles of the Licensing Bill. But they are going a great deal further. The Home Secretary was right when he said the trade will find that they are falling from the frying-pan into the fire. They have. The Government are taking away this freehold, not on the principles of the Licensing Bill, which did attempt to give some kind of compensation; they are taking it without any compensation, even in the shape of time. It is not a question of what these Gentlemen say in their speeches. The right hon. Gentleman's own estimate of the result of the yield shows that he contemplates an immense reduction of those licences. The estimate would be ludicrous on any other supposition. He is deliberately turning out of employment, turning into the street, thousands of men who have committed no crime, and who have carried on a legitimate trade in a legitimate and legal way. I am not going to give many illustrations of the hardships of these proposals; I shall take one only. It was the illustration given by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain). I take it, not because I think it is the most striking, because I think some of those given by the hon. Member (Mr. Cave) showed the hardships still more clearly. I take it because
468
of the replies which have been given to it from that side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Thomas Whittaker) was the first to deal with it. He said my right hon. Friend truly gave the amount of the profits which were divided, and the facts were that the new Licensing Clauses would take 50 per cent, more than the total profits divided among the ordinary shareholders. The right hon. Gentleman said, "It is quite true, but he does not take into account the amount for depreciation and bad debts." The right horn Gentleman is a business man. I still think I am a kind of a business man, and it is new to me to learn that bad debts are profits, and I hope he does not conduct his own institution on those principles. But that is not the reason why I refer to the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman. He went further, and said, "This trade has to make this big depreciation, because it is a falling trade, because there is a diminishing consumption from natural causes." And it is that trade, under those conditions, which the Government select for this crushing burden of taxation.
But the Postmaster-General gave another reply, which is more important, not because it is a better argument, but because it comes from the Government. He said, "I deny altogether that this new taxation must necessarily come out of profits; it can come out of other things." And one of the other ways in which it could be raised is by raising the price of the commodity to the consumer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that was his intention. It would have been quite easy to carry out that intention. If they had put precisely the same burden on all the channels of distribution, that result would have followed and to some extent the burden would have been transferred to the consumer, but they have not done that. They put a burden on these licensed houses which is out of all proportion to the burden which they put upon clubs. The hon. Member (Mr. Sherwell) pointed out last Session, and gave figures for it, that the result of the Bill as it stands will be that the clubs, owing to the smaller burden that they have to bear, and owing to the increased trade which will flow to them out of the licensed houses, will be able to sell at the old price without any diminution of profit. What happens? The Government deliberately drive the trade out of the licensed houses, over which they have control, into clubs, over which they have no control. What is the value of that as

469
a financial estimate? The licensed houses are going to be taxed, and they are deliberately driving the trade into a channel from which they will not get taxes. That is not the worst part of it. What is the nature of the channel? It is being driven into such clubs as we have heard a great deal about, those Radical clubs in London and in many of our big towns where music-hall entertainments are given every Sunday. The Chairman of the Labour party, in a question the other day, seemed to imagine that we were attacking those clubs on Sabbatarian grounds. We are not. Though if we are to have music-halls on Sunday, I think it is better to have them open and inspected, than to have them without inspection. The Government pretend that their object is to cause a smaller sale of intoxicating liquor, and how do they do it? How are these entertainments on Sunday, or any other day, paid for? Where do the salaries of the performers come from? They are paid for in every case by the increased sale of drink which is due to these performances, and here is a Government which professes to be making these changes for the sake of temperance, and which is deliberately driving the trade out of the channel which always has been and can be controlled into a channel which never has been controlled and never properly can be. Hon. Gentlemen opposite call that temperance. I do not. I call it hypocrisy.
There is only one other subject in connection with the Budget upon which I should like to say a few words. We have maintained from the first that the Government, by their legislation, and still more by the speeches in which they defend their legislation, have injured the national credit and have damaged the whole trade of the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer the other night said what he has often said before, "You are pretty patriots to be running down the trade of your own country." But if there is one man in this country who above all others should be careful, so far as he can, in everything he does, and in everything he says, not to injure the sense of security of this country, it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. How has he fulfilled that duty? He has gone all over the country holding up to big masses of his countrymen the men whom he had selected for special taxation as if they belonged to the criminal classes. [Hon. Members: "No."] If anyone doubts it let him read the Lime-house speech. Indeed, the right hon. Gen-
470
tleman went so far that, if I am not mistaken, I saw a reference made by the hon. Member (Mr. Snowden), who is not generally weighed by a great sense of responsibility, in which he pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman had gone rather far considering the position which he occupied. So he had. It is not only these speeches, it is more than that. Both he and the Home Secretary have deliberately told the country that the principle of the Budget is that men are to be taxed, not in proportion to their wealth, but on consideration as to whether or not they deserve that wealth.
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): No.
Mr. BONAR LAW: I will give the exact words. "In future the question that we are going to put is not, how much have you got, but how did you get it?" Does not that mean "whether or not you deserve it"? If it does not, what does it mean?
Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not object in the least to a quotation, but I do object to a misleading paraphrase.
Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman has not shown in what way the paraphrase was misleading. What does that mean? It means that in future, if these doctrines are to prevail, the title to property in this country is not to depend upon the law courts, but upon the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is backed by a majority in the House of Commons. While the right hon. Gentleman and the Members of his Government, who above everyone else ought to be the guardians of the sense of security in this country, are making that kind of speech, what right has he to charge us with un-patriotism or anything else when we point out to our countrymen what the effect inevitably is, and increasingly will be, if power is left in the hands of men who use it in the manner in which this Government have done? I said they had damaged national credit and damaged trade. It is possible to prove both statements, and I am going to do it. As regards national security, the Postmaster-General the other day put to us this question. He said, Do you think it reasonable when our national security has been falling for years to draw a hard and fast line at 1905, and say that up to that point it is due to natural causes, but that since then it is due to the wickedness of the Government. We do not say

471
anything so foolish. So long as our national security fell in the same way as the national security of other countries fell it was due to causes which were common to them all, and for which the Government are not responsible. But when the time comes when we find that our securities continue to fall while those of other countries have begun to rise, then we say with justice, that the fall is due to the men who now control the Government of the country. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has read an interesting letter in "The Times" to-day by the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury). If he has it ought to teach him a lesson. During the time since he has been Chancellor of the Exchequer Consols have fallen 6½ points, from the day he became Chancellor of the Exchequer to the day before yesterday—6½ points, or between 7 and 8 per cent. During the same time the national securities of all other great countries have not fallen. They have risen. How do they account for that? [An HON. MEMBER: "British security is better."] I think the right hon. Gentleman can account for it a little better than his follower behind him. The right hon. Gentleman asked, How can you complain of the fall in Consols when we are borrowing money? Well, why are we borrowing money? The hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) has one great advantage over his allies on the Treasury Bench. He is not afraid to say what he thinks. He has given the reason quite plainly. He said in public that financial confusion was in the interest of the cause he was serving. I do not suppose the Government will agree with him. They do not agree with him, but they obey him. They borrowed the money because the hon. Member for Waterford made them borrow, and for no other reason. Apart from that, does the right hon. Gentleman, having been four years in. Government Departments, really believe that borrowing on a small scale would affect the price of securities if there were no other grounds?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEindicated assent.
Mr. BONAR LAW: He certainly does believe it. Well, I shall prove out of his own mouth how little reason there is for the belief. He referred the other night, as he is fond of doing, to the financial position of Germany. I hope when the
472
right hon. Gentleman has more time at his disposal, six or nine months hence let us hope, he will have an opportunity of examining the financial position of Germany and finding out what is the rate of taxation per head of the population as compared with what it is in this country, of finding out what the debt is in proportion to the debt behind us, and of finding out a great many particulars which are open to anyone who takes the trouble to find out, but which the right hon. Gentleman has never looked into, or he would not have made that statement. Apart from that, take what the right hon. Gentleman did say. He said the German Government have a deficit, that they are borrowing to pay their way, and that we are paying our way. What is the inference? A country that is paying its way ought to find its securities rising, and a country that is not paying its way and which is borrowing ought to find its securities falling. Well, what happened? Ours fell and Germany's rose.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I would not interrupt the hon. Gentleman if it were a matter of argument, but since he has quoted me I think he ought to quote the-whole of my statement. I said that the fall was attributable to the fact that the Sinking Fund has been suspended, and that the market for Consols was in suspense. Everyone knows perfectly well that the price of Consols depends very largely on the fact that the Government go into the market and buy. If they cease to buy, of course the market falls.
Mr. BONAR LAW: That is an extraordinary statement to be made by any business man. We have a debt of £600,000,000 or £700,000,000. The amount of the Sinking Fund which has been suspended is £6,000,000, and the fact that we have not bought £6,000,000 of Consols is given by the right hon. Gentleman as the reason for the fall. If he believes that, I do not think any business man believes it. I do not expect hon. Gentlemen opposite to agree with me, but I think I have proved that the Government have injured our national credit. But it would not be complete if we stopped there. I say they have also injured, and I am afraid injured permanently, the general trade of this country. I am not going to make that statement without giving some reason for it. During the election campaign the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary made the curious statement that between the

473
day the Budget was issued and the day of its rejection by the House of Lords there had been an actual rise in the case of 397 representative securities. That seemed to me such an extraordinary statement, coming even from the Home Secretary, that I examined it, and I will tell the House how I examined it and the result. I caused an examination to be made of the commercial columns of "The Times" the day before the Budget was made and the day before the Finance Bill was rejected by the House of Lords. I found that in the case of British securities—that is to say, every security regarding trade of any kind carried on within the United Kingdom during that period— there had been a fall in the case of 90 per cent, of these securities, while in the case of the other 10 per cent, some had remained steady, and in one or two cases there had been a rise. But the amazing feature in connection with the figures was that the fall had taken place precisely at the time when similar securities were rising in every other industrial country in the world. More than that, it is proved by the figures of the right hon. Gentleman himself. He took as representative securities securities quoted on our stock markets, and what was the result? All those outside the United Kingdom were rising, and those inside the United Kingdom were falling. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us the other night that trade is flourishing—that every trade is booming except whisky [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] Somebody says, "Hear, hear." Ask the Labour Members' below the Gangway if that is true.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I said it is improving.
Mr. BONAR LAW: I beg pardon, the right hon. Gentleman said it was booming. If he says he did not mean to say so I will say nothing more about it.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is difficult to remember the exact words. My recollection is that I said trade was still improving, and that only. I did use the word "boom," but I said we were on the road to one of the greatest trade booms we have ever experienced.
Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman says quite truly that it is difficult to remember what one says. He said every trade was booming, but since he no longer maintains that it is no use arguing it. He did give one extraordinary proof of the
474
prosperity of this country. "Look," he said, "at the Stock Exchange, they are having the time' of their lives. Look at the gamble in rubber, and the millions of money that are pouring into them." I think his description is perfectly accurate, but does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that when he said that he was proving our case? How much out of all these millions will result in giving a penny in wages or an hour in employment to any working man in the United Kingdom? He proves our case up to the hilt. We all say there is plenty of money waiting for investment, but what we do say is that the public will pour it into any kind of investment which promises high profit or security on the one condition that it is an investment which is not within the reach of the long arm of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman the other night closed his speech by saying that we were on the eve of one of the greatest booms this country had ever seen. If the right hon. Gentleman had been as long in business as I have been, he would know that that is one of the most dangerous prophecies any man could make. It is perfectly true, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that there are signs of improvement in trade. It is perfectly true that there is a revival in trade all over the world, that even the present Government are not able to keep us for ever in a state of depression, and that they are not able to prevent us from getting some small share. He talks about our imports and exports growing every month. Does he imagine that ours is the only country of which that is true? [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Then why does he boast of that as if it had anything to do with him or his Government? If he chooses to examine it, he will find that taking Germany after the boom of 1907 they did not sink into the same state of depression in 1908 as we did. It is a matter of figures. Their exports and imports did not fall as ours fell, and yet the improvement in Germany since has been much larger than in the United Kingdom. I do agree so far with the right hon. Gentleman. I admit that there are signs of improvement, and I believe further, that from the moment it becomes clear to the people of this country that the gentlemen who sit on the Treasury Bench are no longer going to have the controlling power there will be a revival in trade which will be felt in every trade and industry in the United Kingdom.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: The hon. Mem-for Dulwich (Mr. Bonar Law) has suggested that trade will only revive when the present Government leaves office. He paid an indirect compliment to the Government which would replace the present Government when he said so, but I think it is an undeserved compliment. His argument was that this Government is pursuing a system of extravagant and unsound finance. What are we to expect from those who formed the Government that preceded the Liberal Government of 1906? I can conceive no finance so unsound, no expenditure so monstrously extravagant as that of the Conservative Government. First let me note that the whole contention of the hon. Gentleman dealt not with the numberless classes who are said to be ruined and extinguished by this Budget, but was confined to that class which deals in beer and spirits. [An HON. MEMBER: "And land."] No, I think he said nothing about land. I think he has lost all feeling for the landowners. They must look after themselves. It is only the dealers in spirits who excite his compassion. I thought he was rather beside the question when he quoted the dictum of the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce, or of Glasgow merchants to the number of 400, who had pronounced against the Budget. Surely that was not done solely on account of the Spirit Duties. Does the hon. Member suggest that the thoughts of Glasgow run upon nothing but whisky? Surely they had other reasons for objecting to the Budget. I should have expected the hon. Member, when speaking as the champion of these 400 merchants, to have something to say in regard to other things than the Licence Duties. I confess I do not understand his argument about that. He said this wicked man the Chancellor of the Exchequer, this black spirit from the nether regions, who is bringing ruin on everybody, is actuated by revenge against the trade. Then he says his revenge has not succeeded because he has not got any money out of the trade, so I presume the revenge has still to come. At present evidently it has failed. The right hon. Gentleman himself proves that it has failed.
Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: It has ruined the trade.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Already?
Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: Yes.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: By taxes that they have not paid?
Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: The hon. Gentleman forgets that they have paid the Spirit Duties.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: The hon. Gentleman who preceded me (Mr. Bonar Law) reproached the right hon. Gentleman with inventing a tax in order to ruin the trade, and then said that he had got nothing out of the tax, which consequently, as I suggested, did not ruin them.
Mr. BONAR LAW: I deliberately stated that the right hon. Gentleman had got no money, but at the same time it has brought the distilling trade to the verge of ruin.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Really it must be a most peculiar trade that is brought to the verge of ruin by something that it has not paid.
Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: By stopping the consumption.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Really it is a small point. If the hon. Gentleman likes I will admit that a trade is brought to the verge of ruin by not paying taxes. Then he says that if the taxes were paid, or at any time that they are paid, they will not reach the consumer because, says he, it will not be the publican henceforth who will sell the drink, it will be the clubs. Again, I would remark that, as a business man, he knows perfectly well that in the future, as in the past, and for all time, the great bulk of drink sold in this country will not be sold by clubs.
Mr. BONAR LAW: My point was that the liquor will inevitably be a great deal cheaper in the clubs than in the licensed houses, and therefore it will inevitably tend to be sold through the cheapest channels.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: No doubt to some extent that result will ensue, but the hon. Gentleman cannot seriously suppose that all the licensed houses in the country, or even a majority, or any very considerable number of them, are going to be replaced by clubs. Upon reflection, he will come to the conclusion that the licensed houses will still be the main suppliers of liquor and not the clubs. Even the Carlton and the National Liberal Club itself will not be able to wrest from his present position the seller of liquor, the man who keeps the licensed house.
With regard to the Budget generally I am not prepared to say that the Budget is without spots. It is like the sun. It

477
han defects. I can point to several, none of which, I may remark, have been mentioned by any hon. Gentlemen who have yet spoken. But I like it because it is a Free Trade Budget. This Budget raises taxes, increases taxes, and imposes some taxes by new methods. Some of the methods I think doubtful, possibly risky; and I am not at all sure that we shall get all that is expected from them. But the money has got to be raised, and when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite denounce the Budget, let them remember that the Budget must be modelled on the expenditure that has been agreed to by the country. What is the record of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite? They did nothing to decrease expenditure when they were in power. They raised the expenditure of the country by £57,000,000 in ten years. They added in those ten years £129,000,000 to the debt of the country, and during those ten years the Consols, of which they talk so much, fell 14 per cent. With this record of a fall in Consols, I wonder they do not hesitate before speaking of that security now. Expenditure has been further increased now. We have had old age pensions, an entirely new item of expenditure, and we have right hon. Gentlemen opposite desirous of adding to that expenditure, and crying out that they want "Dreadnoughts"—that they want eight, and will not wait, though now when the money has to be paid they will not pay it.
You cannot deal with the merits of a Budget without considering the propriety or the want of propriety of the expenditure, which, after all, lies at the bottom of it. It may be that the Budget's methods are not the best means that can be adopted. That is possible, but, at any rate, there is some excuse for a poor Budget which has to deal with so large an expenditure as is now agreed on by the House, and, large as the expenditure is and vast as are the sums required to be raised, the amount scarcely exceeds that which was imposed under the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the Opposition. Coming a little more closely to the Budget, I confess I think that the financial situation will become very shortly very serious. His Majesty's Government have got to collect £30,000,000 of arrears due. They reckon upon collecting those in the text month or six weeks. That is a very large sum to expect to get from the taxpayer in so short a time as that, and, as regards some of last year's duties which are to be collected this year, I am afraid
478
it will not be possible to get anything from them at all. Take the Land Value Duties. They are to be levied on occasions which will only arise after the passing of this Act, and, therefore, not one farthing of duty can be expected from Increment or Reversion Duty, at any rate, in the collection that is about to be made. I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here, because I would wish him to realise the enormous amount of the differences that are made by the new system of taxation.
Do hon. Members realise that the Income Tax as it will stand under this Budget imposes taxation at the lowest point of 7–100ths of a penny per pound, and at the highest point at a rate of 20d. in the pound? In other words, one man will have to pay at 288 times the rate of another man. It is the same way with the Death Duties. The lowest rate is ½ per cent., and the highest is 15 per cent. In other words, one man will have to pay at sixty times the rate of another. I am not arguing against all graduation; but at the same time I do say that when you impose a graduation so severe as to make one man pay at 288 times the rate payable by another man on the same taxable article, or make one man pay sixty times the rate imposed on another man for the same taxable article, you are going to very serious extremes, and in the result your tax may be seriously disappointing. I cannot forget, if the House will allow me to remind it of them, the experience of past times in other countries. Unsound finance, unsound methods of dealing with finance, have been the ruin of Empire in all times past. It was unsound finance that ruined the Roman Empire. It was unsound finance that immediately led to the French Revolution; and it was unsound finance that lost us our North American Colonies; and whenever you are engaged in a system of finance that is unsound, and the unsoundness of it is greatly emphasised, the most dreadful results may ensue.
In France what largely tended to the Revolution was the fact that there was a privileged class at the top. That caused a sense of injustice. I am not sure that you will remove that sense of injustice if your privileged class, instead of being at the top, is at the bottom. The sense of injustice must still remain. Here it is that I would address a word of warning to His Majesty's Government. Under the old régime, as it is called, the French had

479
an Income Tax. They had no Death Duties to pay. They had a system of Income Tax graduated the wrong way up, but graduated—in the form of taille, capitation, and dixicme. Those three systems were introduced on account of the need for more revenue arising from the war in which the Duke of Marlborough played such a prominent part. The result of these taxes, which were all on declarations, was so distressing and the difficulty of getting a declaration of income was so great and the amount of spying and inquisition was so immense that the whole thing very soon became insufferable, and not very long after the tax was first instituted the great towns of France came to Louis XIV. and said, "This graduated Income Tax levied on declarations"—for it was that—"is so onerous and causes so much distress that we beg you to allow us to compound for it." Each of the great towns compounded and paid the whole tax for all its individuals, and it was in consideration of this that Louis XIV. granted what is called the octroi, that is the right of levying duty on articles of food at the gates of the town.
Here is where I see the danger, that by too great a duty and by too great a graduation you may produce too great a sense of injustice, and the result of one or two Budgets of this kind may be to call for a return to that system of octroi, which represents a tax on food, to a demand even for Tariff Reform as an escape from evil. That is a danger against which I would respectfully warn His Majesty's Government. But as to this Finance Bill, even with all the danger that I consider it does contain, I infinitely prefer it to any Budget that could possibly be framed on the opposite side. For no Budget could be framed on the opposite side that did not involve taxation of the food of the people; and let me tell hon. Gentlemen opposite that so long as they stand to that, so long as they make their first constructive policy taxation of the food of the people, so long will they remain out of power, in the country, for so long will they fail to receive the support of Lancashire and Yorkshire, without which they can never return to power. I am very sorry the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) is not here, because to him especially I would make some appeal. He has informed the world at large that the first result of his advent
480
to power—and that would be the effect of any defeat of this Budget—would be in the opinion of very good judges a war between this country and Germany, in which this country would succumb, through the prohibition by Germany of Tariff Reform. That is not a prospect to which I can look forward with equanimity. I am sorry he is not here to hear this reminder of what he said.
Mr. PEEL: Quote.
5.0 P.M.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: I will quote it. I thought somebody might ask me, perhaps. Speaking at Hanley on 4th January last, the right hon. Gentleman said this:—
"Consult, the statesmen and diplomatists of the lesser Powers, and I am perfectly confident yon will find among them an absolute unanimity of opinion that a struggle sooner or later between this country and Germany is inevitable."
Then he proceeds:—
"They are all unanimous that there will sooner or later be a struggle, and they have come to the conclusion that, in that struggle we are predestined to succumb."
He then quotes Germans:—
"I have known of Germans not connected with the Government, men of position and character, men engaged in affairs, who if you talk to them about, the adoption of Tariff Reform by this country, actually say, 'Do yon suppose we should ever allow Great Britain to adopt Tariff Reform?'"
In justice to the right hon. Gentleman I ought to say that, in quoting the opinion of the statesmen that we should have a struggle in which we should succumb, he said, "I do not believe it." But he did not go to Hanley merely to tell the people what he did not believe. He must have had some purpose in making that statement. Whatever the purpose was, he, at any rate, cited the statement of diplomatists and distinguished German men of business, that, in their opinion at least—and he thought it worth while to cite it, I will not even say it was cited for the purpose of winning an election—Tariff Reform, which was to be his first constructive operation, would be forbidden by Germany, war would then ensue, and we should succumb. Therefore, I would far rather have this Budget, with all the faults which have been pointed out, and those which have not been pointed out, by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and many others which might be added to them, than I would have Tariff Reform, which would lead to a war with Germany in which we should succumb. With the short time allotted to the discussion of the Third Reading, I did

481
think that most of the time would be taken up by the two Front Benches. I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bonar Law) has taken rather less than his share. I do not know whether this Front Bench will take more than its share, but usually I observe, whenever there is a short time allowed, the two Front Benches share the most of it between them, and leave very little time for the rest of the House. I again repeat, for I wish to draw to a conclusion as quickly as I can, that I recognise there are financial dangers in this Budget. I think it is quite possible, and, in some respects, I think probable, that it will not produce all the revenue that is expected from it. Certain I am that for last year it will not produce all the revenue expected from it. I recognise myself that a serious financial situation may arise in consequence, I must say, of the rejection of this Budget in another place. I recognise all that. But with all its faults and with all its defects, I would rather have the severest Budget levied upon the principles of Free Trade than the mildest Budget ever brought forward that taxed the food of the people.
Sir JOHN ROLLESTON: I am not one of those who object to this Budget as a whole, but in my view there are points in it which are sufficiently objectionable to render the whole objectionable. It affects large classes, and more particularly those who own urban land. They are a large class of men who do not appear, I am sorry to say, to have many friends in this House. With regard to the Agricultural Clauses, I suppose, after the assurances of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we ought to be grateful; but I interpret those Clauses as the Leader of the Opposition did the other day, and as they were interpreted by the Local Taxation Committee of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, and it has led that body to condemn this Bill. I am aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken considerable pains to mollify the opposition of agricultural Members and the agricultural classes. He has made concessions for which we ought to be grateful. But those bringing gifts are open to suspicion, and we should not be human if we did not suspect that there may be some ulterior purpose in spending a huge sum of money on making a valuation of the whole land of this country while revenue is to be derived from only a small portion of it. That, anyhow, is not business. We always understood that the land taxers meant business. In any case,
482
some prominent supporters of the Budget have gone about the country saying that once they get the land valued and registered under a system, then they will in future get all the money they want from the land, and that this system will be capable of indefinite expansion, and so on. That clearly is the business meant. Not, perhaps, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—After his assurances I could not say so—but by those with whom he is associated, and by those who may succeed him. I can only hope, therefore, that everyone in this House interested in agricultural land, or in agriculture, will not be lulled into acquiescence in these proposals, and will not respond to the invitation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to walk into his parlour in order to provide a banquet for him and his successors. In my opinion these Clauses dealing with agricultural land should earn the dislike of all those interested in agriculture, and of every labourer on the land in the United Kingdom. There is a superstition abroad that land and wealth are synonymous terms, and that there exists an unsatisfied land hunger in this country. I have never been able to observe that. In this country, and it is peculiar to it, land has experienced a fall in value estimated at one thousand millions sterling in the1 last thirty years; the small owner, the yeoman class, have been completely wiped out owing to the great fall in agricultural produce that has taken place, and the land has been thrown up in all directions by discouraged and impoverished occupiers. There has been no holding up. Land has been thrown upon the market by impoverished owners, but it is avoided by the public as an undesirable and unprofitable form of investment. It is with reference particularly to the classes holding urban and semi-urban land that I object to these proposals. It would be, I suppose, forty or fifty years ago, when the great growth of the large towns and of the population set in, and land appreciated in value. A great industry resulted, and large areas of land changed hands at that time. Only a few owners developed and sold land retail themselves, and the rule has been for landowners to dispose of it to others who have undertaken the risk, and it is these people, like the late Mr. Cubitt, who have mainly built up the land purchased or leased from the original owners. It is these people who, at their own risk, have built up the

483
large towns of this country, and who, under competition, have provided, for the increasing population, houses of a better character year by year. It is due to these people that the inhabitants are as well and comfortably housed as they are at the present time.
I contend that it is idle to say that overcrowding or insufficient house accommodation exists in towns where thousands of houses are empty. The large towns in this country have been built up, and their rateable value and wealth created, not by the municipalities or the communities, who have taken no risks and ought not to take any, but by the enterprise of private people. If profits have resulted from that enterprise they have been legitimate profits, useful to the community in the making. This form of enterprise has employed a, vast amount of labour, and it has also been a large consumer of material, largely produced by British labour. It has attracted capital largely to the land. It has been a large user of the capital of builders, bankers, mortgagees and other investors, who at one time found in this way excellent security at their own doors and in their own country. I submit that the communities and municipalities are deeply indebted to the building pioneers. Yet this is the class, crippled already by these proposals, who are to be further injured by their consummation. They had been already hard hit before these proposals were made, by the great fall in value, the stagnation in building, the slump in the building trade, and the price of land, with exceptions. It is fair to say that, owing to these causes, no banker or mortgagee will lend money on building land or finance builders, even if their houses could be let if built. A great home industry has gone, and those who conducted it are very largely idle. There is no one now to buy blocks of building land and spend money upon them. The landholder who has sold his land at high prices has been fortunate. He has realised, and his capital is now probably developing towns and enterprises in some other country. If anyone ought to pay the taxes it is the man who has realised large profits; but he has 'gone away, he is out of sight, he is over the skyline already, and it is the unfortunate purchaser who remains to be shot at. The purchaser who formerly could buy land, develop and sell
484
it, now finds it unsaleable on his hands, and he at last knows the lesson which it has taken a generation to learn, that the moment he buys land which costs more than an investment price—that is, more than will return an adequate yearly income—it begins to eat its head off, and every year which he is unwillingly forced to hold it brings him nearer to the bankruptcy court, into which many of his class, through neglect of the elementary principles of business, have already fallen. I am speaking always subject to exceptions. In the desert there are usually oases, but the description of an oasis is not a description of the desert, and because there may be a few cases where building is going on at the present time, that does not describe the general position of the trade of the country. I agree that there are exceptions, but as a rule it is fair to say that there is no market for prospective building land today, and a lender would scorn it as a security. The market has completely gone, and those who have bought land are left with it on their hands, and they are fortunate if their resources are otherwise sufficient to enable them to face the loss or to pay the interest, if the money has been lost. This class of persons exceeds in number any other class of owners of urban and semi-urban land. Many of them have bought land and developed it for sale without success during the whole period of forty years which I have mentioned, and the limitations in point of time, to the concessions in regard to the development rendered them practically useless. There is some manipulation of the figures which may be very injurious to the class I have mentioned.
I believe that the end of April last year is taken as the time when the increment value is to be taken. That was a very low point in the value of urban land, but the cost to the builder under this Bill is not to be considered. I know a great many cases where land would not have been in April last year worth one quarter what it cost. There is only one way of reckoning the cost of land from which no annual return is being derived, or a very small return, and that is to reckon the accrued interest. That is the way in which insurance companies value claims in order to arrive at whether they can derive a profit or loss from the claims of their companies. Let me take the case of two men investing each a thousand pounds thirty years ago. One does

485
so in bonds of the Russian Empire, which I believe have paid a regular 4 per cent. during that time. If he has not spent his interest, but reinvested it in tine same security he would have to-day liquid assets of over £3,200. If the other man took a thousand pounds of urban land and spent, say, £500 in developing it, that would appear in his books to-day, reckoning 4 per cent, interest, as £4,800. The value of that land in April of last year might only be a thousand pounds, the original cost of the land. [An HON. MEMBER: "Land idle all the time."] Yes, even with population increasing and with streets laid upon it, but although, as far as human sagacity can forecast, there can never by any possibility be any profit on that land. If the owner is ever fortunate enough to get £1,200 for what has cost him £4,800, he will have to pay £40 of Increment Duty, while a halfpenny in the pound on the land as well has to be paid. Even if the man had made £500 on this venture it would have been legitimate profit, which ought not to be taxed. But to add to a serious loss by a tax constitutes a case of gross injustice, and one which I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite will be bitterly objected to when people come to realise it in the country. If under this Bill such cases do arise, I can only say that is sufficient to condemn the clauses which create them.
It is held by hon. Gentlemen opposite that it would be a good thing for the community to force land into the market, and that it is being held up against builders and purchasers. That is not my experience. As far as I know, owners of urban land of late years have been tumbling over each other to reach the market. Urban land was once a favourite form of investment and land development was a favourite and profitable form of enterprise, but the great fall of value in the building trade has caused bankers and mortgagees to call in their loans, which has caused owners to lower their prices and hurry their sales, and if they could not repay, their creditors began to force the land as far as they could into the market. That has been going on all over the country in late years. I am not aware that that process is taken advantage of by the municipalities. Is it not a fact that the municipalities many of them are cadging for new industries, competing with each other for capitalists who will come and start new works, fill their houses and provide employment and food for the people? It is
486
the man who spends his capital provides work and employment, who really improves the value of the land, and the builder who succeeds or precedes him who spends his money and creates the wealth of the community. I do not know that because 100,000 people live in 20,000 houses, beyond that they are customers for local trades, that they are primarily the cause of prosperity and value, but that it is rather the person, or group of persons, who venture their capital and use their brains and energy in the shape of maintaining works and providing employment who do so. I believe it is contended that local rates are spent for the benefit of land. The portion of rates spent in improvements is a very small proportion, land does not benefit by police, by education, by-poor rate; it has to make its own streets and sewers, and if it wants gas and water has to pay for the pipes. Rates spent on lunatic asylums, cemeteries, sewerage farms, and small-pox hospitals do not improve, but tend to depreciate, the value of adjoining land. Municipalities have no thought of benefiting land, and sufferers in the enterprise of land development have to bear their losses without help from the municipality. I contend that to put these burdens of taxes on urban land is against and not in favour of the interests of the municipalities or the community.
I have been told that one of the large towns in the North has 8,000 empty house* at present, and an hon. Member who used to represent it says there are now 10,000 houses wanting tenants. How can you force land into the market in towns like that. What builder could be induced to spend his capital in building houses, even if you gave him the land for nothing. I think there is a good deal of misconception abroad as to the interests of the community with regard to holding up land. One other class of owner who is dealt with under this Bill is the owner of land that is called prospective building land; land on farms, perhaps, near towns or populous cities, and it is supposed it may be required for building and become valuable because something may happen which has not yet happened. I can only say that that prospective value is absolutely speculative value, and there is no one in this country skilled enough, and there is no class of men in this country skilled enough or with foresight enough, to estimate with sufficient accuracy to justify the imposition of annual taxation on the capital value of land, because something may happen which has

487
not yet happened, and of which there is no certainty it will happen. A valuer to do this would have to decide whether the trade of this country is to advance, stand still, or recede. He would have to make up his mnid as to whether the country is to be ruined or prospered by Free Trade or Tariff Reform, and he will find a large body of opinion in either direction. He would have to divine whether new works, railways, or waterways, or the abandonment of existing ones, may attract or divert traffic and population from one place to another. He will have to forecast where the enterprising community is going to plant its sewage farms, its lunatic asylums, and its small-pox hospitals before he can conclude whether a neighbourhood is likely in future to be desirable or derelict. He must not be confused-by the knowledge that in the past, where building has progressed, that that progress has been uncertain and precarious, leaving one side of a town and taking the other, following Certain routes and leaving others, not progressing in regular zones from the centre. I believe that the astronomer can foretell with accuracy the appearance or reappearance of a comet or planet long years beforehand, but I am told that he works on reliable data. I know of no data which would enable a valuer to forecast events before they happen. I can only say that if capital value is to be assessed and subjected to annual taxation on the grounds that something is to happen which has not yet happened, that if the forecasts made by the assessors are not realised, that a very grievous wrong will be inflicted on a very large number of landowners in this country.
I heard an hon. Gentleman opposite say yesterday that none of us understood what value was. I am afraid that I have not myself been enlightened by listening to the discussions on this Bill. I know a case where a gentleman went to a broker, who was an expert, to ask the value of shares of the British South Africa Company. The broker said he heard there were great possibilities of prospective value, and that they were then £8. The man bought them and went away to a remote part of the earth. He came back after a series of years and went to the broker about the shares. The broker said, "You have heard what has happened," and he replied, "Yes, I have heard that the oligarchy has
488
been overthrown, that South Africa has now got a Constitution, and I suppose it is now in for a career of progress and prosperity—and the shares, what are they now worth?" The broker said they were worth 10s. What the man said is not reported. He went back to that broker in about six months and was told they were worth 40s. The man said, "You must be a fool, and you professed to be an expert valuer, since you gave £8, 10s., and 40s. as the value of the same stock without any reason." There are great difficulties in valuing, and there are lots of cases now where men will tell you they used to be able to get £1 per yard for ground and now they cannot get a half-crown. Those are the sort of difficulties which will present themselves to valuers.
I do not make these criticisms in the spirit of a political partisan, although I am one. I believe if the Leader of the Opposition were making these same proposals that I should offer the same criticisms, because experience has shown me they are justified. I am well aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken very great pains and a large amount of trouble on a very complex and difficult subject. I know that criticism is useless, because he is going to be successful. With the help of the dukes he is going to get his Budget. I hope, therefore, he will not be impatient of criticism, and I can assure him when the proposals become law he will hurt very badly a class of men whom I will not believe it was his intention primarily to injure. If a man makes profits and is industrious he is useful to the community; but if he is a fool and fails to do so, he is useless to the community, because they have to keep him in the workhouse. To tax earned increment must surely be objectionable, and to add to serious loss by taxation, and thus to stimulate pauperism, must be far worse. I am afraid that the immediate prospect before the owners of urban land is a very gloomy one. But there is a brighter prospect before us. The results of the last election were so much in contrast with those of 1906, that we may hope for still further progress in that direction. If the Leader of the Opposition should be returned with a substantial majority we might then look for the modification, amendment, or perhaps the repeal of those Clauses which are found to be objectionable. But even if he is not, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer finds himself

489
again in control of the national finances, speaking on behalf of a class of men with whose needs I am intimately acquainted, and who have not many friends in this House, I hope that even he, should he find under these far-reaching proposals cases of hardship and injustice, will not set his face against their removal from a class who do not indeed deserve the condemnation, but, on the contrary, in their present difficulties, the sympathy of the community.
Mr. HEMMERDE: The hon. Member opposite (Sir J. Rolleston) is in a melancholy position. He seems to rely on a hope of escaping from his embarrassments by the return to power of the present Leader of the Opposition. May I remind him that not long ago the right hon. Gentleman said that, although he was absolutely opposed to the taxation of land values, he thought there was a good deal to be said for rating them? As the Leader of the Opposition has never suggested that there is anything in the rating of rural land values, he must have had a special eye to the very class of property which the hon. Member has just been defending. Before dealing with the question of rural land values, I should like to answer one or two criticisms made by the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bonar Law). The hon. Member told us a piteous story of what this Budget was going to do for certain members of the licensed trade. He also accused the Government of having injured the whisky trade in Scotland by the Spirit Duties. He did not tell us that the whisky trade in Scotland was by no means flourishing during the five or six years previous to the imposition of those duties. The Government certainly cannot be blamed for the present condition of that trade any more than they can for a great many other more or less accidental features of commerce. As regards the condition of the licence-holder, under the legislation now proposed by the Government, I think the licensed trade will have learned a pretty rude lesson for what they chose deliberately to do a few years ago. We have heard a good deal lately about bargains. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have not been sparing of the epithets by which they have described what they are pleased to call a bargain between the Irish party and the Liberal party. As the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) once said, they are no bad judges of bargains. When I think of the bargain by which for some thirty years the Tory
490
party have been able to command the undivided or almost undivided support of the liquor trade, by swallowing whole every proposal put forward by that trade for its own advantage, I think they are very considerable judges of bargains, and even, as someone said the other day, of corrupt bargains. The liquor trade chose, two years ago, when a very moderate provision was brought in—a provision so moderate that not one of our Colonies would have stood its moderation—to ally themselves with the Conservative party, who, for political motives, used the same language, or worse, about the then Licensing Bill, which did provide compensation, as they now use about these taxes, which do not. They were warned then clearly, by the Prime Minister, that if they would not accept those moderate provisions, or, at any rate, those provisions so modified that they might accept them, they would have to face something in the way of high licences. Now they have got to face them. They made their choice. There are bound to be hard cases. Hon. Members opposite seem to imagine that because the House of Lords threw out the Licensing Bill we are, therefore, debarred from carrying out by means of finance many of its provisions. They were warned that we should do so. Any popular party would stultify itself if it refused to use this weapon merely because its opponents, who are in a perpetual majority in another place, chose to throw out its considered measures. In all the hard cases which are now quoted to wring our tears the people whom the licensed trade have to blame are those who, for political purposes, exploited them two years ago. The party who now sit opposite are the people to be blamed for any of the hard cases which arise through the necessity to which we are driven in this Budget.
The hon. Member for Dulwich seemed to ridicule the idea that the fact that the Government had not been buying had something to do with the fall of Consols. A year ago, almost every day, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was pestered with questions as to whether he had not been causing a rise in Consols by excessive buying in the market. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. Either the Government by buying are able, or are not able, to affect the price of Consols. Another point taken by the party opposite is that the Limehouse speech and speeches of a similar nature have had the effect of depreciating the credit of this country-

491
Greater nonsense was never talked by a political party in the most desperate straits. I do not know in which character the hon. Member for Dulwich is more amusing—as a defender of agriculture or as a judge of manners on the political platform. I have read carefully the speeches made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Home Secretary, and the Lord Advocate, the men who have made most of the great speeches upon our side during this controversy, and I say that all three of them in every speech took care to say that, although they were attacking the system, they were not attacking individuals. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) represents the system, and objects to attacks upon the system. It is utterly impossible to attack the system without taking concrete cases that appeal to the individuals whom you are addressing. Again and again when speaking on the subject I have given cases without names, and I have been asked to give names. If you give names you are called vulgar; if you do not give names you are not believed. That really has been the history of the whole of this controversy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, by having the courage to give names, has called upon himself all the abuse of the party opposite, who would at once have denounced him in unmeasured terms as an inventor of fiction if he had not given them. It is not what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that has been any blow to the credit of this country. It has been the constant attempts to depreciate everything British for the last three or four years to serve the party exigencies of the Opposition. For four or five years there has been an organised Press and platform campaign to depreciate all British industries. At the end of it we find that most of the industries are not much the worse. But if there is any hesitation in putting money into home industries it is much more likely to arise from the fact that nobody knows what to-morrow or the day after may bring forth in fiscal experiment than from any speech made by this or that Minister. I can assure hon. Members opposite that if they read the political speeches of leaders twenty years ago they will be surprised at the moderation with which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has expressed himself. We used not to be afraid in this country of a little hard hitting, and I think the people of the country have always estimated it at its true value. If we did
492
a little less decrying of our own country we should find that the condition of trade would revive a good deal more quickly.
The hon. Member for Dulwich began his speech by discussing agriculture quite briefly. I am always entertained and amused by the pose which hon. Members opposite affect of being the special guardians of agriculture. All the legislation for the benefit of agriculture, almost without exception, has come from this side of the House. Hon. Members opposite are always ready to voice the complaints of agriculturists, but they are not prepared to remedy them. It is very much easier to voice complaints than to remedy them, as they doubtless find.
Sir J. ROLLESTON: What does the hon. Member say about the Agricultural Rates Act?
Mr. HEMMERDE: I am going to deal with that very question. As a Member of the land group in this House, the Members of which are popularly supposed to have had some influence in inducing the Government to take up this great experiment in taxation, I am very glad to have the opportunity of saying a few words upon this question on the eve of the departure of the Budget to another place, where it is likely to meet with a more friendly reception than before, although we are always told that it is passed only by a minority of this House. We are told that, but nobody believes it, otherwise the Lords would promptly throw the Budget out again. It is merely another piece of electioneering or journalistic clap-trap. I wish to say something about the extraordinary misconceptions as to the principles of this land group. The hon. and learned Member for North Louth, during these Debates, has told us that many English Members, who are what he calls single-taxers, think that agricultural land should bear the burden of the rest of the land, and a Noble Viscount opposite has informed us that he imagines that, with the exception of a few single-taxers below the Gangway on this side, the view generally taken in this House is that agriculture is far too heavily burdened. Both these Gentlemen, and many of their colleagues, are labouring under an entire misconception as to the objects and principles of this land group, which numbers probably over 100 Members in the present House of Commons. Far from believing that agriculture could bear new burdens, our whole case is, and

493
always has been, that it is already overburdened. Where we differ from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite is not in our view as to the heavy burdens upon agriculture; but whereas they engage in perpetual moanings as to those burdens without making a single suggestion as to how they can be diminished, we have definite proposals as to their alleviation, and we intend to give an enthusiastic support to the Government proposals, because we see in them the completion of the first step by which alone our proposals can approach fulfilment. If the Opposition are right in their estimate of the views and principles of the Land Group in this House, when the Government proposed to leave out the agriculturists from the purview of the Budget taxes, you would have expected indignant remonstrances from those benches. As a matter of fact we had nothing of the sort. What we have always felt was the great value of the Government proposals was that by them we were to get a complete valuation. If the Government had for a moment wavered—as some of the Government Press wavered, and as some Members upon these benches wavered—in their desire for a complete valuation, the Government would soon have been able to estimate exactly the strength of the Land group. They never wavered on them, and therefore we have all through given them a cordial and enthusiastic support. The proposals of the Government, as a matter of fact, have always struck us as being open to grave tactical objections, in that the burden which they impose is a cumulative burden, rather than a substitutive burden. My Friends and I were, and are, in favour of the taxation of land values which would cover all land, agricultural and urban, but—and this is the point which is never really understood, or is ignored, by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and if it is understood is always ignored by some hon. Members on this side of the House, such as the hon. Gentleman for the Spen Valley Division of Yorkshire, whose denunciation of the principles which we hold is often, perhaps fortunately for himself, more outspoken in this House than in his own constituency—although we wish the tax to cover all land, agricultural as well as urban, we would not make the effect of the tax cumulative, but in substitution for the rates, which now fall with most unfair incidence upon agricultural enterprise. We realise that the burdens upon agricultural land are too heavy—because the burdens upon unoccupied build-
494
ing land and undeveloped land and underdeveloped land are too light.
Year after year the chambers of agriculture in this country protest against the unfair way in which agricultural land is burdened by taxes—by the education rate, the Poor Law relief rate, and the main roads rate. Day after day, week after week, year after year, hon. Gentlemen opposite identify themselves in general terms with these complaints. When in office they adopt the clumsy expedient of the Agricultural Rates Act, to which we object, not because we begrudge the relief to agriculture, but because the relief often goes into the wrong hands. Under present conditions the burden of the rates is easily shifted, and the benefit intended for the ratepayer is easily and often absorbed by the landlords. How can agriculture be relieved of these unfair burdens? Someone must pay rates and taxes, and someone in our own country; because at present we are a long way off the Utopia in which every foreigner pays the taxes of his neighbours, who, in turn in some mysterious way, lives tax free, while they pay his. Can these burdens be relieved by Tariff Reform, because Tariff Reformers are very quick to appreciate these burdens, especially when they are addressing chambers of agriculture? Considering that no Tariff Reformer has ever yet suggested how under a system of tariffs we can meet the present Imperial obligations, it is quite obvious that Tariff Reform could not possibly meet the transference of these very heavy local burdens to the Imperial Exchequer. If Tariff Reform cannot meet the transference, agriculture must go on paying these burdens, or must find some other way to meet them. The only hope I can see for a successful and adequate readjustment of local burdens lies in the Valuation Clauses of the Budget. I would like to point out, especially to some of my friends on the Irish benches, that valuation has two aspects. It is necessary for the relief of present burdens, as well as for the imposition of new ones. As a means of securing a perfect system of valuation there is much to be said for the Budget taxes, and a great deal has been said for them. Although we think, as I have stated, that the Government plan is unnecessarily clumsy and tactically a source of no little difficulty, it is impossible to exaggerate the importance of what we get by this present Budget. Tactically, I think, the Government plan is open to this grave objection: No one is obviously relieved by the plan. The fact that taxes

495
are additional instead of substitutive deprives us of that large measure of the support which a substitutive scheme certainly would bring us. For in a substitutive scheme there would be thousands of people who would be obviously and manifestly relieved by a reduction in their rates, and would therefore give us their enthusiastic support. Under the Government scheme this gain, though in a measure real—because they do get some relief of rates—is, as a matter of fact, a good deal smaller.
Apart from this, hardly one of the objections which have been made, and then pressed, against the Government scheme, would be valid against the substitutive proposals which we would much rather have had, and which we think, tactically or in principle, preferable. Fortunately the Government scheme does not shut the door to future developments, and in securing valuation, which we regard as the keystone of the whole situation, and of the commercial and industrial developments of this country, they leave the door open to not only the relief of agriculture, and the offering of such relief as hon. Members opposite have never even suggested, but also to a very much wider relief of the industries in this country. When the Government has obtained universal valuation there is nothing to prevent them putting these three great rates, at least, the education rate, the main reads rate, and the poor relief rate upon the Imperial taxes, and paying them for them by a tax upon the unimproved value of land. Such a tax would automatically or at once relieve agriculture— because it is probably an exaggeration to say that the average unimproved value of agricultural land is £7 an acre—I have been told so by many valuers. We shall soon know. The valuation will tell us. We know that land has been sold in the City of London for more than £3,000,000 an acre. You get these vast differences in value. You have these small values in agricultural districts, and these enormous values in urban districts shelving away into the great undeveloped values of the suburban districts. Is it not obvious that if you take off the poor rate, and the roads rate, and the education rate from where they are at present, and put them upon a universal Land Tax based upon land values, you are giving relief to agriculture. By putting on one burden you are going to take off another and a greater
496
burden, and giving the greater values of the towns and the part adjacent to the towns to redress the grievance of the agricultural districts.
I say these are the lines upon which the Government can proceed if they choose to-proceed, because they have had the courage, against all criticism and abuse, to stick to the Valuation Clauses of the Budget. And I know that I am speaking, for many Members in this House when I say that we do hope that the Government will proceed along these lines. I believe if they do proceed along these lines they will get behind them the full force of the agriculturists of this country in a way that they have never had before. The other side can promise them nothing. Tariff Reform will do nothing whatever for rating reform. The only possible line of assistance for agriculture lies in some system of Land Taxes. For years it has been the custom for some Members of this House to decry Land Taxes, as though in themselves Land Taxes must be evil. They have never faced the fact that there was a possibility of removing far more burden by having Land Taxes. We have heard a great deal of the disadvantage of Land Taxes, but we have fortunately experience to guide us in this matter. The other day the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Birmingham (Mr. Steel-Maitland) told us that the taxation or the rating of land values would increase overcrowding. I prefer the teachings of experience to his prophecies, however disinterested. The teachings of experience in countries that have tried this scheme show us perfectly clearly that building and employment are stimulated by the taxation of land values and the forcing of land into use. You must stimulate building by forcing land into use. If you do not stimulate building, at any rate you reduce rent, and the reduction in rent makes for employment. If people have to pay less in rent they have more money for other purposes.
Mr. REMNANT: There is much more overcrowding in New York than in this country.
Mr. HEMMERDE: But this system has not been adopted in New York.
Mr. REMNANT: It has been in force for some years.
Mr. HEMMERDE: No, no; the valuation has only been quite recently completed, and is not working to any extent that can enable hon. Gentlemen to judge.

497
That has been already pointed out in this House on more than one occasion.
Mr. REMNANT: This taxation of land values has been in force in New York for many years past.
Mr. HEMMERDE: No. I cannot accept that at all. I have looked carefully into the thing. [An HON. MEMBER: "On unimproved value."] No, they have not differentiated between the two values either in New York or in many other parts of America. The whole of these figures ware given in the Debate last Session, and it was completely shown that what I say was the case. I have not got the figures by me, because I did not for a moment think that the matter would be disputed again in this House. In New York the matter is in its infancy. The valuation there is upon the lines that we suggest, and there are very many Members on this side of the House—and on the other side, too—who know that. In certain parts of the State of Massachussets and New York this system has been in force for some years, and in Australia and New Zealand, where the system is at work, it is perfectly obvious that it has had the effect of diminishing overcrowding. I can call to witness on this point a member even of the Tariff Reform Commission, Mr. Charles Booth, who sees in the rating of land values the only possible way out of the difficulty of overcrowding in the City of London. You find practically every one who has ever studied the housing question in this country has come to the conclusion that the system by which we rate improvements in this country is not only absolutely unfair to industry, and particularly to the poor, but it is the very system that makes for overcrowding in this country. If hon. Members do not accept that I would like to give an instance. I can take one from a Lancashire town which is probably known to many hon. Members. A few years ago that prosperous Lancashire town, with a great cotton industry, was practically land-locked. It could not develop in any direction. After a few years of this, one of the leading landowners died. His executors were rather more progressive. Certain land came into the market. What was the result? Prior to that land coming into the market all the evils of overcrowding were in that growing town. Directly after the land came into the market the town developed with a rush, and within ten years there were 10,000
498
looms added to that Lancashire town, employing 3,000 people directly, and indirectly 10,000 more people. Yet people tell us that the tax upon land values will do nothing to prevent overcrowding; will do nothing to cause employment! I can give an instance in my own Constituency in answer to the hon. Gentleman who spoke last. No land hunger! What about the village of Chirk in Denbighshire? There you have 1,000 men employed at a couple of collieries. Another Member of this House and myself tried to get land for these men who were living under horrible and beastly conditions. The three land owners stuck out for prices varying from £800 to £1,100 per acre for land which is rated at £1 per acre. Those facts are-known to other Members of this House. I have challenged them on the platform, and they are not denied because they cannot be denied. There, in that village, are living, in sight of the most beautiful land in this country, some of the finest men and women of the country, and living under conditions not fit for beasts, and all because people hold up the land. These proposals will do something for them, for we shall be able to say to these land owners: "On what basis do you value your land, £1,000 per acre? Very well, pay on that basis." They will soon get tired of paying upon that basis. It is for that reason that these people—and many like them—realising that in the Valuation Clauses lies the whole salvation of rural England, get up and say: "The thing is impossible; you cannot value land apart, from improvements."
6.0 P.M.
It has been in existence in America for years, and in Australasia for years and years. It can be done, and it is going to be done, and it is going to be of greater advantage to rural England than anything that could possibly be done in this country. I hope that Irish Members, when they realise the importance of this question to England, will shortly realise the importance of this question to Ireland also, and to the small holders in Ireland. This system of making the basis rating upon land is a system of oppression to the poor and adds a vast proportion to their cost of living on the land. When once you get the system of valuation you accomplish a great deal, for it is the future that interests us not so much as the present yield. Hon. Gentlemen opposite talk as if the Chancellor of the Exchequer must not make provision for the future, as

499
if Budgets must only be calculated for one year. We say you must look in advance, and for years ahead. Look at the history of land valuation. During the last Parliament but one the principle of land valuation actually passed through this House with a Tory majority. Hon. Gentlemen opposite talk of the rating of land value, but it is the opinion of everyone that the only way you can rate land values is by getting a preliminary valuation. How can you rate or tax anything without valuation? [An HON. MEMBER: "They do it in Germany."] They only do it on the composite site, and not on the two. You can only get rural rates on land values by valuation.
What are hon. Members' objections to valuation. Simply because they think we shall find too much out. If the land is worth very little, that is a good thing to note. If it is worth very much, the country ought to know. As a matter of fact, the rating of land values was supported in the House of Commons from the year 1895 upwards by any number of Members of the Tory party. Practically every Tory candidate from Lancashire and Yorkshire came to the House a year ago to support it, but then they trooped into the Lobbies to vote against the only mans of accomplishing it. At the last election the same thing happened. The Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth (Lord Charles Beresford) spoke in favour of the rating of land values, and then the reason he gave for voting against it was that it was full-blooded revolution. He was in favour of the rating of land values, but he treats the taxing of land values as revolution. There is really no difference between the two. If we put a tax upon land values and apply it in relief of rates, it is exactly the same as rating land values. That is what the Government are doing.
Sir JOHN ROLLESTON: Is the valuation of agricultural land intended for the future also?
Mr. HEMMERDE: I should say so, certainly. But if the hon. Member had not only been interested in my speech, but followed it, he would realise that the whole point I was making was that in taxing agricultural land in the future we should be able to take off more in rates than we put on in taxes. There is agricultural land paying more than 100 per cent, of rates upon its unimproved value.
500
What land taxes would be worse than that? The idea that the land taxation group are highwaymen is merely a figment of hon. Members' imagination. The very thing for which we stand in practical form, they used to stand for when making practical appeals to the electors.
I want to point out the enormous force of public opinion that is behind us upon this question of the land. Not only did we get it at the last General Election, but there are many Members on the other side who are pledged to the principle for which we stand. See what happened in the last Parliament. In the first Session the Government took up the Scottish Valuation Bill. The House of Lords threw it out. The people who had been pledged to it voted against it. We wanted to get a valuation of the land and we were driven to the Budget. From the very moment the House of Commons saw this Budget or heard the statements in regard to it, the fortunes of the Liberal party revived. For two or three years previously the party was going down. Their big majorities were falling; they were losing by-election after by-election. But from the moment that the party took up the positive side of Free Trade as well as the negative side of Free Trade, and determined to free the country from the trammels of the land system, then a wave of public opinion came to them the like of which they did not have for years. [An HON. MEMBER: "You lost 106 seats at the last General Election."] Yes, but hon. Members opposite are in too great a hurry. I knew they would say we lost 100 seats, but in the year 1906 there were thousands and thousands of people who never took the trouble to vote for the party opposite. At the last election the party that spoke in favour of the Land Taxes polled the larger than in 1906. It is true that vested interests were attacked, and rightly attacked, and that they brought up all their battalions and their armies of followers and solicitors and agents, and those who depend upon them for a livelihood. They defended the land system while we attacked it. They said the same things that were said in America and in New Zealand. The professional classes always stand, or, at any rate the bulk of them always stand, for vested interest. As a matter of fact, we found that from the moment the Liberal party decided to deal with the land question the whole fortunes of the party revived.

501
We value the Budget for its treatment of this question, because it gives us this valuation upon land upon which we can proceed with these great reforms. We see the possibility in the future of reform in urban districts; we see in the Budget the only possible chance of reform in the rural districts. About two years ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer used these words:—
"Do not let us have false remedies. We want to do something to bring the land within the grasp of the people. The resources of the land are frozen by the old feudal system. I am looking forward to the springtime when the thaw will set in, and when the people and the children of the people shall enter unto the inheritance that has been given them from on high."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking again at the Queen's Hall on 23rd March last Session:—
"No man who looks at England as it is, can possibly deny that with the more scientific application of agriculture, with greater security to the cultivators, you will double the resources of the soil, now that you give additional opportunities for helping healthy productive remunerative labour."
It is not enough to obtain the valuation. Will the Government, having obtained it, use it to obtain that economic pressure such as they have used in New Zealand and Australasia, and which alone can grapple with the rural question and prevent the exodus to the towns, and which in the towns, as Charles Booth pointed out, alone can grapple with the question of slums and overcrowding? The answer to these questions lies in the future. The fate of the Fusionists in Australia is a grim warning of the fate which awaits the Liberal party if it refuses to advance along the road which this valuation opens to it. The land question saved the Government at the last election. Upon the land question they will win the next election. With the land question we can break down the feudalism that keeps the rural districts back. Upon the land question this Budget has won its way in this House. Let the Government in the future take their courage in both hands when dealing with this question, and I believe they will find even a greater measure of support from the people of this country than they had in 1906, and than they had at the last election. It is simply a question of courageously moving along this path. The Government know quite well at the present moment that the whole Liberal party is behind them, because they are showing courage, and because they are going forward in the strength and the fullness of the pledges they made. I can only say that I rejoice in this change in policy in the
502
whole attitude of the country towards the Liberal party, and I believe if we go on upon these lines breaking down this feudal supremacy in the rural districts and breaking down the power of monopoly whether in land or in drink regardless of the consequences, and only going forward on what I believe to be the right path we shall win in this fight a great and glorious victory for democracy.
Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I have already made my protest against this Budget, and I now intend to stand only for a moment or two in the way of anybody else who may desire to take advantage of the very limited opportunities now available under the draconic closure which is now taking the place of free speech in this mother of free Parliaments. I have simply risen for the purpose of expressing my amazement that the leaders and the principal men who are really responsible for the unconditional surrender that has been made of the case of Ireland—the masked conspirators in the background, to use a phrase the significance of which is well understood in Ireland — that these Gentlemen have not, up to the present, plucked up courage to present themselves in the course of the Debates on this Bill to offer any defence of their action. I simply desire to make these two observations. The venue as between them and us will now be changed from this House to Ireland, I do not envy them the task that is before them of explaining to an all-too-confiding people why they have so misused the greatest opportunity and the greatest power that the Irish representatives ever had in this House, and that the only practical result of it will be to barter away Ireland's whole case as to over-taxation to the Treasury, to postpone for another generation the abolition of landlordism and the peace and happiness of our country, and to make Home Rule a financial impossibility, and why they have got absolutely no return whatever except to drive the Government to a General Election in circumstances as disastrous and as fatal as they could well be both for the Government and for Home Rule and for Ireland. I only desire to add one other observation, and it is this, that we, for our part, wash our hands of this Budget, and of the smallest responsibility in reference to it or to its consequences, and we respectfully warn this House beforehand that Ireland disowns this Budget. [HON. MEMBER: "No, no."] Well, wait and see. Ireland repudiates

503
this Budget, and will give no rest either to those who have proposed it or to the Irish representatives whose votes alone enable it to pass into law—we will give no rest or peace to them until every provision of this Bill imposing extra taxation upon Ireland has been either torn from the Statute Book or the present Government swept from power by the Irish Vote, either in this House, in the British constituencies, or in Ireland.
Mr. JOSEPH DEVLIN: Last January the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. O'Brien) submitted the question of this Budget, I understand, as the vital question on which he forced a candidate of his own against me in West Belfast. As one who has remained silent through all these controversies in this House, and as one who has listened with amazement from time to time to the remarks from the Tory Benches that the Irish Parliamentary party are opposed to the Budget, I rise as a representative of Ireland to give the Budget my unqualified support. This Budget next to Home Rule was the great issue on which I fought my contest in West Belfast. The hon. Member for Cork City sent down his candidate in order to draw Nationalist votes from me with the money of Lord Dunraven and the Tories. He now challenges us to go to the country. May I point out that it is we who are forcing the election, it is we who want him to go to the country, and I am confident if he does he will receive the same answer in Cork that I gave him in Belfast when I beat the combination of converted Nationalists and Tories, and raised my majority from 16 to 600. One would imagine to hear the speeches of some of these gentlemen that the only people in Ireland were the landlords and distillers. They talk about the farmers—these gentlemen who added £17,000,000 to the cost of Irish land. The gentlemen who talk here about this Budget throwing an additional burden of £430,000 upon Ireland are the gentlemen who raised Irish land from seventeen years' purchase to twenty-eight.
Mr. GILHOOLY: It was the Swinford revolt.
Mr. DEVLIN: They are here not in the interests of the farmers, but in the interests of the plutocrats, the reactionaries, and the landlords. Why, Sir, the hon. Member for Cork City has started the All For Ireland League. Everybody who has
504
listened to his speeches in this House knows he is an exceedingly mild-mannered rhetorician here compared with what he is in Ireland. In Ireland he has constituted himself the Apostle of Peace and Conciliation for the union of all creeds and classes, a union by which all democratic feeling may be killed in Ireland; and the landlords having robbed the people, now want to be the masters of the situation, and so the hon. Member for Cork City has constituted a Landlord League for Ireland, with a paper financed by the landlords and paid for by the fiscal reformers.
Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: There is not one word of foundation for that or any other statement which the hon. Member has made.
Mr. DEVLIN: I make this assertion with authority, and I ask the hon. Member for Cork City is it a fact or is it not that Lord Dunraven, the head of the Tariff Reform League, has subscribed £500 to the newspaper which is to fight the Budget and the Irish party at the next election? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]
Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Do you want the answer? My answer is that Lord Dunraven is as good an Irish Nationalist—
Mr. DEVLIN: Need I recite the names of the other Irish Nationalists, the other eminent Nationalists who are to fight against the humble people, whose subscriptions we are taunted with receiving from day to day? The hon. Member for Cork City does not need to appeal for these subscriptions because he has organised the wealth of the Tory party to aid him in his fight. Ireland is a poor country, but up to the present the Irish Parliamentary party have depended upon the honest instincts and the passionate democratic convictions of the people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Patrick Ford" and "America."] Yes, and we are proud to receive those subscriptions from Patrick Ford. The hon. Member from Cork City has built his popularity on subscriptions received from America and raised by Patrick Ford. He was the man who was glad to go out there, but he is now the darling of the Tory gods who made the same taunts against him that they are making against us to-day. He has changed, but we have not, and when he comes to this House to turn it into a platform for the discussion of Irish controversies, those of us who in the interest of our country have remained silent will remain silent no longer, and we meet

505
him here in this House as we shall meet him in every constituency in Ireland. He is a gentle controversialist, and perhaps the House would like to hear his opinion of the hon. and learned Member for North Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy), who is his colleague in their missionary zeal to save the House of Commons from the counsels of the Irish party, and from submitting-to appeals of this party. He and the hon. Member for North Louth now claim to be the saviours of Ireland. The hon. Member sits silent at the feet of the hon. Member for North Louth—alone they are going to save Ireland from the Budget. They Are going to save our country from destruction and the Government from the Irish party, and the Tory party from the Irish party—
Mr. GILHOOLY: And the "Molly Maguires."
Mr. DEVLIN: Order in the synagogue. You are asked not to trust the Irish party, not to believe the words of their representatives, and one of their chief charges against us in Ireland was that we are selling Ireland to the Government at luncheon parties in Downing Street. Two or three days afterwards they themselves were seeking interviews with the Ministers and holding those interviews. They were actually suggesting that you ought to enter into an alliance with them to dish the Irish Parliamentary party, and the principal agent in working with the hon. and learned Member for Cork City inviting us to go to Ireland is the hon. Member for North Louth. I will give English Members of Parliament some idea of the opinion the hon. Member for Cork City used to have of the hon. and learned Member for North Louth. It is an opinion extravagant in its denunciation compared to that which he now offers with regard to my colleagues and myself. He says:—
"Mr. Healy has brought himself to this dilemma that either every man, except himself who was ever prominently connected with the Irish party must be a scoundrel, or else he must be himself the only man of the whole lot who is capable of working as a loyal comrade, and thinking of anything except himself and his temperament. I know of no case in history of a man who was borne with so long and so much deferred to, and so much petted, and so much cringed to, to see if anything could appease him…will tell you that when the story of all these years comes by and by to be told of all we have had to endure year after year in silence, the way he succeeded in torturing everybody, taking the spirit out of everybody, starving out the Party, starving out the evicted tenants in pursuance of his own cold-blooded policy the way he manufactured the falsest and most infamous charges against his colleagues, and then ran away from them the moment he was faced by the full attendance of the Party, and repeated them all over again the moment the majority of the Party had their backs turned—I tell you that
506
whenever the story of that time comes to be told you will find that no body of men ever showed such patience—'criminal patience' I hear somebody truly say-so much criminal patience in dealing with a tyranny so unreasoning and so wicked. … We hear the cry of toleration! Is there to be no toleration for the majority or for the interests of the Irish cause?"
Well, Mr. Speaker, as I stated in the beginning, I am an unqualified and an unequivocal supporter of this Budget. From the moment it was introduced in the party, and out of it, I have publicly given the Budget the unqualified support in Parliament which I gave it upon the platforms in Ireland. To hear the hon. Member for Cork City, one would imagine that we came shivering over here, saying to Ministers we would stealthily steal into the Lobbies to vote for them, and would go back to make apologies to Ireland. I will go back to Ireland and say that next to Home Rule I rejoice to be able to vote for the Budget.
Mr. WILLIAM PEEL: Why did you not vote for the Second Reading?
Mr. DEVLIN: I will give my reasons for what I do to my own Constituents, and I hope they will be more intelligently expressed than the hon. Member expresses his. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Every Member of this party who has ever discussed the Budget intelligibly in Ireland has received the enthusiastic cheers of his constituents and their approval. As a matter of fact, I agree thoroughly with the declarations made by the hon. Member who spoke from the other side of the House. I agree that this Budget has limitations. I myself fought in the House when the Budget was before Parliament last Session against what I thought was the injustice contained in some of the licensing provisions. I also fought against the Whisky Tax, but all Ireland is not bound up in licences and whisky, and we succeeded last year in securing for the small licence-holders in Ireland concessions to the extent of 90 per cent. The hon. Member for Cork City was not here. We fought the Whisky Tax. The hon. Member opposes the Budget because he wants a text upon which he can assail the Irish party, and endeavour to break up our movement in the interests of fiscal reform and the House of Lords. If I were as strongly opposed to the Budget as I am in favour of it I would passionately associate myself with my colleagues in the attitude they have adopted and the course they have pursued. My hon. Friend the Leader of our party (Mr. John Redmond) was assailed here the

507
other night by the hon. Member for North Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy). My hon. Friend is not only the Leader who has been assailed by the hon. Member. These two apostles of conciliation and of the union of all the creeds and classes in Ireland are the Gentlemen who declared they would drive a great Leader to a lunatic asylum or the grave. He was driven to the grave. Mr. Justin McCarthy, an hon. Member of this House, was driven into retirement, and Mr. Sexton was driven out of Irish politics. We will take mighty good care there will be neither a cause nor a leader sacrificed while we have the courage and the spirit to maintin them. We here on these benches declare that, as our leader stands in England for high statesmanship, courage and political prescience and for great Parliamentary success, he stands deeper and warmer in the affections of the people of Ireland, and he will come back to this House with a stronger and a more indestructible party than that which he leads here to-day. I would vote against this Budget, much as I believe in it, if I believed the larger and greater cause was thereby to be advanced. I am an Irish democrat. I have never had any association with Lords, unless, if I may say so, in this House, and I was not deeply impressed. I believe the House of Lords not only to be an enemy of Home Rule, not only to be the agent by which Home Rule has been prevented in the past, and may be prevented in the future, but I believe it to be the enemy of all social and democratic causes.
The Budget which has been introduced is, in my opinion, something more than a financial measure; it is a great democratic instrument. They have not told Ireland that you propose, and that this Budget is to be the instrument by which you will carry your proposal out, to deal with afforestation, with drainage, with the general development of the country, and with all those great rural grievances, which are deeply felt in every branch of rural life in Ireland. There is to me a bigger question even than that. There is not one of the social curses that apply to the great cities of Great Britain which we do not feel in Belfast, and all the Dunraven meetings to be held from now to Doomsday would not do half as much to bring into communion and into a harmonious relationship Protestants and Catholics than one speech on the taxation of land values from the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. Ure). In the city of Belfast
508
there are sweated women and sweated children; there are unemployed men who feel the curse and the character of the whole social system as deeply as you do in your country; and I want to know, am I, as a representative of these people, to sit here and listen to all these fiscal fables told from these benches in the supposed interests of the distillers and landlords whilst my Constituents and the people are to be robbed of all these beneficient advantages which we hope to secure through the agency and operation of this Budget? There are children in Belfast with wizened faces, old before they ever know what it is to be young, who go to work at six o'clock in the morning and work till six o'clock at night for three shillings a week. They work and toil and work and toil, and it is recorded that on an average they die at thirty-nine. They are not to count. You must take away the money from old age pensioners who now have earned their pensions by arriving at the age of seventy in order that the margin may be given in extra years' purchase to the landlords. Have they not got enough? Why do not some of these ex-democrats who exhibit all this passion for the distillers and the landlords think of their better and higher and nobler days when they fought for the people? There is a generation rising up in Ireland who are tired of all this humbug; there is a generation rising up in Ireland who will never be satisfied with the hysterical shriekings of played-out politicians, and who are not going to be led by lords or noodles. The Irish democracy, like the English democracy, are enlightened and educated; they know what they want, and they are determined to have it. I believe that this Budget proposes to give them some of the things they want, and, when the judgment of the people is taken on this Budget, it will be unequivocally in favour of it.
The biggest question, as I have stated, is the question of the House of Lords. We believe there is only one alternative to the course which my hon. and learned Friend has taken, backed up as he is unanimously by his colleagues. We must either in the politics of this Empire, join with these Gentlemen (the Opposition) or these (the Ministerialists). We cannot carry any great cause to triumph by ourselves. Are we to join with men who have stained the Statute Book of England by their opposition to every genuine reform that has been introduced by every statesman who has ever been friendly to Ire-

509
land, or are we to take the side of the democracy of England, who have warm hearts for Ireland, with hopes and the belief that when the great policy of national pacification is completed and when Gladstone's life-work has been crowned with success, an emancipated democracy in England will emancipate the democracy in Ireland? I say that is not the millennium, but it is the triumph we hope to see, and it is the policy Ireland wishes to carry out, and the policy which will receive the mandate of Ireland when we appeal to our constituencies. The hon. Member for Cork talks about forcing a General Election. What has he to complain of? Does he not want to bring us over to Ireland and beat us? We are forcing the impeachment; we want it to come, and the sooner that impeachment is brought the better. I tell him, and I tell the House, that when that General Election takes place, whatever changes there may be in the vicissitudes of party fortunes in this Parliament of Great Britain, the Irish Parliamentary party will come back stronger and more powerful than it was before to assist you in destroying this Juggernaut which is crushing down the hopes and aspirations of all people who are passionately animated by a desire for social reform and to bring about peaceful relationships and contentment to the two peoples and progress to the interests of the democracy.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I think the powerful speech which has just been delivered by the hon. Member for West Belfast in support of the Budget would have carried rather more conviction as to his belief in the merits of the Budget if it had been delivered last Session instead of this. I do not think the House can really value on its merits an opinion which led the hon. Member and his friends to vote against the Budget on the Second Reading. I cannot help thinking we have only to look at the few words in his speech, in which he said that even if they were opposed to the Budget he and his friends would have been prepared to vote for it for another consideration, to see the truth of the matter. That is particularly evident if we read the terms of the resolution which was passed at the Nationalist Convention in Dublin in February, 1909. It was to this effect:—
"This Convention declares that any attempt to impose fresh taxation of any kind on Ireland in the Finance Bill of this year, on any pretext, would be a gross violation not only of every principle of justice, but even of the terms of the Act of Union itself; and
510
it calls upon the Irish party with a Nationalist organisation to resist any such attempt with the utmost vigour."
That was moved by the hon. Member for East Tyrone (Mr. Kettle), and I believe in the newspaper report of the proceedings he added that he would have to be dragged across the floor of the House to support the Budget if 6d. extra were added to the taxation of Ireland. Apparently, the hon. Member is going to be dragged across the floor of the House into the Government Lobby, because a good deal more than 6d. is going to be imposed on Ireland. I leave it to the consideration of the House what is the consideration that has overcome the scruples of the hon. Member and his friends.
The hon. Member for East Denbighshire (Mr. Hemmerde) and many other speakers in favour of the Budget have drawn true and harrowing pictures of misery and distress, overcrowding, wretchedness, and unwholesome conditions of life, and have used those descriptions as a lever for advocating the passage of this measure. I am sure they do not suggest we on this side of the House have less sympathy or less desire to remedy those conditions than they have. If they do, they entirely misrepresent us. We are as anxious as the hon. Member opposite can be to do everything possible to relieve those conditions. We recognise their existence, and we do desire to remedy them. It is because we do not believe this Budget will remedy them but will aggravate them that we oppose it. The hon. Member and his friends, in order to make their case for the Budget good, have got to prove that it will remedy those conditions, and I have never yet heard any proof adduced that the conditions to which they draw attention, and which excite the sympathy of this House, would in any sense be improved by the passing of this Budget. I think the hon. Member for East Denbighshire must see that the argument with which he commenced his speech was one of the most remarkable that could be brought forward in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bonar Law). My hon. Friend had stated? that the Government had ruined, or were ruining the licensed trade by the imposition of these duties. What was the hon. and learned Member's reply? It was that the trade was not ruined by these taxes, because, at the time they were proposed the trade was already declining, and, therefore, the Government could not be blamed for its ruin.
Mr. HEMMERDE: What I said was, the whole of the decrease in the whisky trade could not be laid to our credit, because, for about six or seven years, it had been declining. I was not referring to the licensed trade.
Mr. PRETYMAN: The hon. and learned Member declared that these taxes were not the cause of the ruin of the trade, because the trade was already declining. That exactly confirms my point.
Mr. HEMMERDE: No. I said the whole cause of the decrease in the whisky trade was put down to the Budget, and that was not right.
Mr. PRETYMAN: That is a different point. Our point is as to what has caused the decline in the consumption of whisky, and ruined individuals who are concerned in this trade. The hon. and learned Member's statement proves to the hilt our contention that this trade, exactly like any other trade, must be taxed out of existence if you impose a heavy burden on a declining industry. That is the point which the hon. and learned Member's defence of the Government makes perfectly clear. The hon. and learned Member put another point which has constantly been advanced in regard to the Budget taxes. He stated that the trade has learned a lesson—that they were warned by the Prime Minister, and he went on to admit that these taxes were not financial but political.
Mr. HEMMERDE: No, no.
Mr. PRETYMAN: If the hon. and learned Member did not say that, what did he mean?
Mr. HEMMERDE: Really I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I did not say that. What I said was that the trade was warned that the monopoly value would either be obtained through the Licensing Bill or through high licences. They allied themselves to the party opposite, which opposed the Licensing Bill, and they were then thrown back upon high licences, and, for that, they have to blame the party opposed to us.
Mr. PRETYMAN: That is simply saying, in so many words, that the matter was political, and not financial. ["No, no."] That is absolutely so. A political Bill is brought forward and is thrown out. The trade are warned by the Prime Minister that the consequences of that Bill
512
will be the imposition of a Licence Duty which will effect a political object in a different way. His threat is carried into effect, and that is the finance of this Budget. I say it is not finance—it is polities. Then, when this Budget is sent to the country, from another place, we are told that the House of Lords are dealing with a purely financial matter in which they have no concern. The hon. and learned Member, in his own defence, clearly demonstrated, and he in fact admitted, that the whole matter was purely political and had no connection at all with finance. I can only say, if it is finance it is the worse finance ever introduced into this House, and if that is the only excuse they have, I can only say that, from a financial standpoint, there is no justification whatever for it. The Government may stand on which leg they like; they are absolutely convicted either of having sought to further a political object under the guise of finance, or of having introduced finance of a vital character which has actually resulted in a smaller receipt of revenue than was obtained on a lower basis of taxation. The country will have a good opportunity of judging whichever standpoint the Government may choose. The hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say—and his argument has been used over and over again—that this attack on the land and on the trade is an attack upon a system and not upon individuals. Whatever proposals are made by hon. Gentlemen opposite for extorting a special tax from special classes of the community are always attempted to be justified by the simple statement—"We are not attacking you, we are only attacking the system you represent." That is all very nice, but who pays the tax? The system or the individual? I think if the hon. and learned Member and his Friends could devise a method of attacking a system without injuring individuals who happen to be living under that system they would find no particular objection from this side of the House.
Mr. HEMMERDE: I never said that at all. I was referring simply to some supposed abusive speeches, and I said the speeches were abusive, not of the individual, but of the system. I did not say we attacked the system in the sense of taxing it, and not the individual. I referred simply and solely to the so-called abusive speeches.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not think there is much difference. That statement has

513
been made over and over again. I understood the hon. and learned Member to make a distinct statement that the attack was on the system and not on the individual. If he did not make it it has been made, and is constantly made by others, who ignore the fact that they cannot tax the system, but must tax the individual. On the question of speeches, the hon. and learned Member defended the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he told us that the right hon. Gentleman in making his attacks upon the system was obliged to refer to individual cases, because otherwise his facts would have been regarded as fictions. I am afraid, even when the right hon. Gentleman did refer to individuals his facts were regarded as fiction by a great many people.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Then why did you not challenge them in the House?
Mr. PRETYMAN: They were challenged over and over again in the House, and on public platforms.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: When? Give me one case.
Mr. PRETYMAN: The Mostyn case.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: When was that challenged?
Mr. PRETYMAN: During the Debate of last Session.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am very sorry to have to interrupt. Upon three separate occasions I invited hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to challenge any one of the facts which I stated in the House that I relied on. I know they were challenged outside, but here they were never once challenged—not even the Mostyn case—in my presence in the House of Commons.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I am perfectly ready now to take up that challenge in regard to Lord Mostyn's case, but unfortunately there is no time. My recollection is that the matter was frequently referred to here, and in addition to that Lord Mostyn himself sent a distinct statement to the Press which the right hon. Gentleman made no attempt to reply to. The right hon. Gentleman has never contradicted it in this House or elsewhere. Lord Mostyn's denial is on record. There is a form of truth which is much worse than fiction, and that is to state figures in a manner which misleads the public; even although the figures themselves may be correct,
514
material facts may be concealed which place an entirely different construction upon the matter. That is what I call fiction. I should like to refer to a further statement made in a speech of the hon. and learned Member for East Denbighshire, a powerful and considered speech from his point of view, in regard to the objects of the land group. I was rather surprised at the statement he made. It was a somewhat important statement of the objects of the land group. By that I mean those Members in this House who make it their special business to advocate new taxation on the land. So far from thinking agriculture could bear new burdens, we think it is overburdened. The group to which the hon. and learned Member referred is a group which has been in existence for some time. It has carried on its propaganda in this country for a considerable number of years, and at the conclusion of the hon. and learned Member's speech he made a strong claim that their agitation had borne extraordinarily good fruit as an electoral asset of the Liberal party. That was the claim which he made out. What is that organisation? How is it supported? It is an organisation of Members of this House and a certain number of gentlemen outside. Whence does it draw the financial support which has made it so strong? A curious light is thrown upon that by an extract I hold in my hand from a paper called the "Morning Leader," which, I believe, is a paper of strong Liberal views. That paper published in July last an interview with a gentleman who, I believe, is not a British subject— Mr. Josef Fels.
Mr. HEMMERDE: He has a large business here.
Mr. PRETYMAN: He is an American manufacturer, I believe.
Mr. HEMMERDE: And English.
An HON. MEMBER: He manufactures here on account of Free Trade.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I have had most careful inquiries made, and have been unable to find that Mr. Josef Fels carries on any productive manufacture in this country. Of course, if the hon. and learned Member can tell me he does I will withdraw the statement.
Mr. HEMMERDE: I am not sure that he does.
Mr. PRETYMAN: He is not a British subject. He is an American manufacturer who is importing into this country large quantities of products made in America. In the interview with the representative of the "Morning Leader" he himself stated that he is subscribing £5,000 a year for five years to the funds of the organisation represented by the land group here in this House, and he is willing to give as much more as they want. It is well that the people of this country should know the source whence these sums come. [An HON. Member: "Why do not you publish the names of the subscribers to the Tariff Reform League?"] This is a statement which appears in a Radical newspaper. There is an old proverb that the man who pays the piper calls the tune, and on that ground I have good reason for supposing that Mr. Josef Fels calls the tune to which hon. Members dance.
7.0 P.M.
The hon. Member—I quote his statement—said that their object was to reduce the burdens on agricultural land, because they considered it overloaded, but I hold in my hand a report of a dinner given about a week ago by the Parliamentary group to which the hon. Member belongs. He is not stated as being present himself, but I have a list of hon. Members sitting on those benches who were present. On this occasion Mr. Joseph Fels gave his account of the objects and the policy of the land group, which he finances, and this is what he said about agricultural land:—
"Mr. Joseph Fels, who has just returned from the United States, said many of their friends were anxious about the Budget. So was he that it should he destroyed and a better one introduced. They wanted a tax levied at 6d. in the £ on all land, rural and urban."
Sixpence in the pound on the capital value levied annually on agricultural land valued at £30 an acre would be 15s. an acre annual tax. The hon. Member shakes his head, but is not that the fact? I do not know whether the land group will follow the hon. Member or Mr. Joseph Fels, but if they want to keep the funds of their organisation, I am afraid they will have to follow Mr. Joseph Fels, and not the hon. Member. Here we have a policy definitely stated, and I do not think sufficient notice has been taken of it that the objects of that group, if they follow their real leader, is to impose a tax of sixpence in the pound on capital value, which would mean 12s. in the pound on annual value, for a halfpenny in the pound on capital value is 1s. in the pound on annual value, and therefore 6d. in the pound is 12s. on
516
the annual value of rural land. I think, under these circumstances, the House may take at their proper value the professions of the land party, as they call themselves, in regard to rural land. Then the hon. Member went on to state that these taxes should not be cumulative, but in lieu of rates. I ask the hon. Gentleman who supports these taxes are they cumulative or are they in lieu of rates? They are cumulative and that is our principal objection. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not on agricultural land."] So far as they fall on agriculture they are cumulative, and one of our principal objections to these taxes is that they are cumulative and that they destroy one another.
I do not wish to devote all I have to say to the hon. Member's speech, but I felt that those statements of his, having been made, required an answer. I should now like to turn for a moment to a challenge made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last Monday. He said that one thing that struck him very much was that the finance of the Budget had not been challenged at all. I do not know whether hon. Members may have sometimes thought it was not worth while challenging because it bore its fallacies on the face of it, but I think it has been challenged, and I would venture in the short time at my disposal to challenge it again on every financial ground that can be put forward. There are certain definite canons of finance which should be followed by every Chancellor of the Exchequer and by everyone who is concerned in the imposition of taxation. Every one of those considerations are ignored or transgressed in this Budget. I do not want to labour this point, because it has been made over and over again, but I must refer to it in view of that statement. Is it not one of the first canons of finance that no tax should be so high as to reduce the taxable area from which it is levied? I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not challenge that, but let us take the Whisky Tax. If any taxation obviously transgressed that canon of finance, clearly at the first glance this is the tax, because it not only destroys and reduces the taxable area, but it raises actually less than was raised on a lower basis. In response to that challenge, I think I am justified in repeating that point.
What I would put forward as the next canon is that taxes should fall evenly upon all those in the country who pay them according to their ability to pay. The right hon. Gentleman applauds that state-

517
ment, but does he suggest that under his Budget a similar tax is levied upon the unearned increment of a man who has made thousands in the recent boom on the Stock Exchange as on that of a man who has invested his money in land? On the one whose ability to pay is enormously greater than the other no tax is levied in the nature of the Land Taxes. It may be said that they fall under other taxes, such as the Income Tax and the Death Duties, but that can easily be shown to be fallacious, and, so far as the Land Taxes are concerned, which form the principal feature of the Budget, there is no test of ability to pay whatever. So far as the Licence Duties are concerned also, where is the test of ability to pay? Only recently in a country village the free tenant or the owner of a local inn—a man of the highest respectability and honour—told me that if this Budget passed he was a ruined man, as he could not pay the taxes imposed upon him. This man has to pay a special tax imposed upon him, but is his ability to pay equal to that of other individuals who made a quarter of a million in stocks and shares? What is the excuse and on what ground are these departures mode from the ordinary rules of finance? The right hon. Gentleman himself stated the ground in his speech to which I referred just now, and what was his excuse for placing this special burden on the trade? Why, it was the identical ground for placing a special burden on land. How did he justify the tax on the licensed trade? In about five or six words:—
"This is not an ordinary trade."
How are the taxes on land justified? Simply by a similar expression put in a different phrase. It is said:—
"Land is different from other forms of property."
Therefore, any subjects who are the' object for the moment of the animosity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day may be so taxed. Is there any industry which could not be selected as to which some particular feature could not be brought forward to which these words could be applied, and in regard to which we could be told that, the trade is not ordinary and is like no other trade. There are no features, however, properly looked at which are different from the features of everything else. That is the thin, feeble and unsubstantial justification which the Chancellor of the Exchequer puts forward for putting penal taxes upon people, and which cannot be justified, for most people can be told that their trade or industry is
518
not ordinary. I think a more flimsy pretext for departing from the sound canons of finance was never advanced.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Was not that the very pretext on which the Agricultural Rates Act was passed, under which the ordinary ratepayers contributed £21,000,000 for the benefit of agricultural property in this country?
Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not think that the hon. Member has strengthened the case for the Government by that interruption, because I think that he will remember that the ground for the Agricultural Rates Act was simply that this particular section of the trading interest of the country was bearing a heavier burden than other portions of the industry of the country. If anything was wanting to prove my point, it would be the hon. Member's interruption. Another canon of finance is that taxes should be cheap and easy to collect. I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer can contend in his wildest moments that these taxes are easy and simple to collect. That opens up a matter on which I should like to say a word or two. The matter of valuation referred to by the hon. Member for East Denbighshire is one of the most important matters in this Bill. The Government have put down a sum of £2,000,000 for their valuation. That is not very cheap, but it has been a matter of great astonishment to those persons throughout the country who are skilled in valuation, and have a knowledge of the conditions under which, valuations are made, and who have read the extraordinarily complicated valuation provisions in this Bill.—it has been a matter of astonishment and wonderment to them as to how it is proposed to carry out this valuation for the sum of £2,000,000 of money. A little daylight was let into this question yesterday when the hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth challenged the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the necessity of the valuers in regard to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman slipped out that no valuers were going to Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did make some reference to that subject before, but nobody apprehended its importance on this side of the House. I am not complaining of that; I am not imputing blame to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; I am only presenting the facts as they present themselves to me, and at the last moment this matter was shown to me in that light for the first time. That

519
may be my own fault, but it slipped my notice until yesterday that valuers are not to go to Ireland.
It appears, therefore, that agricultural land in Ireland is not to be valued. Why? Because in Ireland there exists a valuation. What is that valuation? That of the annual value and the annual value only. That having transpired in regard to Ireland, my right hon. Friend, one of the Members for Glasgow, naturally felt a little anxious about Scotland, and he questioned the right hon. Gentleman as to the visits of valuers to that country, and he was informed that an annual valuation already existed for Scotland, and the right hon. Gentleman said that, so far as land valuation in Scotland was concerned, that valuation was good enough for him. I should like to ask, and perhaps the Prime Minister will enlighten England on this very important point, where does England come in, and are these valuers to visit the rural districts of England or not? If not, what vista opens up before us. I begin to see dimly now what is the real object of the Government. The hon. Member (Mr. Hemmerde) used a very strong expression. He said they of the land party meant to get at once a complete valuation, and without that complete valuation of capital value and site value their schemes could not be carried out. But the right hon. Gentleman has not explained how the site value is to be obtained from the annual value, and perhaps the Prime Minister will explain that point. But what is the vista opened up?
If we take these admissions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made yesterday, and if we collate them with the fact that only £2,000,000 is to be charged for the valuation of the whole country, and also with a third important factor that, so far as I am aware, there is no time limit stated in the Bill within which the valuation has to be made, it looks very much to me as if this were not going to be a general and immediate valuation fairly and equally carried out at the time from which the site value has to be dated. It is already a year beyond the date from which these specified values are to start, and it now looks as if this valuation was not to be immediate, was not to be impartial, and was not to be genera], but that the Government are going to take £2,000,000 of money and select at their own will certain particular kinds of property owned by certain particular kinds of individuals,
520
someone who is not ordinary, like the licensed trader and the landowner, for taxation, and, so far as the majority of the people are concerned, particularly those who carry large numbers of votes, there will be no valuation for some considerable period. We shall see whether our suspicions are justified, but if this valuation is to be carried out in that manner I should like the Government to look at that and to collate it with their action in regard to the Veto of the Second Chamber. Here we have an absolute power of taxation placed in the hands of the Government without question and without appeal to the electors of the country, and you have the weapon of valuation placed in their hands, which need not be general, and which they can exercise exactly as they like, to the detriment of particular subjects who may or may not happen to have incurred their displeasure. I should not desire to stand here to accuse the Government of misusing such power, but that is a power which this House ought not to place in the hands of any Government or any Chancellor of the Exchequer. When this valuation has got to be carried out, whether it costs £2,000,000 or £10,000,000, we have a right to demand that if this House grants the valuation it should be immediately carried out, and that it should be evenly and impartially carried out, and that there should be no selection, and I trust the Prime Minister will give us the pledge that that valuation will be complete, and will be as far as possible contemporaneous, and that there will not be an immediate valuation made on certain kinds of interests, and that other interests from which less may be expected in the way of money and from which more may be expected in the way of votes will have their valuation papers delayed for some considerable period before they receive them.
These taxes are not easy to understand, and I think a tax ought to be easy to understand. How are these Land Taxes, for instance, to be levied and on what are they to be levied? They are to be levied on hypothetical deductions from an imaginary valuation. There is not a lawyer in the country who could definitely predict to any owner of property exactly what the burden of taxation will be upon him after this Budget has passed. After some twelve months of most careful and close application to the Budget, after studying it in every particular, when I apply the principles which it contains—if

521
they can be called principles—when I apply its Clauses to particular concrete cases with which I am absolutely familiar, and when. I try to deduce from that what will be the actual burden placed by those taxes upon any particular kind of property, I absolutely fail, and the matter is completely obscure. It follows from that that the country, so far as it has been considering this Budget, has had to do so purely upon the ground of conjecture. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have stated that the tax will only fall upon the rich and upon large owners, and not upon the poor. I traverse that statement. I will give the actual position in regard to a Lancashire town—Burnley. I am not speaking from personal knowledge, but I have had the facts given me. There are a few owners only who are of the class on whom the right hon. Gentleman wishes the country to believe his taxes will fall. These large owners have let their land on building leases for 999 years. The owners of the leases are no fewer than 4,500, mainly working men. Upon whom are these taxes going to fall? What is the position of the rich man? He is drawing what is called a chief rent, which is fixed, and is for 999 years. There are three taxes. No increment can possibly be chargeable upon a chief rent which is fixed, and can never increase in value. There can be no Undeveloped Land Duty as the land is already built upon, and there can be no Reversion Duty until 999 years have passed, and that will not trouble the owners much. So far as these large owners are concerned not a penny of taxation can conceivably fall upon them. The 4,500 small owners are the people upon whom these taxes are to fall, and the people who will have to be valued. What is the position as presented to them by the other side? They are under the impression that when this Budget passes they will pay less chief rent, and that the taxes will fall upon the persons who are in receipt of the chief rent. What are the facts? The chief rents will be exactly the same as they are to-day, and the burden of taxation will fall not upon the owner but upon the dwellers in the houses.
I do not wish to multiply instances, but we have had now twelve months' arduous discussion and hard labour upon this Budget. I am devoutly thankful that this is the end of our discussion. But it is not the end of the struggle. We have hitherto been working upon the conjec-
522
tural results of the Budget. When we meet again, or soon after, we shall have some concrete cases, and when we bring forward concrete cases I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will get out of them so easily. If I may say so in all friendliness, he is a master of evasion in debate, and I only hope, for his sake, that those whom he taxes will not be so capable in evading them as he is in evading our arguments regarding them. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] You must ask the right hon. Gentleman, not me, how he does it. It is for the expert to describe, and not for me. I merely stand at a distance and admire. The fact remains that when these concrete cases are available, then, and then only, will the electors be able to judge this Budget upon its merits, and we, on this side of the House, are absolutely confident that when that takes place we shall receive the thanks of the country for the fight we have made against it, and the Government will receive the condemnation they deserve for the ruin that they will have wrought and for the trouble they will have caused throughout the country on political grounds, and without any real gain to the stable and permanent finance of this country.
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I agree with the concluding observation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman that it is with a sense of relief, so far as this House is concerned, that we have now reached the last stage in the fortunes of a Budget which, not only from the nature of its provisions, but from the circumstances of its history, will always be memorable in our political annals. It is this week exactly twelve months since my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lloyd-George) made his financial statement, and we of the late House of Commons expended six full months of Parliamentary time in examining, with minuteness and care, and with an expenditure of labour which I believe has never been paralleled, all the many and complicated provisions of that great financial scheme. What happened to it afterwards is well known. It went to another place, and by what we hold, and shall continue to hold, to be both an unexampled and an unconstitutional exercise of their powers, the whole financial provision of the year was set at nought. That proceeding has cost the nation in money, directly, £1,300,000, and indirectly a vast deal more. What its moral, social, and political results will be the near future will disclose. It was,

523
perhaps, inevitable that a dissolution followed, and the Budget was submitted to the country, and it is now in the new House of Commons—I will not say without the alteration of a comma, but in all substantial respects unaltered and unmodified—referred for the last time to the judgment of those whom the electors have sent here to represent them. Everybody knows, and it does not require any gift of prophecy or of divination to make the prediction, that within an hour of the time I am speaking it will receive the approval of the overwhelming majority of the new House of Commons. [An Hon. Member: "How is it composed?"] I will say something to gratify the hon. Gentleman's curiosity before I sit down. I will say something a9 to the composition and authority of that majority. But let me first, before I do that, pass in very brief review—for this is surely the appropriate occasion to do so—the main features and the governing principles of this financial scheme. It was devised, as everybody knows, to meet what is now universally acknowledged to have been a twofold national necessity—to provide funds for old age pensions and to satisfy exceptional calls for the purposes of national and imperial defence. How has my right hon. Friend met the demand—the exceptional, and I may say unprecedented, demand—made upon him as Chancellor of the Exchequer? In the first place, and necessarily, he has met it by a very considerable reduction in the sum which we have been in the habit of setting aside for paying off the principal of our National Debt. My right hon. Friend was justified in taking that course, and no one, I think, has quarrelled with this part of his scheme. He was justified by the unprecedented efforts of the previous three years, in which we had reduced the debt by an amount absolutely unexampled in our financial history. But let me point out, and it is a most significant fact from another point of view, that even with the suspension which my right hon. Friend justly made of the large provision we have been in the habit of setting aside for the reduction of the principal of the debt, the actual redemption of principal in the financial year just expired amounts to no less than £12,657,000. Of that, £6,970,000 of reduction in the funded debt was, of course, provided by the Sinking Fund of the previous year, but the balance of very nearly £6,000,000 has been entirely derived from the revenue of the
524
year just expired. Terminable annuities to the extent of £2,133,000, unfunded debt, or what are called lottery bonds, and other miscellaneous payments amount to £1,339,000; and capital liabilities under the Naval and Military Works Acts have been paid off from the Army and Navy Estimates to the extent of no less than £2,215,000, so that in this very year of exceptional emergency and necessity we have actually out of the taxation of the year paid off something like £6,000,000 of the principal of our national and capital debt. That is a fact which, I think, my right hon. Friend may justly regard with complacency when he compares his practice and proceedings with those which have been pursued by the Finance Ministers of every other great country in the world. That was the first great expedient which we resorted to.
The next, of course, and far more important and more wide-reaching, was the new taxation which this Budget imposes. I have been listening, as I always do, with respect and, so far as I could, with understanding, to the arguments of the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Mr. Pretyman), and I find that be, like so many of those who preceded him on the same bench and behind him, discovered no principle whatever in the new forms of taxation proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and sanctioned by the late House of Commons and about to be sanctioned by this House of Commons, other than a vindictive selection for what I may call the retributive treatment of special classes and interests in the country, who for social or political reasons are obnoxious to His Majesty's Government.
Sir F. BANBURY: Hear, hear.
The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Baronet cheers that sentiment, and I think it exactly expresses his view. On the other hand, our contention has been throughout that we have made an honest and, as we think, a successful attempt to ensure that the new burden, very large and very heavy burden as it is, should be carefully and equitably distributed among the various members of the community. These are the two contentions. I think I have stated them both as they were stated by their respective supporters. Let us see which is right. Has any class been allowed to escape scot-free from the new taxation to meet these necessities? The working class do not escape in so far as they are consumers of alcohol and tobacco. The middle class have not escaped.

525
The Income Tax has been kept at a very high rate, a rate which in the old days would have been called a war rate, and a rate which I say quite candidly could not have been justified even under the exceptional conditions in which we live had it not been that we discriminate between earned and unearned incomes, and place it on a fair and equitable basis. The well-to-do have not escaped. They have got to pay the Super-tax in the character of Income Tax payers, and their descendants, who succeed to their property, have to pay the extra Death Duties imposed under the higher scale. Finally, the owners of monopolies have not escaped—monopolies which | are, I will not say so dear to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but which he finds difficulty in understanding why they should be regarded as fair pray for the tax collector. He has spoken of the land and liquor monopolies, but in both cases, in so far as they are subject to taxation in this Budget, they are the creation, either direct or indirect, of the State and the community. Nothing has escaped. Whether you look at the Land Taxes or the Liquor Licences, nothing is taxed under this Budget except the added value by the exercise of industry or by the action of the State.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: What about brewers' licences?
The PRIME MINISTER: lam not dealing with brewers' licences. I expressly said that the licence of the retail publican and the brewers' licence are on a totally different footing. It is a tax on beer, and it is on exactly the same footing as the Spirit Duty. A clear proof of that is that we put on a Customs duty in order to meet it. I have admitted from the first that was obviously and absolutely necessary. Why is it necessary? Because it is a tax on the commodity itself. It is not a tax on the monopoly at all. As regards the Land Taxes and the taxes on the retail sale of intoxicating liquors, I say they are monopoly duties, and monopoly duties alone.
The right hon. Gentleman has rather challenged me on this point and I shall take, by way of illustration, those very Licence Duties. I think they have been more attacked in detail in the course of the discussion than perhaps any other specific part of the Budget. Let us see what they are. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) seems to think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has singled out some particular trade. It is
526
this trade to-day, it may be that trade tomorrow, and another trade the day after, and he makes it subject of special and vindictive treatment. Does he really contend that a trade carried on by a licensed dealer stands on the same footing as any other trade in this country? Let him show me any other trade which a man cannot carry on without a licence from the State, let him show me another trade where the trader's licence is a protection from competition, let him show me another trade where the State by its own action confers on the person who carries on that trade a special chance and opportunity of making a profit which is not enjoyed by other members of the community—if he will show me such a trade I will say, "Certainly it is a very fit subject for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I hope in the next Budget he will tax the monopoly value as he is doing in regard to the liquor trade." What are these Licence Duties which are so burdensome, so iniquitous, and so inequitable? Let us see what they are. The drink bill, as it is called, that is the amount expended on the consumption of alcoholic liquor for last year, is I see estimated at £155,000,000. You have to add to these Licence Duties the old Licence Duties. They make something like £2,100,000. That is the estimated yield from my right hon. Friend's new duties. These Licence Duties, imposed on the persons who retail the drink, which is represented by that enormous sum, amount to £4,210,000. In other words, they are a tax of 2.6 per cent, on the retail trade. I am reminded by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Herbert Samuel) that the £2,000,000 includes the wholesale manufacturers' licences. The publicans' licences are only £1,500,000. Therefore I overstated when I said that the Licence Duties amount to a tax of 2½ per cent. They do not amount to so much.
Let me ask the House to bear these figures in mind. Mr. Gladstone's scale, that is the existing scale, of Licence Duties was imposed in 1880. Between 1880 and 1908 the population increased by 8,000,000 in England and Wales. The drink expenditure has increased by £15,000,000, and the number of licensed houses had diminished by 10,000. In other words, the monopoly has become more profitable, and it has also become more concentrated by falling into fewer hands. Again, we are dealing with the ability to pay, which the right hon. Gentleman opposite very justly said is one of the canons of taxation. Taxation ought to bear some

527
proportion to ability to pay. What is the case as regards this scale? Under the scale laid down by Mr. Gladstone in 1880, and now the law of the land, all public-houses with a rental of £50, or under, pay from 40 to 60 per cent, of their annual value in the shape of Licence Duties. Out of 87,000 public-houses in this country no less than 50,000 at this moment fall under this category. What do we propose to do in this vindictive measure in which we entirely ignore the people's ability to pay, and in which, out of a pure spirit of vindictiveness and spite, we are imposing an intolerable burden upon a much afflicted and persecuted industry? What are we doing? We are simply saying that that which is at present the law in regard to all public-houses of £50 or under shall be the law in regard to public-houses which are of an annual value which is greater; and in addition to that, the right hon. Gentleman, in that spirit of conciliation—I might almost say a tenderness—which he has shown in reference to this Bill from the first moment it was introduced, has made a number of most expensive concessions to hotels, restaurants and public-houses on the higher scale. I do not think that there is any part of the Budget which is more clearly justified as a consistent and logical carrying out of principles already embodied on the Statute Book than that part which proposes increased Licence Duty on the most valuable class of public-houses that are enjoying the largest part of the monopoly granted by the State.
I pass now to an entirely different point. I must say a word on the more general topic which has been mooted in the course, of these discussions, as to the financial position and credit of our country. I do not think that the mere quotation of prices at which the funds happen to stand at a particular time affords any satisfactory or adequate criterion, but I should not be in the least afraid to take that. What are our Consols at now? They happen to be very low at the present moment; I do not know what they are to-day, but they were 81 for this 2½ per cent, security. What are German Three per Cents.? I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman expects to be taken seriously in this connection. I thought that Germany was the paradise, the model, and the exemplar which we are all invited to follow in these days. German Three per Cents, stand at 83, and reduced to a 2½ per cent
528
basis they are at 69.17. In other words, there is an advantage of no less than eleven points in favour of the English security. I do not regard that as in any way a sufficient or conclusive test. So far I agree with the hon. Baronet. Why is it not? Much reference has been made to the undoubted fall in the price of Consols, our premier security, since 1898. That fall is due, as everybody acquainted with the facts knows, not to diminished prosperity in this country, not to any relative falling back as compared with other nations in our industrial activity, or in the profits of that activity. It is due to the number of specfic causes, which are perfectly familiar to every man of business, and ought to be familiar to every politician. We have seen during that time an enormous increase, due to the action of the Legislature, in the amount and the range of what are called trust securities, which accounts for a very large part of the relative fall in Consols. We have had since the South African War a colossal addition to the debt of the country for the time being, though I am glad to say it is now disappearing, and the borrowing that was necessary at the rate of 3 per cent. We have had the issue of Irish Land Stock on a very large scale at 2¾ per cent., and we have had the constant and growing competition of municipal and local bodies, who are constantly coming into the market. If you take into account those and many other circumstances which have contributed, it would have been morally, fiscally, and financially impossible to have; maintained Consols at the artificial price at which they stood twenty or thirty years ago.
I want to take another test than looking at these more or less disputable comparisons between the prices of securities as such. These are very often due to local and transient causes. Let us just look at the financial position as disclosed in the Budgets of the present year of three or four of the great countries of the world, including our most energetic and successful commercial rival. I would begin with France. For the financial year ending 31st January the expenditure is £166,000,000; the revenue is £158,000,000, and the deficit is £8,000,000. That deficit is to be covered by the issue of short term bonds. If the hon. Baronet will allow me I will take next the German Empire. The financial year begins like ours on 1st April. Take 1909. The expenditure, adding the ordinary and ex-

529
traordinary, was £139,500,000, and the revenue was £129,000,000. The deficit has to be met by a loan of £10,000,000. The deficit of the year before was no less than £8,000,000. I will take now the Empire of Russia. In the same year, 1909, the expenditure was £279,000,000, and the revenue was £270,000,000. The deficit is to be met by a loan of £9,000,000. Finally I will take the United States of America, which is the greatest and most serious of all our rivals. The financial year begins there on 1st July. On the Budget for 1908–9 the expenditure was £173,000,000; the revenue was £161,000,000, and the deficit was £11,750,000. The estimated deficit for the year not yet expired is £6,500,000. So whichever of those four countries you take you will find in every one of them what we should regard in this country of ours as an enormous deficit which is being met not by taxation, but by additions to the National Debt. My right hon. Friend closes the financial year 1909–10 in possession of a large surplus. He is the only Financial Minister among the Ministers of the great countries of the world who is at this moment in that position. And as I pointed out earlier in my speech, that result has been achieved after paying off out of the revenue of the year no less than £6,000,000 towards the capital of the National Debt.
I said at the beginning that before sitting down I would say one word as to the majority by which this Budget was; going to be carried. We were told that the votes of the people of this country, the people of Great Britain, were going to be overridden by an element introduced from elsewhere. As a matter of fact there is a very large majority for the Budget among the representatives of Great I Britain. I should like to make two observations upon that. I have never myself practiced or preached what I may call this form of Separatist logic which seeks to discriminate between the votes of Members of Parliament according to the parts of the country from which they; come. I am much too good a Unionist to indulge in any such practice. But indeed I have never thought and do not think now that, apart from Great Britain, there is any steady preponderating volume
of opinion against the Budget on the other side of St. George's Channel. The House listened—unfortunately I was not able to hear it—to a most powerful and able speech from the Member (Mr. Devlin) who, expressing the opinion of that great commercial community—[HON. Members: "No."] The part which he represents, at any rate, said that the Budget had the whole-hearted support of the people.
One is tempted to ask the question, when is a bargain not a bargain? Apparently if and when—it is not going to happen—the hon. Gentlemen who represent Ireland join forces with the hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. These enemies of the Constitution, these disintegrators of the unity of the Kingdom, these accomplices in treason, and heaven knows what other crimes, they are then clad in the garb of immaculate innocence, and are welcomed as the authorised exponents of the views of the people of the United Kingdom. That is the notion which hon. Gentlemen opposite entertain of what is a bargain. What hypocrisy all this is; arrant, rank, transparent hypocrisy. In taking leave as we do to-night of this Budget, as far as the House of Commons is concerned—I do not think we are likely to hear of it again—if it were the last word I ever had to utter in this House, I should be glad to record my own unalloyed satisfaction that in the first place it fell to my lot to lay the foundation, prepare the way, and initiate the working of what is now a national and indestructible system of Old Age Pensions, and that in the next place I was permitted through the genius, tact, patience and courage of my right hon. Friend to be associated with him in this great financial scheme which, without entrenching in any way upon the principles or the practice of the fiscal system that has made our country prosperous and commercially supreme, is going to provide an adequate, an ample, and an expanding revenue, alike for the needs of national defence and of social reform.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 324; Noes, 231.
And, it being Eight of the clock, Mr. Speaker proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 18th April, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at Eight of the clock this day.

RATING AND TENURE OF LAND.
Mr. VERNEY Mr. VERNEY rose to call attention to the relation between the artificial restrictions in the use of land and unemployment; and to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, the present system of taxation, rating, and tenure of land tends to restrict the best use of the land and the application to it of capital and labour, thereby hindering the production of wealth and causing unemployment."
I have no intention of attempting to cover the whole ground of this Motion.

537
I have no panacea to offer for evils which exist, and, least of all, would I attempt a dose of quack medicine in the shape of Protection, which many years ago proved so mischievous to the body politic and the whole country at large. I would ask those who follow me whether we cannot arrive at some ideal as to what the tenure of land should be. I will deal mostly with tenure and very little with taxation or rating. There surely is some common ground upon which those who have been connected in the country with agricultural land, which has been my lot all my life, can possibly find some common ground upon which we can meet. I do not stand up here to propose a universal system of small holdings with an unlimited sub-division, without regard to soil, climate, neighbourhood of market, and conditions of those who live on the land; but I do think that, generally-speaking, opportunity should be given, and effort for varying kinds of tenure wherever the demand exists for them, freehold, leasehold, yearly tenancy, free trade in land, and no artificial restriction. Plots of land vary in size from the cottage garden, the allotment, the small holding and the farm—a tenure that would permit of facility of transfer and that would yet ensure adequate security to the tenant as well as to the freeholder, provided always that the land was being used for the good advantage of the community at large. Above all, I advocate that those who tive on the land and gain their livelihood by it should not be prevented by feudal law or arbitrary customs and restrictions from acquiring the raw material for their industry, that they should have access to the land in the same way as a tailor has access to cloth, or a shoemaker to leather. I think undoubtedly that there should be as little difficulty for the labourer to get his raw material and to rise in his profession and to advance in his trade and industry as for others who follow different lines of work, and who gain by their thrift and by their energy the position whicih they are able to hold later in life.
What is our English system of tenure. I venture to say that the landlord of a big estate holds a position which is held by perhaps nobody else in this country and by very few people abroad. He has got tremendous power in his hands over every farmer and every cottager on the estate, and, putting aside for the moment his legal right of eviction under the existing system, the comfort, the health, and the happiness of every family on that estate is largely dependent on the way in which the land-
538
lord regards his position, duties to the people, and expenditure of his money. Landlords are called generally tenants for life, but those tenants for life make or mar an estate for many lives to follow after them. They may charge it with debts, of which the interest will make it absolutely impossible for succeeding landlords For generations to come to make farms tenant-able and cottages inhabitable. Many thousands of labourers to-day, and farmers also, are. suffering from the selfish and thoughtless extravagance of landlords who have been in their graces for generations perhaps. The heir to an estate, several thousands of acres perhaps, comes into his property as a young man, and is promptly informed by the family solicitor that he is nothing but a magnificent pauper. There is a mortgage, perhaps a hundred years old, absorbing £5,000 per year in interest. There are charges for the younger children; the widow two or three thousand more perhaps. There are bilk for repairs coming in, there is a large house to keep up, and the heir to the estate is the pauper of the family. He is supposed to give subscriptions to everything—to the hunt, the hospital, the churches and the chapels, friendly societies, bazaars, and athletic clubs—and the young man gives it up as a bad job, takes lodgings in London, lives in his club, and the old place goes to the dogs. That is the history of many an estate in this country, and a bad history it is, for not only he suffers, but the whole village, the whole estate, and every man and every woman and every child on it suffers. Farming deteriorates, and the farmers with the farms and the farm buildings. Those who can leave the place do so, especially the young men, and it takes many a long year to recover the mischief done by one single bad administration for one single life. There is the other picture, the bright one, and nobody has a better right than I have to dwell on that, of the landowner with brains enough and heart enough and money enough to keep everything straight, the friend of everyone on his property, helping lame dogs over stiles with quiet generosity which never leaks out, known-to everybody, loved by everybody, greeted with a nod and a smile by young and old. rich and poor. That is the other side of the picture, and I should not be fair if I did not represent that as1 well as the dark. Probably there are many in this House who have seen both as I have.
I wish to deal with the question of unemployment first of all from the general

539
point of view. In 1851 there was a population in this country of 18,000,000, and at that time there were 1,370,000 workers on farms. In 1901, with a population not far short of double —32,500,000 —those 1,370,000 workers were reduced to 621,000. So that during the fifty years, while the population nearly doubled, the agricultural workers decreased to considerably less than half their former number. The worst of it was the most rapid decline took place during the last ten years. We all know that there are very good reasons given for that decline. People will tell you, with perfect truth, of the great advantages offered in the towns, how the opportunities for education, advancement, and everything else have been multiplied. I do not regret or grudge one of those opportunities; on the contrary, I think that that, is all as it should be; but, unfortunately, while the towns have advanced in this way, the country has not advanced in the same sense. Whereas young men to-day can find in the polytechnics in the great towns opportunities for pursuing their industry and climbing up the ladder from the journeyman to the employer by the aid of instruction of the very best kind, there are not the same opportunities in the country. The consequence is that many a young man in the country to-day is looking forward to the opportunity of coming into the town, where he can learn more and get better opportunities, rather than remain where he is with a wage of 15s. or 16s. per week, with the prospect of little better than the workhouse at the end of it all. In 1906 the Board of Agriculture published a Report on the decline in agricultural population. Allotments are very common, and the ground for them is forthcoming in many counties—not in all nor on all estates. The demand varies considerably, and depends largely on the distance of the allotments from the homes, the kind of soil, and the opportunities for cultivation. With regard to small holdings there is a difference. By looking through the pages of that Report it will be found that, while allotments are very generally forthcoming, the opportunities for getting small holdings are more rarely offered, with the result that the labourer who wishes, I think rightly, to gain an opportunity for rising in his trade and industry, having got an allotment, finds himself blocked because he cannot go any further. Those of us
540
who would most willingly extend the system, and are engaged on county council small holdings committees, find a block in the way of many of our applicants, and we do not know how to remove it. The block is partly owing to the fact that there is a large expenditure necessary for buildings, fencing, and sometimes for water supply, in order to make the small holdings of real use to those who get them.
To show the curious and close connection between the tenure of land and unemployment I will give a concrete instance from a parish in my own county, of which I know the particulars. There in North Bucks was a farm belonging to an Oxford college. It consisted of 350 acres, partly arable, partly pasture. For many years the farm was occupied as a dairy farm, and about ten men and four boys were permanently employed. The farmer died and the new man, who was a non-resident, came from a distant county, and took the farm for breeding purposes. What happened? Eight of the men were dismssed: two men and one boy only are left, and occasionally a little casual labour is employed. That is the existing state of things, and it is typical of hundreds of farms all over the country. By way of contrast, in the same parish there are some ten or twelve small farmers, whose holdings cover very much the same acreage as the college farm. On those small holdings twelve households are supported, besides certain casual labour, which is tolerably continuous. Then, again, a very short distance from that parish, a nurseryman bought eleven acres, and has made a nursery garden, upon which he employs about three times as much labour as is employed on the 350 acres of the college farm. There you get the large farm, the small farmers, and the nurseryman with his intensive cultivation, and you could hardly have a greater contrast within a few miles. Everyone must see at once how closely connected are small holdings and population. In the Report of the Small Holdings Committee, 1906, there is the interesting evidence of Mr. J. H. Diggle, agent of the South Lincolnshire Small Holdings Association. He says:—
"Small holdings have been the fashion in the Holland Division of Lincolnshire for many years past. Within 40n square miles there are no less than 2,000 small holdings of from five to fifty acres. In 1891 —I call especial attention to the dates —the population of that division was 75,599. In 1901, instead of decreasing as it has done in many counties, it had actually increased by 2,000."

541
Thus you find that, whereas in many other counties there is a melancholy story of a marked decrease in population in the last decade of the last century, in the districts where you have small holdings the population not only maintains its ground, but is likely to increase. The evils of depopulation are really not felt at all in those districts. As for the other parishes around, I find from the evidence in the Report to which I have referred that in ten years, when there were hardly any small holdings, perhaps none, there was an exodus supposed to mount up to 2,500 from nineteen parishes near Spalding; but from 1892 to 1902, since the Small Holdings Act was in full blast, the exodus has dropped. In those very same parishes where there were no small holdings in the earlier period, the moment the small holdings remedy was applied the population maintained its ground. Perhaps the House will bear with me while I quote two concrete cases of estates managed by gentlemen well known to most Members of this House. The first case is that of the President of the Board of Agriculture, a well-known Bucks and Lincolnshire landlord. The Noble Lord came into possession of his property in 1868. At that time there were on the Carrington estate sixty-one small holdings and 100 allotments of from 20 poles to an acre in extent. That was in 1868. In 1910, instead of sixty-one small holdings on that estate there were 219, and instead of 100 allotments there are 2,059. Besides this there are at this moment about 100 acres either leased or offered by the President of the Board of Agriculture to the county council. There are ninety-eight acres let to parish councils for allotment. There are 143 acres at Wycombe for the Small Holders Co-operative Association there. There are 967 acres let for the South Lincolnshire Small Holders Association, and, I was going to say the very best of it, but at all events, not the worst part of it is that these allotments and small holdings bring in to the owner of this estate a quite sufficient return —further, the rents are practically paid with absolute punctuality.
Take one village in Buckinghamshire, the village of Drayton Parslow, an entirely agricultural village, with a total population according to the last Census, of 369. The total acreage of that village is 1,749. Of this, 781 acres belong to the President of the Board of Agriculture. Of this land 417 acres are let out in allotments and small holdings, and the rest in two farms.
542
About twenty men and boys are employed by the large farmers. The remainder—say 350—get their living mainly, not entirely, from the small holdings and the allotments on that estate. When you come to understand that the soil is poor clay, and that the village is five miles from the nearest station, and that the town there is not a market town, you will understand—everyone who interests himself in agriculture will understand —what splendid material is there—how gallantly the men who work these allotments stick to their job, and how well they deserve of their country. You will find, under circumstances which most people would tell you are singularly unfavourable for successful experiments in small holdings, a success where perhaps you least would expect it. May I give one other case in Lincolnshire, a case very well known to a recent Member of this House (Sir Charles Rose). The result of the work recently done during the last few years is so remarkable that I venture to trouble the House with it. Burwell Farm was leased in 1906 by Sir Charles Rose at a rental of £700 per year. He spent about £1,870 on equipment at the start, and £1,600 on eight new cottages and some additional buildings. For two years previous to Sir Charles Rose taking this farm it had been "in hand," managed by the Crown receivers, and thirty-nine men and boys were employed on that farm. Under Sir Charles Rose's new r égime there are now eighty-three tenants on allotments and small holdings. About twenty of them get their whole living off the holdings, and there is hired labour besides. The figures —I have got them at first hand —are very striking as regards the cattle and the stock on that farm. In 1906 there were sixty-six head of cattle; in 1907 that figure had risen to 171, and in 1909 to 267. In 1906 there were 122 pigs; in 1909 249 pigs. In 1906 the poultry numbered 267, and in 1909 637. Food stuffs bought in 1908 amounted to £753, and in 1909 to £1,141.
Anyone who is the least bit acquainted with the figures on agricultural estates will know what an enormous amount that means in progress, in prosperity, in success in encouraging the ambition of those who cultivate that land. I think, at all events, that the agricultural Members of this House will warmly congratulate the author of that interesting experiment on the success which he has achieved so far. May I also mention some of the attempts now being made to improve the small holdings movement, and to expand the

543
policy which has proved so successful and beneficial to the country. There is a Bill before Parliament which bears the name on it of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture. That Bill is to provide compensation to tenants who have been served with notice to quit in order that their land may be used for allotments and for small holdings under the Act of 1908.That, I think, is an eminently fair measure. I have often come across farmers who inquire what the land is these small holders want? The answer, of course, invariably is the same: "We want the best." very naturally! Yet, I am sure everyone in this House will agree with me, that you may by taking away even a single field from a farm lower the average value of that farm so much that many farmers would give it up. Everyone who knows anything about the cultivation of land knows that the value for cultivation of one field may vary immensely. The top of the field may be worth 30s. an acre, and the bottom worth 5s. I have known such cases. They continually come up before us who happen to be members of a small holdings committee in our own county. A great difference in the value makes it very difficult indeed to deal fairly with the farmer, as well as every other class, in administering the Acts relating to small holdings and allotments. Let me say in passing no one has so little wish to run amok with the farmers than I myself have. I know so well the difficulties that they have to go through. We have watched many of them in bad season after bad season, struggling with many difficulties which have been successfully overcome only with great skill and energy, and nobody would wish to deal unfairly with farmers while they are trying to deal fairly with other classes of agriculturists. There are now attempts also being made to multiply small holdings. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham is bringing in a Bill, backed by several Conservative Members, in order to allow county councils in certain cases to advance the whole of the purchase money for small holdings. In addition to that under the right hon. Gentleman's Bill the county council may advance a large proportion for the necessary buildings to be put up. I have no kind of dislike to that provided always that it is on sound economic lines, and provided always that you get the right man and the right land brought together.
544
Under these circumstances nothing could be more to the point than that you should give the small holder the power of obtaining the capital which is absolutely necessary for the work that he has got to do.
The Duke of Bedford is now making a very interesting attempt which we shall all watch with great interest. He is turning a farm of 450 acres near Ampthill into small holdings, and we all wish him success in that venture. I ask the House to focuss its attention on one or two proposals which I have to make. I think what we really want is to improve to some extent the Small Holdings Act where it has been found deficient. We want vigorous and active administration. We do not always get it.
I was put upon the sub-committee of the Bucks County Council, and I sat under a Conservative chairman to examine applications and to receive applications from those who wanted small holdings. We examined forty-three, and out of these thirty-eight were passed as thoroughly satisfactory. My Conservative friend who was chairman of that committee said to me, "This has been a perfect revelation to me. These men who come forward and ask for land are the very men who ought to be put upon the land." I am afraid, although that happened nearly two years ago, many of these men are applicants still, and will have to wait for months before they can get land for which they are so fitted and which they are thoroughly capable to work. What we want is to speed up the procedure under the early clauses of the Act of 1908. People who are acquainted with the actual administration of that Act will agree that is what is wanted, and I think the procedure could be speeded up without doing any harm or injustice to the farmers or to any other class.
The Act is very dilatory. It is a complicated Act to put in force. It may have been right as a matter of caution when the Act was first passed to extend the time for procedure so as to make quite certain that no damage should be done while the Act was in an experimental stage; but now, when the time for experiment is passed by, and people know what can be done under the Act, I think it would be safe to speed up some of the procedure so as not to keep applicants waiting month after month, and sometimes year after year, for land which they deserve to get. The county council were given powers under Section 49 of the Act to promote the

545
formation or extension of co-operative societies for providing or working small holdings. I venture to suggest that the Development Fund, with which we will be dealing to-night, might profitably come in, and rightly come in, in helping in the formation of these co-operative societies. Those who have watched co-operation in Ireland as applied to agriculture, and who have watched co-operation in Denmark and Holland and other European countries, understand, as nobody else can, the wonderful assistance co-operation is to all sorts of agriculture in all sorts of different ways. May I suggest one way that has not been brought before the House before? The chairman of a syndicate of 160 farmers in North Holland once said to me: "Your inspectors in England are your farmers' worst enemies. They are our best friends; and why? For the simple reason," said he, "we employ our own inspectors. Your inspectors in England in most cases come around to penalise and to impose fines. The difficulty we have with the members of our agricultural societies is this: they are always sending for the inspector. They telegraph for him immediately anything appears to go wrong with the farm, and he comes, not to inflict a fine or to cause trouble, but to get the farmer out of his difficulties." This occurred in a dairying district, and he pointed out that if the milk is found in any way tainted the cans are sealed up by this official and sent on to the creamery; there they are further tested, if necessary, by the Government inspector, and if the milk is found to be injurious it is officially destroyed. I ask how about the farmer, does he not lose his milk? "Oh, no," he said, "he does not lose his milk, because there is a mutual insurance, and if the man had obeyed the rules of his society he will get paid for his milk the same average price that he has been getting for it for the last six weeks."
By co-operation you would solve this great difficulty of supplying pure milk, because it is to the interest of every farmer in that district that his milk should be pure, and there is no penalty attaching to him if disease should break out on his farm. It would be of immense interest to our dairy commerce in counties like my own, where dairy farming is the staple trade for the locality. I venture to suggest that it is an important thing that we should have every possible form of co-operation, that we should spend the necessary amount of money upon educating the younger men and fitting them to deal
546
scientifically with farming in the future, and that we should encourage them and give them the best hopes, so that they may be anxious to remain on the land because there is a bright future before them. By doing so, I think this House will confer an enormous blessing upon the country, and make sure that we shall no longer have the curse of depopulation staring us in the face and increasing year by year until it has become a real national danger.
Mr. WALSH: I rise with pleasure to second the Resolution which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Verney). He has spoken a great deal in regard to the latter part of this Resolution dealing with the tenure of land. I propose to confine myself principally to the other points spoken of in the other Resolution, namely, the taxation and the rating of land. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the problems which my hon. Friend has alluded to are very keen and pressing in agricultural areas. Any person who has paid attention to the very serious depopulation of our agricultural districts, and the great decrease in the agricultural population generally, must feel that this is a most serious matter for a nation such as ours, but although the problem is acute in the agricultural districts, I think the particular phases of it to which we call attention this evening, are, if anything, more acute and pressing in the urban centres of population. I have been all my life mainly an inhabitant of the towns, and I think if we study the condition of things in the towns we shall see that although the rightful use of land and the conditions of its tenure are of great value in the country districts, the right use of the land and the method of taxation and rating of the land are of infinitely greater moment in the urban districts. Our country has become during the last half-century a country consisting to the extent of 75 per cent. of urban population. Although land is indeed valuable in the agricultural districts it is infinitely more valuable for the elementary necessities of life in the urban districts, and we find that whatever discovery is made, whatever works are erected, if you sink a coal-mine, if you start a factory, if you develop a railway, whatever may be the useful purpose to which you set yourself, you are treated not as a benefactor, but very largely as a malefactor, and the enemy of the human race.

547
I can give as a case in point the council on which I sat as a member shortly after the year 1894. A railway runs through that little township about six miles in length. That railway was rated to the general district rates of the town at nearly £15,000, or at the rate of £2,500 per mile. The improvements brought about by this railway were very great, but the landowners in that particular area received all the benefit, while the railway, which had really been a great boon to the district and a still greater boon to the landowners, was burdened with taxation and assessed at the rate of £15,000 a year. A little later on coal mining property was developed very largely.
9.0 P.M.
Before the town had possessed a rural character, but after that it became a very hive of industry. Land which at the highest agricultural value had not been worth more than £2 an acre began to yield rentals of £50 per acre, and the persons who were in receipt of this profit did not contribute one halfpenny to local taxation, the whole burden falling entirely upon the workers and those who may be euphemistically described as "captains of industry." At least we can say to the credit of the mine owner that he did take some risk—
"Hope springs eternal in the human breast,"
and they were prepared to invest their money in the hope that they were engaging in a profitable enterprise. They did take the risk and they paid all the local rates. Tramways were constructed, new schemes of lighting and new streets were made, and large aggregations of men came together, and all the elements and needs of civilised society had to be met, and the whole cost of these new conditions fell not upon the men who were reaping the immense values to create which they had not lifted hand or foot, but upon those who developed the enterprise either by brains or capital, as in the case of the colliery owners and the railway company, or else upon the working men who were risking life and limb every day in these enterprises. Surely that is a condition of things which nobody can contend is equitable.
I noticed an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Sir John Randles) which proposes to call attention to unemployment and to insert in this Motion after the word "land" the words "when coupled
548
with the free importation of competing foreign products not subjected to similar burdens." I am not going to enlarge upon that special Amendment, but I would like to ask the hon. Member's attention to the question whether it is not a fact that in every nation in the world where they have a similar system of land holding to that which exists in the British Isles, and where they have a similar system of rating and taxation you do not have exactly the same evils complained of in the shape of widespread unemployment continual recurring depression, and dislocation of industry as you have in the British Isles. That is beyond all dispute, whatever may be the nature of your fiscal system. This is a quack remedy which is suggested by the hon. Member, and that is the last word I am going to say about it. Instead of treating the people who initiate and develop industry as being folks deserving of credit, and deserving to have their enterprise assisted and encouraged, our present system of rating does everything to discourage and to throttle their efforts. Let me give a case in point. We have very near the Division I represent a great colliery company. It sank a great amount of capital, lost thousands of pounds upon the enterprise, paid away in royalty rents alone £10,000, and was met by the royalty owner half-way through the term of the lease by a request for a greater royalty. So great had been the local burden of taxation, that it was utterly impossible for the colliery company to pay. They said: "We really cannot go on." The royalty owner insisted upon his demand, and the colliery had to be closed. The royalty owner took over the shafts and the cottage property. In the meantime he had escaped all local taxation, and he paid very little indeed to Imperial taxation. Therefore, whatever enterprise the community engages in, is constantly bringing grist to the mill of the private landowner, and the burdens piled upon the general community makes it more and more difficult for the community to meet its increasing needs.
During the last ten years the town of Wigan has increased in rateable value by 30 per cent. The chances are that on an average £25,000 a year has been added to the rateable value during that period. That really means that to the owners of the ground rents there has been given this very large sum. It simply tends to check and to thwart the development and the industries of the place, and because of the

549
high rates to-day, we find that town, like many other towns, unable to make that advance in general improvements which it really ought to make. The one person, or the one body of persons, who sit like "the Old Man of the Sea" upon the shoulders of every real improvement, checking the improvement, holding it back, and in many cases making enterprise impossible, are the people who escape local taxation, and who are paying as the days go on an ever lessening share of Imperial taxation, namely, the landowners of the country.
Every necessity of health, every amenity, and every social reform send up the value of the land. Hon. Members on the other side say, "Tax luxuries." There may be a good deal to be said for that, but our present system of rating and of taxation taxes necessities. There is no greater necessity than to have freedom to breathe and decent housing conditions whereby our people can live a decent Christian life. Is that possible in the great cities of today? I hope, as indeed everyone must hope, that it is becoming at least a little more possible because of the trend of general legislation and because of the awakening responsibility of the nation; but, if ever there was a city that suffered from congestion, it is the city that I am proud to own as my native place —the City of Liverpool.
Very many years ago Liverpool endeavoured to provide for the needs of its people, and they constructed at great expense a fine park —Sefton Park. They paid to the man who was good enough to let them have the land £250,000 for the land alone, and they spent in generally improving the site another £150,000. The landowner, the Earl of Sefton, retained the whole of the building frontage. They spent on that park, in order to enable that great community to breathe more freely, £400,000, and the whole of that immense burden fell upon the rates. The immensely increased value of the land, of course, sent up the rent-roll of my Lord of Sefton. He sat on velvet all the time. Than we wonder, when these conditions can be multiplied by the tens of thousands all the country over, why the rates are high and why every dividend-paying company every half-year sends out piteous appeals to its shareholders to try and get hold of the local governing councils in order to keep down the rates.
Liverpool, which, as everyone of course knows, is a great commercial city, had
550
need not very long ago, for a new post-office. The Government built a new post-office. Land, of course, was again required, and my Lord of Derby was kind enough to provide the land. The land for which not a single halfpenny had ever been paid in the history of the whole of his family became worth to my Lord of Derby £100,000. The nation spent another £150,000 upon the erection of a building, and in that instance alone £250,000 were saddled upon Imperial taxation. The landowner gains £250,000, and pays, I suppose, something like 9d. in the £ Income Tax and believes he is very badly hit at that. A little later, when we try to improve things a bit he believes himself to be cruelly wronged, suggests the nation should be consulted, and hangs up the Budget in the meantime. That is the kind of treatment we are receiving.
I suggest that the burdens upon the people, because of the inequalities of our system of rating and of taxation, have reached a point when they very well cannot bear them. The land must bear a fair and increasing share of the taxation. There must not only be a valuation of the land, but there must be taxation for local and Imperial purposes of the value that that land is declared to possess. I do not see why if a person, merely for his own advantage, cares to hold land up, or if even he holds it up in the desire to get a greater price for it at a later date, an assessor is not entitled to some along and say, "Declare for yourself the present value of your land, and at your declared price that land shall figure in the rate book, and shall pay its fair share of the local charges." I do not see also why the Imperial tax collector has not an equal right to say, "Declare the value of your land." I am speaking of existing values. The Budget does not propose to tax existing values. It only proposes to tax values when they are increased on the present valuation. I would like to point out that even the Land Tax, which land-owners pay at the present time, was considerably reduced fourteen years ago. The tax was then 2s. in the £. In 1896 it was reduced to 1s., and a burden was thereby imposed upon leaseholders which they did not seem to be aware of; at least there was no outcry on their part; and, of course, there was no outcry from the people at the other end of the Chamber when the tax was reduced from 2s. to 1s. I say that that is a very unfair proportion. We have a right to declare that industry shall not be unfairly burdened in the

551
manner it is. We have a right to say that the improvements carried out by the general community shall not result to the pecuniary disadvantage of that commuunity; but that those who really benefit by them —by the construction of new buildings, of school-houses, parks, and tramways, and the thousand other methods in which municipal enterprise manifests itself, I say we have a right to declare that the burden shall not fall on the improvement, but that it should be imposed on the person in receipt of the increased value of the land arising from the carrying out of the improvements. That is the main reason why I second the Resolution, because the burdens on the people in the urban centres are already so great that they have reached the straining, if not the breaking, point. Any person who has gone into the figures will have seen that the rent alone of the ordinary cottage property of this country has during the last quarter of a century increased by 30 per cent., and almost the whole of that increased value has gone into the pockets of those who toil not neither do they spin. A story is told of a landowner on the other side of the Irish Channel who was known as Cosy Murphy. He owned some land in Dublin. He was a bit of a pessimist; he was very doubtful of mankind. So one day he took to his bed, and he remained there for seven or eight years. Did his property deteriorate in value during that time? Not at all. Because of the necessities of Dublin his land increased in value week by week, and month by month, until eight years later, when he came out and viewed once more the face of man, he found that his property had quadrupled in value without the slightest effort on his part. Other people had been taxed to make Cosy Murphy comfortable. A system which permits of that surely merits the condemnation of everybody. It is so unfair to the toiler, it gives the sluggard and the drone a reward ten thousand times greater than any merit he may possess. Resolutions in this House, although they may seem at the moment to be futile, are really worth passing by reason of the effect they have in educating public opinion, and it is for that reason I have the heartiest possible pleasure in seconding the Resolution.
Sir JOHN RANDLES Sir JOHN RANDLES moved as an Amendment, after the word "land" ["rating and tenure of land"] to insert the words "when coupled with the free
552
importation of competing foreign products not subject to similar burdens."
It is a matter full of significance that when a private Member of this House gets an opportunity to ventilate what he regards as a matter of urgency and of importance we all seem with one consent to come to the question of unemployment. The difficulty of the day seems to be to provide employment for large numbers of willing workers who find it impossible to earn a wage sufficient to keep themselves and their families in comfort. After what we heard during the Debates earlier in the evening on the Budget from the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and others, one would think that we lived in a country where there is abounding and abundant prosperity; where we are all more or less wealthy, and where the last thing we need trouble about in the starving multitude of people, reinforced constantly by numbers who are living on the verge of starvation, and find it almost impossible to get their daily bread. All this is a severe comment on the conditions under which we live. The hon. Member who moved these Resolutions endeavoured to search, with some success, for the evils which help to promote unemployment. His Seconder addressed himself to some other points which he thought would afford a remedy. The Mover spent most of his time in dealing with the question of the tenure of land; the Seconder gave voice to his dissatisfaction with our system of taxation and rating. I myself agree with much that was said about the desirability of an improved tenure of land, and I was very glad to hear the Mover commenting as he did on the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings). I think it was a great mistake when the Bill under which county councils let small holdings was, in deference to certain opinions, prevented from making small ownership possible. The Bill does not help a man to become an owner.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Robson): The Small Holdings Bill dealt with ownership only, in order to facilitate it, and there was not a single clause which put any impediment in the way of or any prohibition against ownership, indeed, the clauses were intended to facilitate it.
Sir JOHN RANDLES: I do not suggest the Small Holdings Bill was a positive

553
preventive, but I say it was not a Bill intended to promote small ownership. Perhaps I was not happy in my choice of words, but I wished to urge that small ownership is greatly to be desired, and that tenancy is of far less practical value and far less likely to be successful. I heard of a case during the last General Election which deals with this point. It was put to me at one of my meetings. A man said that in his neighbourhood he wanted to get fifty acres of land. The letting value was about £1 per acre. The county council proposed to let him have the fifty acres, but it was found that it would be necessary to build a farmhouse and farm buildings, and it worked out that, instead of having to pay the £1 per acre which he thought the land was worth, he would be called upon to pay nearer £3 per acre. He consequently said, "I am not going to take land at £3 an acre that I only regard as worth £1 an acre." In that case nothing came of it, and there must be many such, so that I say that it is very desirable to follow the line indicated by the Mover of the Resolution as regards the tenure of land in order to get the best out of our land. I agree we must remove these artificial restrictions which prevent us from getting the best out of our land, as they also do in regard to our manufactures.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is rating a means of artificial restriction?
Sir J. RANDLES: I am not going to quarrel with my hon. Friend as to the artificial restrictions. I am going to touch on the point raised by the Seconder. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the rating and taxation of land, and I might have some sympathy with him, but I notice that he rejects my remedy as a quack remedy. Still there is a good deal to be said for it, and while I agree that the system of rating and taxation is not a happy one as far as the remedy of the hon. Member was concerned, it seemed to me to be this, put more rates and taxes on the land.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: Whether used or not.
Sir J. RANDLES: We are told to get more out of the land, but what will that do? It simply means this, that rents will go up and the man at the bottom —the working man —who must have his place to live in, must have his house or cottage or whatever it may be, will find that all the
554
burdens you are going to put on land in trying to get more out of the landlord in rates and taxes are going to come down with crushing weight on the man at the bottom. I am afraid that this remedy which is suggested is not nearly so easy as is that which we propose.
This country advisedly years ago adopted what is called Free Trade, and at the time I at any rate will not question the absolute desirability of the course which was taken. We found as a nation that we were a nation of agriculturists moderately well off, but as manufacturers we were just finding our feet, in consequence of the improvement in steam and the march of invention. Other nations were willing to do the agricultural work of the world, and gladly enough at that time they assented to the workshop of the world becoming our own country. It was a very wise policy then to sacrifice to some extent agricultural interests in order to build up huge manufacturing interests, and it was done advisedly, but I do think it is a mistake not to recognise changes in conditions. The conditions which were eminently suitable to that day and generation have changed, and that is why I find fault with those who like my hon. Friend call my remedy a quack remedy. They do not recognise the changed conditions.
When all the world were willing to be agriculturists, and we were to be the manufacturers, we must have free and open ports, so far as we could get them; but as time went on the other nations of the world came to the conclusion that they also would be manufacturing nations, and that they would artificially develop their manufactures. And this within our lifetime. I myself am not old, and I might give an illustration of what I know myself from my own trade—the steel trade. When I was young it is within my knowledge that the export trade of rails went to Continental countries, Germany, Italy, France, and the rest of them. Not by accident, not by superior methods of production, but by artificially designed preventives the other countries, as with the cutting of a knife, stopped the export into their country of this class of goods. That was artificial restriction, and we fell back upon other countries, Russia, the United States, Canada, and they in turn cut off our trade in the same way, because they designed artificially to do so. It was not the natural law of things, but it was artificial prevention and design, and they succeeded, and the whole change

555
comes about. It is not only to one article that it applies, but to many, and to nearly every article which we produce in some form or another in some part of the world. That being so, what I say is this: Conditions are changed, and those conditions which have made it so desirable for us to put our energies into manufactures no longer exist. You could say in those days to the agricultural labourer, "There is no lack of employment for you if you turn to the manufactures and become labourers in our urban centres." But those conditions which attracted them have ceased, and we are not the great and leading manufacturing nation in the world. Other nations have gone in front of us. Take the case of iron and steel. We occupy to-day a third place, and not a very good third place, in regard to those manufactures. Our manufacturers who used to be first in this particular branch are now third, and a very long way behind the United States, so that the conditions have changed which made so advantageous the policy of our forefathers.
This change of conditions has made it necessary, if we exercise common sense, that we should look facts in the face with a view to changing our policy again. It is no use for my hon. Friend to say, "This is a quack remedy." When these other countries designed and perfected their policy they knew that they were agriculturists exclusively, and they desired to become both agriculturists and manufacturers, and there in the combination of the two you have the best conditions for the employment and contentment of the people. You have the alternatives which make for health and for prosperity. When other nations looked this policy in the face and decided to become manufacturing nations, as I say we should decide to become an agricultural nation, wise men, clever men, not just quacks, had to consider this question. In the United States Abraham Lincoln was faced with his problem, and he took the line which the Mover and Seconder would regard as a quack movement for the improvement of his country. Prince Bismarck was faced with the question of the employment of the German soldiers after the Franco-Prussian war. When the German military authorities were preparing to discharge large bodies of men on the country, he was faced with this question of employment, and he may have thought at first that the remedy was
556
a quack one; but he faced it. [An HON. MEMBER: "How many years later?"] As many years as would give indication of the full facts, so as to enable him to decide whether he should continue his policy. Prince Bismarck went to the manufacturers and said, "So many men are coming from the army every year. You must find employment for them, and I will do what I can to enable you to do it." And the result has been the building up of an agricultural Germany and of an enormously rich manufacturing Germany.
Mr. WALSH: May I point out to the hon. Member that it was nine years after the termination of the Franco-German War and after constant pressure from the Agrarian party that Prince Bismarck imposed a tariff at all?
Sir J. RANDLES: I do not think that that is not in agreement with what I have said. It took nine years to convince Prince Bismarck, and I hope my hon. Friend will, after nine years, come to the same conclusion. It may not take so long in his case. At any rate, that was the conclusion that Prince Bismarck came to for Germany, quack or no quack. Take Canada. If the hon. Member will read the speech that Sir John MacDonald made in which he describes the condition prior to the adoption of tariffs in Canada, and after the adoption of tariffs, he will see that he attributes the prosperity of that country absolutely to the policy of tariffs. I say the United States adopted them. May I give a quotation that I got from to-day's paper from the Vice-President of the United States, Mr. Sherman, speaking, I presume, this week. This is long after Abraham Lincoln had initiated the policy. This is what he says:—
"He declared that the Protectionist policy of America could never be abandoned. The now law was working better than its framers had planned. It is a revenue getter, for it will probably wipe out the deficit in the first year. He pointed out on the other hand that the imports for the past eight months of the fiscal year exceeded by over $200,000,000 those of the previous year, and stated that nine-tenths of those imports could be made in America. He would not say that any American industry had been injured thereby, but he asked if it would not be well to examine closely these increased importations, and consider, when we again revise our tariffs, whether it will not be necessary to check the sentiment for further downward revision, and probably instead we will resort to revision upwards in some of the schedules."
This is the result of the policy and the endorsement of it by a responsible statesman in the United States, and when our proposals are dismissed in two words as merely quack remedies, I think it is not giving due heed to considerations which,

557
at any rate, have weighed with statesmen in other countries, and which have produced results which are causing, in my opinion, at any rate, vast masses of our fellow-countrymen to endure suffering and hardship which are removeable if we adopted, not the ideal policy perhaps, but the policy which has been adopted by statesmen in other countries, and which have made those other countries, at any rate, prosperous and largely wealthy, and carrying large populations in comfort and affluence.
To return to the question of agriculture and the tenure of land, you may put upon the land as many men as you wish; but what they really require and must have above all else is a market for their products. If they are to have a market for their products you must not close your eyes to the necessities of the case, and it is very difficult to get Free Traders to look at this question from the point of view of markets. It seems to be assumed that if a man grows potatoes, or any other product, there is a ready market waiting to take his products at whatever price may seem to him necessary, but that is far from the case. Our producers are being handicapped and restricted by the very incidence of this taxation, which is pressing so heavily upon the land, and which the tendency is to place upon the land, which must come out of the man who uses the land, whether it be for agriculture or for manufacturing purposes. At any rate, we are only doing what is common-sense if we impose a burden upon the competing foreigner who tries to sell in our markets equivalent to the rates and taxes which are placed upon the producer at home, and hence my Amendment. If the British farmer pays rates and taxes equal to 10 per cent, on the cost of what he produces, if he has to compete in our market with a man whose taxation does not amount to 1 per cent., how is he going to stand against the competition? We used to be protected by distance, but now, water carriage being so very much cheaper than land carriage, many parts are practically in close touch with our greatest markets at little more cost, or in many cases not so much cost, as the farmers farming land in our own countryside. It is commonsense. If you are going to adopt a land policy which will place men on the land you must give them a fair opportunity to compete with the foreigner, at any rate in our own markets at home. The remedies will be incomplete unless you couple with these pro-
558
posals, which have to do with carriage and with tariffs, and take into account the whole circumstances of the case under which competition is to be conducted. The tendency, I agree, is, on large farms particularly, that the employment of the people is lessened very largely by the form of culture. Instead of our growing wheat, which will employ labour, we tend to grow grass. The same applies in our manufactures. Instead of using our coal to make iron and steel the tendency is to send our coal abroad and to sell it as raw material. Further on you see the same process. The tendency is rather for us to be selling our iron than to make it into manufactured steel. The tendency, in fact, in this country, under our system of taxation and tariffs, is more and more to supply the raw material to the foreigner and less and less to supply goods into which labour is put. Let me give an illustration of what I mean. It is quite a common thing now for coal sold on the Tyne to go to Germany and to come back to the West Coast of Cumberland and undersell Northumberland and Durham coke.
Mr. MARKHAM: Can the hon. Gentleman give us any definite case where that is done?
Sir JOHN RANDLES: I have bought it myself.
Mr. MARKHAM: You have not.
Sir JOHN RANDLES: I have bought coke from Germany and it has been sent from the Tyne. [An HON. MEMBER: "And I have sent the coals."] The chain seems to be complete. I speak subject to correction, but that is what I believe to be the case. Allow me to give another illustration which will perhaps more effectively bear out my point, that the tendency is for us to export articles with less of labour in them. I speak of what I know best. I will take steel rails again as an illustration. I take the Board of Trade Returns for five years. They are the latest I could get. They are for the five years terminating at the end of 1907. I find that from the United Kingdom, in the five years from 1903 to 1907, our exports of this particular commodity were as follows, leaving out the hundreds: 604,000, 525,000, 546,000, 450,000, and 430,000 tons, a steady diminution in years of great trade prosperity. Let me give the same figures for Germany, France, and the United States. They begin in 1903 with

559
451,000 tons, and the figures for the following years are 683,000, 627,000, 754,000, and 818,000, showing that in years of prosperity in the world's trade the total volume exported from these different countries greatly increased. These foreign countries almost doubled and we decreased. That goes to show that the tendency not only in agriculture, but in manufactures also, under the conditions under which we are living and working, is to employ less labour. Though we may have equal wealth we may have more unemployed. Though bankers and financiers and large capitalists may be making their wealth just as freely and fully, it is at the expense of the workers of the country —the vast population which find it difficult, if not impossible, to get employment. This is being aggravated by the conditions under which we are forced to live.
Let me point out the significance of these particular figures I have quoted. They show a diminution of 200,000 tons of rails in the annual exports. That quantity means about £1,000,000, which distributed in the countryside means that the working miners, the railways, the shipping ports, furnacemen, rollers, still-workers, the grocer, the farmer, the butcher, and tradesmen of all kinds; rates, rents, and taxes, charities, and all the rest which go to make up life, were poorer by the distribution of £1,000,000 less under these conditions. It may be argued that in return we get a cheaper food supply. To my mind cheapness is not worth worshipping at the expense of the happiness of a vast proportion of the population. In the particular industry to which I am now referring, I know that in my own locality not hundreds, but thousands of people find their employment intermittent, and during the last five years they have on the whole worked at their employment not more than 50 or 60 per cent. of their proper working time. That means that though wages are high and the conditions of employment on the whole satisfactory— the average wage is 30s. for man and boy—yet if you take that amount of wage, whether 30s., 40s., or 50s., if a man is intermittently employed, and only finds employment during 50 or 60 per cent, of his working time, he is in a worse position than if, with regular employment, the loaf cost him 1s. per week more. People who are intermittently employed would rather have regular work and pay a little more than have irregular employment. They
560
would like this House, I am sure, not to dismiss a proposal of this kind, which goes, as many of us believe, to the root of a great deal of our difficulty in finding employment. They would not have it dismissed as a quack remedy. They would wish that farmers and producers of all kinds of commodities in this country should have fair play in competition with foreigners, and that people should not be forced to leave the land in which they were born to go to countries where tariffs are in existence, where Protection is the rule, and where the welfare of the workers is cared for.
Mr. CARLILE: The hon. Member who moved the Resolution (Mr. Verney) referred to many matters and I am sure hon. Members on this side of the House are in accord with much of what he said. He referred to the encouragement of allotments and small holdings by the President of the Board of Agriculture (Lord Carrington). The hon. Member perhaps made rather too much of what the Noble Lord has done in that matter. I am informed that his Lordship owns over 23,000 acres, and that his allotments work out at 9 for every 100 acres. Since this Debate, began I have been in communication with an hon. Member on this side of the House who is also a large landowner, and he tells me that on his land the allotments number thirty to every hundred acres. Reference was made to the small holdings upon Lord Carrington's property. The number works out at one small holding to every hundred acres. My friend whom I consulted tells me that the small holdings upon his property are double that number—certainly two to every hundred acres. I merely mention this to show that what the President of the Board of Agriculture has done, though no doubt very creditable, is not at all exceptional. Nor is such a method of development in any way confined to Members who are supporters of the present Government. I should like to point out that the number of allotments on the property of the President of the Board of Agriculture works out, roughly speaking, at about 500 acres, and the small holdings to 2,000 acres, allowing 10 acres to a small holding, so that after all is said and done the Noble Lord has still over 20,000 acres for large holdings. I think the hon. Member opposite might, have found many other cases which would have more strongly supported the policy which he and we alike desire to see developed. But here there is one little difference

561
which we have with the hon. Member, and that is as to the principle upon which these small holdings are set up. We on this side of the House believe in the magic of ownership. Some of us perhaps own a piece of land, and know from our own personal experience that even if the land produces very little or nothing for us, yet the sense of ownership makes us concentrate our energies and attention upon it, and we are willing to make sacrifices for it. How much more would that be the case with occupiers if, instead of having the prospect all his life of making these eternal payments to the county council, with no prospect of ever coming any nearer the ownership of his holding, he had the prospect upon which the party with which I am associated has already concentrated its mind, that every yearly contribution which he makes towards the purchase of the property was bringing him nearer to the day when he would become absolute owner of the soil.
10.0 P.M.
The hon. Member referred to the disadvantage of land being charged with mortgages, and spoke as if it were tied up and there were no chance of getting at it, though it was not economically worked and the management was bad. In some cases that does exist. But we know that under the Settled Lands Act there is no difficulty about selling it. It can be sold even if it is in possession of a life tenant merely and the encumbrances can be wiped off. Then the land becomes available for what we might suppose to be far better management. With reference to the migration of the young people from the country to the towns, I rather gather from the hon. Member that the garish attractions of the cities have a great power of inducing young people to go from the country places to the towns. That unquestionably is so. But I think very often it is little realised in some country places, and credit in this respect is to such men as the hon. Member for North Bucks, who is in touch with country people, and who brings this before us as often as he has an opportunity of doing it—that, after all, life in the country is not a tedious or a monotonous life. On the contrary, it is a life containing far more variety than many of the occupations to be found in towns. Take the life of a country lad working on a farm. To-day he is ploughing, to-morrow he is hoeing or sowing. His other occupations, too, in the course of the week, are various. Now he is looking after the horses, now he is tending
562
cattle, now he is feeding pigs. There is a constant variety and change, and he has an opportunity of mastering the details of an industry. But follow that lad to a town or a city where he becomes a textile operative, or works in a large ironworks. He is perhaps putting bits of iron into a hole the entire day, everlastingly doing the same thing. Tedium and monotony follow him day in and day out. and hour in and hour out. There is no comparison as to the attractiveness of the two lives. I think if that were more placed before our folk in the country many of them would be less attracted than they are to towns and cities.
Out of fifty young men who migrate into the towns, from the country there are perhaps only two who obtain the prizes of occupations. We do not hear about the forty-eight who gravitate to the docks or among the unemployed, and who are ashamed to come back to their village because of their condition. But we are constantly having brought before us one or two cases in which the country lad has been successful in the town. Very little was said by the Mover of the Amendment on the subject of taxation, rating, or the tenure of land, but reference was made by the Seconder to the subject of rating and tenure of land. There is no doubt that land is taxed out of all proportion as compared with other forms of property, and when we think of the way in which our rating, and taxing system arose it seems quite a reasonable thing that it should be so, because the time was when land was the only form of property, and therefore all the burden was put on the land. Therefore, even to-day, as we heard earlier in the Debate, we fail to realise that that condition of things obtains to a very great extent, and the state of affairs to which the hon. Member for North Bucks draws attention largely arises out of that fact. If once we recognise that the industry of land cultivation ought really to be put on the same level so far as the burden of taxation and rates are concerned equitably with other industries, then the agricultural industry will once more very largely revive and move in the direction of the conditions which at one time obtained. Now, as my hon. Friend reminded us a moment ago, freights constitute a very keen competition in agricultural work, and that is inseparably bound up with the condi-

563
tions upon which the land is held. We were taught in our youth that water separated land, but we have long since passed away from that idea, and realise now that so far from water separating land, it unites land, and enables communication to be made in a way which even countries lying side by side cannot always command over the land. The question of unemployment is indeed a most serious one, and I am sure that we are sending out of our country year by year hundreds of thousands of the best of our people whom we can ill afford to spare. Vast numbers of them go from our country, finely developed, well-grown, industrious people, and not by any means paupers—people who go out from amongst us, taking with them considerable capital, and who are just the very people that we ought to keep at home, if we are to have a strong, active, virile nation to succeed us when we pass away. That condition does not obtain in other countries which are protected. [An HON MEMBER: "Italy."] There are a great many people who emigrate from Italy, but who return again. Italians go away and do their bit of work abroad, and then return to their country to enjoy the rest and leisure which their earnings in a protected country enable them to take. It is a habit of the Italian workmen to return to their native land year by year. We have heard a good deal of Germany, but Germany does not emigrate its people to the number of 200,000 a year as we do. Not a bit of it, and they have got a larger birth-rate than we have. As we are reminded, they have year by year a large number of soldiers going back to civil life, and for whom employment is to be found. Although they have these disadvantages from the point of view of finding employment, yet the emigration from Germany is very small, only about 30,000 compared with our 200,000. It must be that they find lucrative employment that satisfies them, or clearly like the people of Italy, or like our own people, they would seek abroad the employment which they cannot obtain at home.
All this points to a wrong fiscal system. The hon. Member for North Bucks called our remedy a quack remedy. It is a quack remedy, however, which has brought about wonderful results, and which we all of us look upon as highly satisfactory. We do not see why we, of all countries, should bear the burden of maintaining our
564
markets and then place them at the disposal of the foreigner without any charge. That does not seem a reasonable thing. I think, if it be the question of giving someone a preference, it ought to be given to our own people. I have never yet heard any Free Trader explain why we should give the foreigner the benefit and relief of this 12 per cent. which we spend on the maintenance of our markets. It does not seem a sensible thing. Of course, if we are in such a strong position that we are able to make this contribution towards the prosperity of the foreigner, then I should not have a word to say. But that is not the attitude taken up by the Member for North Bucks, who deplores the large amount of unemployment, as we all do. Surely, under the conditions I have described, when we have not got any employment to spare, or contributions to give, either voluntarily or involuntarily, towards the prosperity of the foreigner, we should at any rate in the meantime say to him, "We have to pay 12 per cent. for the upkeep of our market, and if you want to enjoy the privilege of selling goods in it, whether it is meat, dairy produce, or whatever it is, we must ask you to contribute something towards the cost of it. Therefore, if you want to use our market, we must put a toll upon your products. You may send your products into our country if you wish to do so on paying 5 per cent. of the value." Although that would not go very far, it would, at any rate, go some way towards the upkeep of our market. That does not seem to be a very unreasonable proposition.
And why should they call it nonsense and a quack remedy I for one moment cannot understand. I may point out that we do not propose to the Colonies to make this contribution. That, again, is a perfectly reasonable thing. The foreigner does not propose to make us any concessions—not a bit of it. He knows perfectly well that so long as we are tied to the present fiscal system he can do anything he jolly well pleases. He knows too, that, if our system is given up, and we adopt a system which is substantially his own, he will have to come to terms with us. But our Colonies do not treat us like that. The Colonies even meet us before we make any advance. They give us, as in the case of Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, and so on, a vast preference over other countries. That is a reasonable policy, the advantage of which we recognise. We know that our trade with Canada and other Colonies goes up by leaps and

565
bounds under the preference. We understand and recognise all that is being done by the Colonies, not under a cold-blooded and calculating arrangement, but out of good will, because we have not made any advance at all to them on our part. Therefore it is that in the case of the Colonies we do not ask them to contribute towards the cost of our markets. We think they ought to have some preference for their preference, but that is not the case in regard to the foreigner. The hon. Member for North Bucks spoke of our dairy farms, and he told us that the dairy farm employed ten men and two boys. Then he cast us down to a state of depression by saying that the dairy farm was being turned down into permanent grass, and that then eight out of ten men were discharged, and two boys out of four. We have seen that over and over again in all parts of the country. The cause of that is that the English dairy farmer has to pay 12 per cent. for the upkeep of the market, while the foreigner has to pay nothing of the sort. Therefore, the dairy farm, of course, gravitated into a condition of permanent pasture, giving practically no employment to anybody, or only to a herd or shepherd. He instanced also the case of a nurseryman, with 11 acres of land, who by intensive cultivation employed even more than on the 300 acres of the dairyman. That is a most delightful and encouraging state of things, but why does he want to maintain a fiscal system under which the nurserymen must go to the wall, and especially under a system of taxation under a Bill, to which I must not refer, by which in the neighbourhood of large towns he will find his land taxed? Those are important questions for the hon. Member, and while we lay to heart some of the suggestions he has made, I hope he will not forget some we have ventured to suggest to him.
I will make a reference with bated breath to a Noble Duke. The Duke of Bedford owned property called the Thorney Estate, and he was willing to sell it, I suppose. I suppose he wished to do so because it did not pay, a reason which justifies most of us parting with some of our property. It was a large estate worth about three-quarters of a million, I understand. Am I correctly informed that this Government negotiated with the agent of the Duke with a view to the purchase of that property upon certain terms? The point in the transaction, as I heard it, was as to the interests of
566
the tenants. Under the Duke of Bedford the tenants would have the prospect of becoming owners of their land, and, indeed, I believe most of them have become owners of the land. What I want to know is whether I am correctly informed that during the time that this estate was known to be in the market the Duke of Bedford was negotiated with through his agent on behalf of the present Government with a view to the raising of the rents of the tenants on the estate until the rents should equal a 4 per cent. investment upon the purchase of it, and that then this Radical Government, which is full of eagerness for small holdings, and so anxious for small holdings on the letting system, the tenancy system which really discouraged the ownership of small holdings—the Government would then purchase the estate of the Duke, would rack-rent his tenants, and screw up the rents, which were then only 3 per cent., not on the value of the land, but merely on the money spent in improving the estate. They said they would come in and purchase the property at the price asked for it. That is a question upon which I should like to have an answer. I have pleasure in supporting the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
Mr. RAFFAN: The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Carlile) stated that he had troubled the House only three times this Session. I have not yet troubled the House at all; therefore I must ask the indulgence of the House for the few minutes I shall detain them. It is quite impossible to cover the vast field which has been traversed by previous speakers, therefore I will confine myself to one aspect of the question which has been raised, namely, the repeated assertion that emigration is larger from Free Trade countries than from protected countries. The hon. Member for Cockermouth (Sir J. Bandies), in an eloquent peroration, asked why our people are required to go to lands where their labour is protected to make openings for themselves. I should like to ask where are those countries? Do our workmen seek openings for themselves in the protected countries of Italy, Spain, or Russia? The hon. Member talked about Germany. I am not afraid to deal with Germany. But Germany does not cover the whole map of Europe. There are all the other protected countries in Europe. From which of those countries is there not a larger emigration than from this country? But our people do not even go to Germany.

567
The vast majority of the 200,000 of whom the hon. Member spoke go to our own Colonies. It is surprising to hear those who uphold so strongly the desirability of cementing our Empire bewailing the fact that men are going out to Canada and Australia for the purpose of building up the Empire by acting as colonists. It may be said that some of them go to the United States. That is true. But what is happening in the United States at the present moment? Under the scientific tariff in America, which appears to be working so admirably in the eyes of those who framed it, there is widespread indignation, as is shown by the recent election. Not only are the people voting against it, but they are crossing in tens of thousands over the border into Canada. Is that because of the tariff? Is the tariff in Canada higher than the tariff in the United States? Does the tariff in Canada protect better than the tariff in the United States? No. The reason is that in Canada they have still free land, and wherever men can get free access to the land the problem of unemployment does not arise. Men are going into Canada because lecturers are going up and down the country stating that 160 acres await any man who goes out to Canada and settles there. There a man can be sure, if he toils hard, erects a steading, and reclaims the land, that in his old age he will be able to enjoy the fruits of his labour, that no rack-renting landlord will be able to evict him as he can be evicted here, and that there will be no screw from the squire and the parson such as exists in English villages. That is why they are going to Canada. It is quite true that they are going also from Scotland. The men who are going from the North of Scotland are not men driven from the commercial centres because of Free Trade, but men driven from the soil because of the operation of unjust laws. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Carlile) spoke with bated breath of a noble duke. If I might, without bated breath, refer to a noble duke, I would say that, if there is a real desire to remedy unemployment there is one noble duke in this country who has the opportunity to make a great experiment. I refer to the noble duke who is president of the Tariff Reform League. I do not know if it is suggested that the Duke of Sutherland has accepted the presidency of the Tariff Reform League merely because he has a burning desire to deal with this question of unemployment. But if that be
568
so, I suggest to him—and I suggest to those who think with him—that, after all, if you are going to change the fiscal system of this country you are going to make a tremendous experiment! I stand here as the representative of a Lancashire constituency. The men in my Constituency, cotton operatives and cotton manufacturers, are unanimously agreed that if this Tariff Reform system comes into effect a death-blow will be struck at their industry. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know that at the last election a manifesto was signed by everybody entitled to speak on behalf of the cotton industry repudiating Tariff Reform as a remedy. With regard to a good many other trades that is also true. It may be possible by Tariff Reform, at the expense of others, to build up certain industries which may give some employment. But the evil which you will create will be much greater than the evil which you will cure. You will throw out of employment a thousand men for every hundred to whom you give employment. That is the danger of the system to which the Duke of Sutherland is committed. He will be compelled, if he adopts that system, in the words of the Marquis of Salisbury, "to force food taxes upon a reluctant nation."
There is an alternative which he may adopt. In the Highlands of Scotland there are 3,200,000 acres of land given over entirely to deer forests. The largest holder of this 3,200,000 acres is the president of the Tariff Reform League. What I suggest to him is that, instead of attending the next meeting of the Tariff Reform League, he should call together his fellow landowners who own these deer forests, which are rated on an average at less than 1s. per acre. That is the value which the Duke of Sutherland and his fellow proprietors put upon them. I suggest that they should agree to sacrifice their sport upon the altar of the solution of this problem of unemployment. I suggest that they should offer 160 acres in the Highlands of Scotland to any settler who cares to have them. [An HON. MEMBER: "He could not live on it."] An hon. Member says he could not live upon it. Very well; let it be tried! In the old days it was tried. I know it has been tried. I have gone over the ground. I have seen the ruined steadings from which men have been evicted. I have seen the wild deer wandering where the child loved to play. I know that the noblest race of men have been evicted to make room for sport. But give the people the oppor-

569
tunity. Give them, not 160 acres for nothing as they can secure in Canada, but give the land to them at the value put upon it by the owners, at a rental of Is. per acre, or £8 a year, and no rates charged upon improvements—because that is a fundamental thing in the solution of the land question. Then, I say, you will be able to settle in the Highlands of Scotland alone 200,000 heads of families who will be able, with their wives and families, to deal with a population of 1,000,000. That is something better than Tariff Reform as a solution of the unemployed problem. Try it. Set up again the old life which existed in the Highlands. Not until then will you be dealing with the question of unemployment. Only settle these men on the soil and you will have collateral advantages. You will be able to regain a healthy population such as lived in the Highlands in days gone by.
He says these men could not live upon such land. Does he forget the time when you reared your soldiers that fought at Alma, Inkerman, and Balaclava, and does lie forget that the best of these soldiers came from the Highlands of Scotland? When you want men to fight the German invasion that hon. Members opposite talk so much about, how many of them will you get from the gillies and from the millionaire landlords of Scotland? The Teal remedy for unemployment is to so use the land of the country which God has given us so that we may be able to make the best use of it for the benefit of the people. I have no doubt if the question is argued upon the platform, when the people understand what this quack remedy of Tariff Reform is, and that its object is merely to put money in the pockets of the few, and when they compare that remedy with the remedy which will be provided by the settlement of the people upon the land that God gave them, there will be no hesitation as to what the verdict of the people will be.
Sir WILLIAM ROBSON: I am sorry that the exigency of time perhaps unduly shortened a very earnest and a very eloquent speech which has been delivered by the hon. Member who has just sat down. Hon. Members opposite rather affected to treat his eloquence and his earnestness with some derision. The hon. Member, at all events, has done that which hon. Members opposite have not been in a hurry to do. He has suggested what may
570
be a small, but is nevertheless a genuine and practical remedy for some of the unemployment, and has suggested it in a case where it is peculiarly applicable. The Mover and Seconder of the Amendment have talked of emigration and movements of the population, but the movement of the population with which my hon. Friend has just dealt was not voluntary emigration. It was a case where the most sober, the most thrifty, and the most God fearing portion of the population of these islands were driven from their homes to the backwoods of America and to the slums of Glasgow. When hon. Members opposite quite sincerely and quite properly put forward their remedy for unemployment they might, I think, have listened with some respect rather than with ridicule to a remedy which is restitution.
The Debate has covered wide ground, and the Resolution covers very wide ground. It is couched in terms so general that it is adapted, I think, perhaps intentionally adapted, to secure the assent of all sections in the House. I think everybody can vote for it. It is one under which the Protectionist, if he pleases, can shelter himself. The general terms of the Resolution will enable him to vote for it and yet mean by his vote that Protection is a remedy instead of the remedy suggested by my hon. Friend the Mover of the Resolution. It is a Resolution that the single taxer can vote for, and it can at the same time be voted for by hon. Members upon either side of the House who, instead of adding to the taxes on land, would give it further relief. It is one that can be supported by those who think that there is not sufficient relief of the restriction upon the transfer of land and by those who would place restrictions where restrictions already exist. In these circumstances I apprehend that the intention of the hon. Member in moving this Resolution was rather to invite discussion than to trouble the House with a Division. As far as the Government are concerned, like everybody else, they are in accord with this Resolution. The first part of the Resolution deals with the artificial restrictions in the use of land. The policy of the Government in that respect is worthy of being recalled to the attention of the House. Within the last four years we have done a great deal to remove artificial restrictions in the use of land—in fact, I do not know any Government in any time that has done so much. In the Agricultural Holdings Bill we inserted

571
provisions which have given freedom of cropping, compensation for disturbance, and for loss or damage in the matter of game, capricious disturbance, and also the right of the tenant to make any improvement without the consent of his landlord. I think that is a very considerable advance in the freedom of cultivation, and this in some measure touches the question of employment, or, at all events, it does something to increase the farmer's share in the general agricultural prosperity. We have also passed a measure which, I think, will do more as a direct remedy for agricultural unemployment than any measure which has been passed by any English Government.
It is not an unfavourable opportunity, when discussing the relation between agriculture and unemployment, to ask the House for a moment to direct its attention to the effect of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act. I think we are now entitled to say that that Act has proved a very striking and remarkable success. When we were discussing the Small Holdings Bill a good deal was said of the efforts made by right hon. Gentlemen opposite in that direction. There were some who claimed that the initiation in this kind of legislation was to be found amongst those who sit on the opposite side of the House. Under the Act of 1892, which was passed into law just before the General Election of that year, there had been 800 acres, and no more, of land distributed as small holdings to those who had applied. That does not look as if the much - advertised and much - trumpeted measure of 1892 had done much to increase the general distribution of land in this country. In 1892 hon. Members opposite had their agrarian policy, and it was summed up in the Act of 1892, which resulted in the distribution of only 800 acres. The Small Holdings Act of 1908 has had but a short time for experiment, but we have already either acquired, or are in process of acquiring, 75,000 acres, settling no less than 6,700 persons. I would ask the House to consider those figures from the point of view of employment. Can anybody doubt, questions of fiscal controversy apart, that we have in that humble, useful, and sincere measure a direct and substantial palliative in regard to unemployment.
The hon. Member who seconded this Amendment spoke of the necessity for a
572
career in the country. One hon. Member spoke with regret of the fact that a labourer's life in the rural districts of England offered so little prospect of promotion or prosperity, and, after all, what makes the man work well is the hope of some exceptional success. It cannot be said that English rural life has hitherto given that prospect to those who labour there. I would ask the House, two years after the coming into operation of the Act of 1908, just to see what we have done in this regard for the English labourer and what forces are now at work giving to the English labourer not mere employment, but employment which brings with it the hope of improvement in status, of a rise in life, and of a career in the occupation to which he has been called. First of all, in that Act we greatly extend the power to distribute allotments. We give the parish councils power to create allotments up to five acres—a most important step. Then the labourer, having acquired his allotment of five acres, may by means of intensive cultivation very well gain a substantial degree of prosperity which will enable him, by that thrift to which agricultural labourers are not unaccustomed, to rise from an allotment to a small holding, from a small holding to a farm, and from a farm he has the whole field of agriculture before him. [Laughter.] We have, during the period we have been in office, actually given the ladder by which the labourer may rise. Hon. Members opposite laugh at the idea of a labourer rising from an allotment to a small holding. [HON MEMBER: "No."] I understood them to do so. I understood they rather derided the idea that a man should rise from a farm. I do not think anyone can deny we have given to labourers, through their parish councils, the prospect of finding, on their native soil, a career suited to their ability. I do not think they themselves are fully conscious yet of their opportunities in that respect, or that they have yet adequately used parish councils for the sake of getting full and larger allotments. It is for that reason that I venture to call attention to the facilities which are within their reach. That is the remedy which we have not merely advocated, but which we have set in operation, and I would ask hon. Members opposite for a moment to consider their remedy as against it.
The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said they might have to pay a little more for their food, but that they were going to get more employment. Is

573
that the method by which employment is to be acquired? They are to pay for their employment out of their food. That does not seem to be a very promising remedy. I imagine, if the people have to choose between the methods put before them, they will prefer some method of dealing with their grievance which does not put upon them the bitter and I think the wrongful and mischievous burden of extra prices to be paid for the nourishment of themselves and their children. Let us look at the remedy suggested from the other side of the House for unemployment. Both the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment have said that the Tories have got an agrarian policy, and it is a policy which consists in the encouragement of land purchase instead of land hiring for the purpose of small holdings. They both used language, perhaps inadvertently, which implied that, as we had encouraged the hiring of land for small holdings, so we had discouraged the purchase of land for small holdings. I am sure that hon. Members, who talk of our not having encouraged the acquisition of the freehold for that purpose, could not have looked at the Act. Why it gives distinct and direct encouragement to the purchase of freeholds as well as the hiring of land. By Section 19 the county councils are actually empowered to advance four-fifths of the purchase money, yet hon. Members say that the policy of land purchase is their policy. It is not. During the whole of that Committee we made numerous proposals to facilitate land purchase. Hon. Members opposite said they were in favour of land purchase, but the test was, how far they were willing to promote cheap valuation for the purpose. Whenever we made any suggestion of any kind—and we did again and again—to facilitate land purchase by an economic valuation we were met with the most bitter opposition. Their idea was that the peasant or labourer who wanted an acre of land for a potato patch was to get it not by some economical valuation of an expert official, but by the application of the Lands Clauses Act through the most costly and elaborate machinery. The pretext now put forward by hon. Members opposite that they are in favour of land purchase is not likely to mislead those who are familiar with the proceedings of the Committee.
I come next to the remedy put forward by the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Sir
574
John Randles) who suggested the imposition of a tax on foreign products not subject to similar burdens. But what are the products which come into this country which are not subject to taxation in the country of origin? Where do they come from? Is there any country in Europe or anywhere else where fiscal burdens on the produce of land are less than they are in England? In nearly all countries they have the most heavy burdens to bear before their produce is sent here. Take the case of America. There you have almost free land and a protective system so oppressive that the agriculturist is now almost rising in revolt against it. In America you have the true Tariff Reform movement. They are trying to reform the tariff and not seeking to create it. There the complaint of the agriculturists is that everything he requires for his use is raised in price most oppressively by the Protectionist system. He, therefore, is not a man who sends his goods here free of the burdens similar to those which rest on the British agriculturist. Is it suggested that with Russia, another great wheat exporting country, the farmer is free of the burdens which rest on the English farmers? So oppressive are the taxes which fall on the Russian farmer that the old system is now being superseded—the system of holding land in common—and when it was proposed to give the cultivator more land, he objected because the land was so overburdened with taxes, Imperial and local, that it was more than he was equal to to pay those taxes. So when one comes to talk of these commodities which are said to compete with ours, and which are alleged to be free from the burdens imposed on British products, I am driven to ask, "What are they?" and "Where do they come from?" It has not been stated in the course of this Debate. Another part of the Resolution with which I shall deal very briefly is a very interesting and important part. I should have liked to have dealt with it a little more fully. That is a point which has been dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for the Ince Division (Mr. S. Walsh), who spoke on the fiscal side of the question from the point of view of the bad taxation. He urged that many of the present evils of our landed system could be diminished or abolished if we had a better system of taxation. I think that the Government can claim that they have not been wholly idle in that respect.

575
Undoubtedly it has hitherto been the custom, as my hon. Friend pointed out, in devising fresh taxes, to lay them more upon enterprise and industry, and the spirit of improvement, than upon property or unearned increment. Indeed, property of the kind known as unearned increment has hitherto had a very privileged position in our fiscal system. My hon. Friend pointed out all sorts of illustrations. He spoke of a railway which had greatly increased the rateable value of the district through which it passed, being subjected to pressing burdens, of the colliery which had developed a particular neighbourhood, and had gone into bankruptcy without any profit of its own, but with great profit to the landlord, who had paid no part of the taxation of the country. He also gave us the instances of Sefton Park and of a gentleman called Cosy Murphy, who made a considerable sum on the profits which he derived from other people. Everyone of these instances are instances which were dealt with in the Budget by way of contribution to our fiscal necessities, and we introduced the principle of taxing that which is due, not to the energy and industry of the particular taxpayer, but to the industry and energy of other taxpayers. A start has been made, and though I do not desire to see taxes extended, no one can deny that the Government has done a very great work and a very great national service in bringing within the area of contribution unearned increment arising out of landed value apart from that which is created by the landlords themselves. That has been introduced in no spirit of confiscation. It is simply that we have brought within the range of contribution that which is equitably just, as much the subject of public burden as any similar matter. It has been argued whether all taxes should not be raised out of land. If time allowed, I should be willing to deal with that question, but in the five minutes at my disposal I would advance one objection to that which has not been carefully considered by those who advance that suggestion. Are site values equal to the immense burden which would be laid upon them if they were made the sole subject-matter of rating? Take, for instance, property in London worth £50 a year. The site value of that property is equal, on a fair average, to something like £10 a year, and
576
the rates will be equal to something like £18 a year, so that you could not possibly levy the whole of your rates upon the site value if you made it the only subject-matter of taxation. The rate would be 20s. or 30s. in the £, a result which would mean that the building, which you desire wholly to exempt from taxation, would nevertheless be subject to taxation. The only proposal made by those who are land-taxers which it is impossible for us to assent to or to treat as other than controversial, is the proposal that site values should be made the sole subject of taxation. That would be going beyond contribution. It would amount to confiscation and appropriation. We have stopped far short of that. Short of that the whole of our policy with regard to the removal of restrictions upon land, and in regard to tenure and to taxation is in the spirit in which this Resolution has been moved and seconded. There has been a good deal of discussion as to what is the best system of taxation, whether it should be direct or indirect, whether it should be on land or on labour. There is a better method than any system of taxation, and that is to cultivate in this House and the country the sentiment of thrift. It is better to have less taxation, but if there is to be taxation I challenge anyone to suggest a better subject-matter of taxation than those which the Government have adopted.
Colonel R. WILLIAMS: I do not wish to discuss the speech of the Attorney-General, with some parts of which I cordially agree, and with other parts of which I as cordially disagree. I want to call attention to one sentence in the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Raffan), in which he talked about 160 acres in Canada which were free from rating on improvements.
Mr. RAFFAN: I did not say so. I said 160 acres ought to be free from rating on improvement.
Colonel WILLIAMS: They ought to be free, I agree. If hon. Members who cheered that sentiment had voted differently at a quarter past eight the Budget would have been thrown out.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The House divided: Ayes, 136; Noes, 179.

Division No. 67.]

AYES.

[8.0 p.m.

Abraham, William

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Barlow, Sir John Emmott

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

Barnes, George N.

Alden, Percy

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

Allen, Charles Peter

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

Armitage, Robert

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Barry, Edward (Cork, S.)

Ashton, Thomds Gair

Barclay, Sir Thomas

Barton, William

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

Hail, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Bentham, George Jackson

Hancock, John George

Muldoon, John

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Muspratt, Max

Black, Arthur w.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Boland, John Pius

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Neilson, Francis

Bowerman, Charles W.

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Bowles, Thomas Gibson

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

Nolan, Joseph

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Harwood, George

Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

Brace, William

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Nuttall, Harry

Brigg, Sir John

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Brocklehurst, William B.

Hazleton, Richard

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Bryce, John Annan

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hemmerde, Edward George

O'Doherty, Philip

Burt, Rt. Han. Thomas

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

O'Donnell, Thomas (Kerry, W.)

Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

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

O'Dowd, John

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Higham, John Sharp

Ogden, Fred

Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

Hindle, Frederick George

O'Grady, James

Byles, William Pollard

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

Cameron, Robert

Hodge, John

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Cawley, H. T. (Lancs. Heywood)

Hogan, Michael

O'Malley, William

Chancellor, Henry George

Holt, Richard Durning

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Charnning, Sir Francis Allston

Hooper, Arthur George

O'Shee, James John

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

O'Sullivan, Eugene

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Clancy, John Joseph

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Parker, James (Halifax)

Clough, William

Hudson, Walter

Pearce, William

Clynes, John R.

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Pearson, Weetman H. M.

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

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

Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Johnson, William

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Jones, sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydfil)

Pointer, Joseph

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Pollard, Sir George H.

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Cowan, William Henry

Jowett, Frederick William

Power, Patrick Joseph

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Joyce, Michael

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Keating, Matthew

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Crosfield, Arthur H.

Kelly, Edward

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Crossley, Sir William J

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Pringle, William M. R.

Cullinan, John

Kilbride, Denis

Radford, George Heynes

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lambert, George

Raphael, Herbert Henry

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

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Rea, Walter Russell

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Reddy, Michael

Dawes, James Arthur

Lehmann, Rudolf C.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Levy, Sir Maurice

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Devlin, Joseph

Lewis, John Herbert

Rees, John David

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charle-

Lincoln, Ignatius Timothy T.

Rendall, Atheistan

Dillon, John

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Richards, Thomas

Donelan, Captain A.

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Doris, William

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Duffy, William J.

Lundon, Thomas

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Edwards, Enoch

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Robinson, Sidney

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Elverston, Harold

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Esslemont, George Birnie

M'Callum, John M.

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Falconer, James

M'Curdy, Charles Albert

Roe, Sir Thomas

Farrell, James Patrick

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Rowntree, Arnold

Fenwick, Charles

M'Laren, Rt. Hon. Sir C. B. (Leices.)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

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

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

Ferguson, Ronald C. Munro

Mallet, Charles Edward

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Ffrench, Peter

Manfield, Harry

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Field, William

Markham, Arthur Basil

Scanlan, Thomas

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Marks, George Croydon

Schwann, Sir Charles E.

France, Gerald Ashburner

Martin, Joseph

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

Gibbins, F. W.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Seddon, James A.

Gibson, James Puckering

Meagher, Michael

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

Gill, Alfred Henry

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Shackleton, David James

Glanville, Harold James

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

Shaw, Sir Charles Edward

Glover, Thomas

Menzies, Sir Walte

Sheehy, David

Middlebrook, William

Shortt, Edward

Greig, Colonel James William

Millar, James Duncan

Simon, John Allsebrook

Grenfell, Cecil Alfred

Molloy, Michael

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Griffith, Ellis Jones (Anglesey)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Snowden, Philip

Guest, Capt. Hon. Frederick E.

Mond, Alfred Moritz

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Gulland, John William

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Soares, Ernest Joseph

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Mooney, John J.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Hackett, John

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Strachey, Sir Edward

532

533

Summers, James Woolley

Walters, John Tudor

Wilkie, Alexander

Sutton, John E.

Walton, Joseph

Williams, Aneurin (Plymouth)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Wardle, George J.

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Tennant, Harold John

Waring, Walte.

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

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

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

Thomas, David Alfred (Cardiff)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

Waterlow, David Sydney

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

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Watt, Henry A.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Toulmin, George

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Winfrey, Richard

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Wing, Thomas

Twist, Henry

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

Young, William (Perth, East)

Verney, Frederick William

Whitehouse, John Howard

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Vivian, Henry

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Wadsworth, John

Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Fuller.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Wiles, Thomas

Walsh, Stephen

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings)

Kerry, Earl of

Archer-Shee, Major Martin

Duke, Henry Edward

Keswick, William

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Duncannon, Viscount

Kimber, Sir Henry

Ashley, Wilfred W.

Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark, W.)

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Attenborough, Walter Annis

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Bagot, Colonel Josceline

Faber, George D. (Clapham)

Kirkwood, John H. M.

Baird, John Lawrence

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

Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

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

Falie, Bertram Godfray

Knott, James

Balcarres, Lord

Fell, Arthur

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Baldwin, Stanley

Finlay, Sir Robert

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

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

Fisher, William Hayes

Lawson, Hon. Harry

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Lee, Arthur Hamilton

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

Lewisham, Viscount

Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

Fletcher, John Samuel

Llewelyn, Venables

Barnston, Harry

Forster, Henry William

Lloyd, George Ambrose

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

Foster, John K. (Coventry)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

Gardner, Ernest

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

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

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

Gibbs, George Abraham

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Gilhooly, James

Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm. Edgbaston)

Beresford, Lord Charles

Gilmour, Captain John

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.)

Bird, Alfred

Goldman, Charles Sydney

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

Goldsmith, Frank

Mackinder, Halford J.

Brackenbury, Henry Langton

Gooch, Henry Cubitt

Macmaster, Donald

Brassey, Capt. R. (Oxon, Banbury)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

M'Arthur, Charles

Bridgeman, William Clive

Greene, Walter Raymond

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Gretton, John

Magnus, Sir Philip

Bull, Sir William James

Guiney, Patrick

Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

Burdett-Coutts, William

Guinness, Hon Walter Edward

Mason, James F.

Butcher, John George (York)

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Butcher, S. H. (Camb. Univ.)

Haddock, George B

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Calley, Col. Thomas C. P.

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Mitchell, William Foot

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Hall, E. Marshall (Toxteth)

Morpeth, Viscount

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Morrison, Captain James A.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Cator, John

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Mount, William Arthur

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Newdegate, F. A. N.

Cave, George

Harris, F. L. (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)

Newman, John R. P.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.)

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Healy, Maurice (Cork, N. E.)

Nield, Herbert

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

Healy, Timothy Michael

Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

Clay, Captain R. H. Spender

Heath, Col. Arthur Howard

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Clive, Percy Archer

Helmsley, Viscount

O'Donnell, John (Maye, S.)

Coates, Major Edward F.

Henderson, H. G. H. (Berkshire)

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

Colefax, Henry Arthur

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

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

Cellings, Rt. Hon J. (Birmingham)

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Compton, Lord Alwyne (Brentford)

Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

Paget, Almeric Hugh

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

Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall)

Hills, John Walter (Durham)

Peel, Hon. William R. W. (Taunton)

Courthope, George Loyd

Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

Perkins, Walter Frank

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Proby, Col. Douglas James

Craik, Sir Henry

Horner, Andrew Long

Quilter, William Eley C.

Crean, Eugene

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Croft, Henry Page

Hunt, Rowland

Rankin, Sir James

Dalrymple, Viscount

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

Rawson, Col. Richard H.

Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Du Cros, A. (Tower Hamlets, Bow)

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

534

535

Ridley, Samuel Forde

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirral)

White, Maj. G. D. (Lanc. Southport)

Rolleston, Sir John

Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkc'dbr'tsh.)

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

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Strauss, Arthur

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Rothschild, Lionel de

Sykes, Alan John

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Rutherford, Watson

Talbot, Lord Edmund

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

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Sanderson, Lancelot

Thompson, Robert

Worthington Evans, L. (Colchester)

Sandys, Lt.-Col. T. M. (Bootle)

Thynne, Lord Alexander

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

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

Yerburgh, Robert

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Tryon, Capt. George Clement

Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

Stanler, Beville

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Starkey, John Raiph

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

Bill read the third time, and passed.

Division No. 68.]

AYES.

[10.58 p.m.

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

Gooch, Henry Cubitt

Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gretton, John

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

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

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

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Bagot, Captain J.

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Perkins, Walter Frank

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

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Balcarres, Lord

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Pretyman, Ernest George

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Quilter, William Eley C.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Rankin, Sir James

Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Barnston, Harry

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Rawson, Col. Richard H.

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

Henderson, H. G. H. (Berkshire)

Remnant, James Farquharson

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

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

Ridley, Samuel Forde

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Hills, John Walter (Durham)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bird, Alfred

Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy

Rutherford, Watson

Brackenbury, Henry Langton

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bridgeman, William Clive

Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Horner, Andrew Long

Sanderson, Lancelot

Bull, Sir William James

Hunt, Rowland

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hunter, Sir Chas. Rodk. (Bath)

Stanier, Beville

Cautley, Henry Strother

Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Cave, George

Kerry, Earl of

Starkey, John Ralph

Chaioner, Col. R. G. W.

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford

Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirral)

Clive, Percy Archer

Knott, James

Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkcudbright)

Colefax, Henry Arthur

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Strauss, Arthur

Compton, Lord Alwyne (Brentford)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Talbot, Lord Edmund

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

Liewelyn, Venables

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Waisall)

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Courthope, George Loyd

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

Thompson, Robert

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm. Edgbaston)

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Croft, Henry Page

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich)

Valentia, Viscount

Dairymple, Viscount

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

Macmaster, Donald

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

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

M'Arthur, Charles

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Duke, Henry Edward

Mitchell, William Foot

White, Maj. G. D. (Lanc, Southport)

Fell, Arthur

Morpeth, Viscount

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Morrison, Captain J. A.

Worthington-Evans. L. (Colchester)

Fletcher, John Samuel

Mount, William Arthur

Yerburgh, Robert

Forster, Henry William

Newdegate, F. A.

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

Newman, John R. P.

Gibbs, George Abraham

Newton, Harry Kottingham

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Gilmour, Captain John

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Sir J. Randies and Mr. Carlile

Goldsmith, Frank

Nield, Herbert

NOES.

Abraham, William

Crossley, Sir William J.

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Hemmerde, Edward George

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Higham, John Sharp

Allen, Charles Peter

Dawes, James Arthur

Hodge, John

Armitage, Robert

Denman, Hon, Richard Douglas

Holt, Richard Durning

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Doris, William

Hooper, Arthur George

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Duffy, William J.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Barclay, Sir Thomas

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Barnes, George N.

Edwards, Enoch

Hudson, Walter

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

Elibank, Master of

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Barton, William

Elverston, Harold

Illingworth, Percy H.

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

Esslemont, George Birnie

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Bentham, George Jackson

Falconer, James

Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

Bowerman, Charles W.

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Johnson, William

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Brigg, Sir John

Fuller, John Michael F.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Brocklehurst, William B.

Gibbins, F. W.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Gill, Alfred Henry

Jowett, Frederick William

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Gtanville, Harold James

King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Glover, Thomas

Lambert, George

Byles, William Pollard

Griffith, Ellis Jones (Anglesey)

Leach, Charles

Cawley, H. T. (Lancs. Heywood)

Guest, Captain Hon. Frederick E.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Chancellor, Henry George

Gulland, John William

Lewis, John Herbert

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

Lincoln, Ignatius Timothy T.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Hancock, John George

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Clough, William

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Clynes, John R.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Macdonatd, J. R. (Leicester)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Cowan, William Henry

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

M'Callum, John M.

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

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

Crosfleld, Arthur H.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Mallet, Charles Edward

578

579

Markham, Arthur Basil

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Wadsworth, John

Martin, Joseph

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Walsh, Stephen

Masterman, C. F. G.

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Middlebrook, William

Robinson, Sidney

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Millar, James Duncan

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Waterlow, David Sydney

Mond, Alfred Moritz

Roe, Sir Thomas

Watt, Henry A.

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Rowntree, Arnold

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Muspratt, Max

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

Nellson, Francis

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

Whitehouse, John Howard

Nolan, Joseph

Shackleton, David James

Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

Shortt, Edward

Wiles, Thomas

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Wilkie, Alexander

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

Williams, Aneurin (Plymouth)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Soares, Ernest Joseph

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Summers, James Woolley

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

Pointer, Joseph

Sutton, John E.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W H.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Pringle, William M. R.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Wing, Thomas

Radford, George Heynes

Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Rea, Walter Russell

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Young, William (Perth, East)

Rees, John David

Touimin, George

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Rendall, Atheistan

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Richards, Thomas

Twist, Henry

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Verney and Mr. Raffan.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Vivian, Henry

Resolved, "That in the opinion of this House, the present system of taxation, rating, and tenure of land tends to restrict the best use of the land and the application to it of capital and labour, thereby hindering the production of wealth and causing unemployment."

DEVELOPMENT AND ROAD IMPROVEMENT FUNDS ACT (1909) AMENDMENT BILL.
Considered, as amended.
DEVELOPMENT AND ROAD IMPROVEMENT FUNDS ACT (1909) AMENDMENT BILL.

  Clause 1.—(Increase of Number of Development Commissioners.)
  "Ten" shall be substituted for "five" as the number of Development Commissioners who may be appointed under Section three of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, and one Commissioner shall retire every year, instead of every second year as provided by the said Section.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY Sir FREDERICK BANBURY moved to leave out the Clause. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us in Committee last night, and he also told us on the Second Reading, that we on this side, including myself, were hostile to the Bill of last year. That statement, as far as regards myself, is correct, but now that the Bill of last year has become law I have no wish in any kind of way to interfere with its working, provided it is worked according to the arrangement arrived at when we discussed the measure last year. The arrangement proposed under this new Clause of this new Bill is one which, in the manner of its being brought forward, is absolutely without precedent. The Bill of last year was passed after a certain amount of consideration in Grand Committee, although
  536
  a good deal of it was closure. It has never yet been put into operation, and I know of no precedent for amending an Act before it has actually been put into operation. I have no doubt that, where, owing to faulty draftsmanship or faulty legislation, an Act of Parliament, after it has been put into operation has not fulfilled the hopes of its authors, there are precedents for amending it, but never, I think, in the history of this House—"never," perhaps, is a wrong word—but, certainly in the last thirty or forty years, never has it been sought to amend an Act of Parliament before it has actually been put into operation—never has it been necessary to come down to the House and introduce an amending Bill. Certainly, one would not have thought it necessary in the case of a Bill passed by a Government representing all the talents—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]—in their own estimation. Last night we had a considerable discussion on this matter, and, pursuivant to a request of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the discussion was put off until he was able later to make an announcement to the House.
  And, it being a quarter-past Eight of the clock, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 4.

GOVERNMENT SERVANTS (COURTS OF JUSTICE) (IRELAND).
Return ordered, "setting forth the name, age, date of appointment, length of service, and official position of all salaried officials in connection with the Courts of Justice in Ireland, distinguishing those who have been appointed (a) by nomination without examination; (b) by nomination with limited competition; and (c) by nomination with qualifying examination."—[Mr. MacVeagh.]
MAGISTRATES (IRELAND).
Return ordered, "showing the names, addresses, and occupations or descriptions of the persons appointed to the Commission of the Peace in Ireland since the preparation of the last Return, giving for each county and borough a summary of religions of those so appointed, a summary of religions of all now holding the Commission of the Peace in each county and borough, and the numbers of each religious denomination in the different counties and boroughs according to the last Census (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 153, of Session 1908)."

POLICE (WEEKLY REST-DAY) BILL.
Considered, as amended (in the Standing Committee).
Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I understand that the Government are prepared to consent to the passage of this Bill, but I should like, before it is passed, to ask the Home Secretary what the position would be in regard to a private Bill being introduced extending the advantage of this measure to Scotland? If the right hon. Gentleman can make a statement which is friendly to that proposal, then so far as I am concerned I have nothing more to say.
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): When the Bill was in Grand Committee I made a statement of the view the Government took on the question of Scotland. We think that is a matter primarily for Scottish Members. If there is a general opinion among the Scottish members favourable to the application of the same principle to Scotland, the Government will certainly show the same spirit of benevolent support to that proposal as they have done to the hon. Gentleman who has put forward this Bill. But it is essentially a matter for the Scottish Grand Committee, and I do not think it ought to be dealt with as part of the England and Wales Bill. Other police legislation has always been separate between the two countries. It is entirely a question for the Scottish Members. I certainly should be very glad to give my support to such a

581
measure if it were put forward, and really supported by the mass of Scottish opinion, as represented by their elected representatives. With regard to the Bill in general the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Remnant) has very fairly met all the wishes of the Government, and I shall myself be very glad to support it.
Sir H. DALZIEL: There was a general understanding that hon. Members opposite would not oppose the Scottish view, and so far as I am concerned I shall not oppose theirs in this matter.
Mr. REMNANTmoved, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Motion agreed to.
Bill read the third time, and passed.

CONVEYANCING BILL.
Read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

DEVELOPMENT AND ROAD IMPROVEMENT FUNDS ACT (1909) AMENDMENT BILL.
Postponed proceeding on Consideration of Bill, as amended, resumed.
Amendment proposed to leave out Clause 1.—[Sir Frederick Banbury.]
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: At the interruption of business I was pointing out that I moved the omission of Clause 1, not because I in any way wished to prevent the putting into force of the Act which received the Royal Assenton3rdDecember, but because I wished that Act to come into force in the form originally intended by the Government. The only effect of omitting the Clause would be to restrict the number of Commissioners to five, as before proposed; and, that having been done, I hope the remaining Clauses would be agreed to. There are many Members present to-night who possibly did not hear the speech of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) yesterday, when he pointed out that if this Amendment was not carried the original intention of the Government to have a small judicial body would be abandoned, and there would be substituted a large body which—
Mr. T. EDMUND HARVEY: On a point of order, Sir, is an hon. Member in order in repeating what another hon. Member has said in this House?
Mr. SPEAKER: A large part of the speeches of hon. Members are made up of what other Members have said.
Sir F. BANBURY: The original intention of the Government would be abandoned, and instead of a judicial Commission, consisting of a small body, which should approach this subject with open minds, and which would desire to give effect to what they considered to be the best interests of the country as a whole, we should have a body representing different interests. I think everyone who was here and heard the Debates on this matter in the last Parliament, will bear me out when I say that there was a general concensus of opinion that the Act would not be administered in a proper manner if it was to be taken and used for party purposes, or to represent, or to further, the interests of particular sections, instead of being used for purposes which would be to the advantage of the whole country. That was deliberately arrived at after considerable discussion upon the Question.
I would like to point out to the House that the Clause, as it would stand if my Amendment was carried, would be, not the Clause which was originally introduced into the Bill when the Government brought it forward, but the Clause which the Government themselves brought forward after considerable deliberation, and introduced at the end of the Committee stage in the last Parliament. It was passed without a single question on the Report stage. Therefore if my Amendment is carried, as I hope it will be, it will not affect in the least, nor is it desired to affect, the operation of the Act which received the Royal Assent on 3rd December last. It would, only give effect to the original wishes of the Government. It will establish a small judicial body which will be prepared to look at the schemes that will be submitted to them in an impartial and proper manner, and which will prevent any corruption or jobbery which, under this Bill without a condition of that sort might honestly be brought about, once you allow a large number of Commissioners who are appointed to represent different interests—the working classes, the landlords, and so on. It is a very important matter. There is a con-

583
siderable sum of money to be dealt with. Therefore it is necessary that we should get the best tribunal to decide whether or not a scheme is good or bad.
May I point out to hon. Gentlemen opposite who interrupt that in the scheme as introduced this body is one that in any party question may very likely be used, in a perfectly sincere and honest manner, for party ends. Party questions are not always right, and sometimes hon. Members on both sides succumb to party pressure though they know it is wrong. We had the Chief Whip of the Liberal Party, who said so the other day in the other House. What we really want is to obtain a judicial body who will see that any scheme submitted to them, and which they sanction, shall be a good and proper scheme. What is the objection to this? If the right hon. Gentleman came down to the House and said, "I have appointed live Commissioners, and they have sat for six months, and I find that the schemes submitted to them are so numerous that however hard they work, and notwithstanding the fact that they have the power to appoint Advisory Committees, they are unable to cope with the work," nobody, including myself, would have objected. But he has not appointed his Commissioners. I venture to say the right hon. Gentleman will acquit me of any desire to be offensive when I say he has not the slightest idea of what the work will be, or whether the five Commissioners would be able to cope with the duty. Until he knows that he ought not to ask the House to over-ride the Clause he introduced and carried in Committee, and afterwards in this House, where he had a majority of 340 without a dissentient voice.
Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I desire to second the Amendment. There is no opposition whatsoever to the Bill, and the Amendment is intended purely for the purpose of restoring the status quo ante, and restoring the number of Commissioners to five instead of ten. The right hon. Gentleman last night adopted a very conciliatory attitude, but I can only say I feel more mistrust of the right hon. Gentleman in his conciliatory moods than I do in his truculent moods. In the speech he made last night he dealt in no circumstances with the points I endeavoured to raise. He spoke of an Amendment lower down on the Paper which deals with the question of a quorum, and which stood
584
in the name of the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury). I asked the right hon. gentleman two specific questions, which I will ask him again now. Will he tell us exactly what is the reason for the change in policy, for there has been a change in policy?
It was the settled policy of the Committee which dealt with this Bill, and of the House that there should be five Commissioners. The House rose last December with that settled opinion. What has occurred since that has induced the right hon. Gentleman to bring in the amending Bill changing the number of Commissioners from five to ten? The speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Keir Hardie) last night showed that the increase in the number of Commissioners led him to believe that the Government had changed their attitude with regard to the functions of these Commissioners, and that instead of a judicial body they were to be a representative body. The right hon. Gentleman told us that was not his object, but that he believed ten Commissioners were required to carry out these duties. I venture to disagree with him, and I believe that five Commissioners, or less, are all that are necessary for an adequate and effective judicial body. I do not know what he is going to tell us to-night, but I think with regard to this Question he has adopted a very evasive attitude. I do not know whether he will be able to give us the names of the Commissioners to-night, but at any rate I should like him to explain to the House what has been the reason for the change in the policy of the Government, increasing the number of the Commissioners from five to ten. For that reason I second the Amendment.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Baronet has made the same speech on two consecutive occasions, the only difference being that on this occasion he has repeated in addition almost every argument used by everybody else. The Noble Lord has asked me the same question again, and it is suggested that the answer I gave before is not the true one. I have given him the only answer I have got. It may or may not be a satisfactory one, and the Noble Lord is perfectly entitled to criticise it, but he must know that the answer I gave him was a perfectly satisfactory and sufficient one. I was under the impression when we separated last night that the hon. Baronet, or the Noble Lord, was going to move the substitution of six for ten, and that I was to give the names of the six

585
Commissioners, reserving the other names until the House had decided the question. I thought that was the understanding.
Sir F. BANBURY: The position was this: My Noble Friend was to move to substitute six for ten. I did not move my Amendment to leave out the Clause, because on the. Committee stage the Question "That the Clause stand part" comes last. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would accept an Amendment of mine to give us an opportunity of discussing the matter to-night, and he said that he hoped he might, in certain circumstances, be able to give the names of the Commissioners. Under those circumstances the Debate was adjourned. The Question "That the Clause be omitted" on the Report stage comes first. As far as I am concerned, I do not care whether the number is five or six, and if the right hon. Gentleman will consent to six instead of ten, I am perfectly willing to withdraw my Amendment. Of what has the right hon. Gentleman to complain?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Baronet has not answered the point I was putting, and he has made an irrelevant interruption. I was under the impression that it was understood that the whole point would be raised upon whether the number should be six or ten, that that Amendment would be moved, and that I should then give the names of six of the Commissioners to the House.
Sir F. BANBURY: I was going to withdraw my Amendment if that was so, but I did not understand it.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I was under that impression. I am not charging the hon. Member with a breach of faith.
Lord HUGH CECIL: I think the right hon. Gentleman is quite right in his statement.
Sir F. BANBURY: Under those circumstances I am perfectly prepared to withdraw my Amendment on the understanding that the Noble Lord will move his to substitute "six" for "ten."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount CASTLEREAGH Viscount CASTLEREAGH moved to omit the word "ten," and to insert thereof the word "six."
Sir F. BANBURYseconded the Amendment.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think it is desirable I should give the names of more than six at the present stage. I will tell the House how the position stands. I am not in a position to state all their names because they have not been settled, but eight Commissioners are accepted. I have submitted their names to the Sovereign, and I am in a position to give them to the House.
Sir W. ANSON: You will not give the names of more than six now?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, I do not think I had better give more than six until this is settled. We propose that the Chairman of the Commission should be Lord Richard Cavendish. I think it will be granted at any rate that he will be a guarantee of impartiality. We have certainly not suggested the name of anyone who is a partisan of the present Government.
The Vice-Chairman, who will also be a paid Commissioner, is Sir Francis J. Hopwood, G.C.M.G., Assistant Secretary and head of the Railway Department of the Board -of Trade from 1893 to 1901, Permanent Secretary of the Board of Trade 1901–7, and Permanent Secretary for the Colonies since 1907. Sir Francis Hopwood is one of the most distinguished Civil Servants of the day. I think his name will be an absolute guarantee that we have done our best to secure the services of a gentleman who will discharge the functions of his office impartially and judicially. Sir Francis could not take up his position immediately. He has certain obligations to discharge in connection with the Colonial Office, of which it will be quite impossible for him to get rid immediately; but he will be able to attend to the work of the Commission even whilst he is doing that business to which he must personally attend at the Colonial Office.
The third name I shall give is that of Mr. Sainthill Eardley-Wilmot, C.I.E., Inspector-General of Forests to the Government of India for several years.
The fourth name is that of Mr. William Stowell Haldane, W.S., of Edinburgh, Writer to the Signet, who I believe is also a land agent, and a good deal acquainted with agriculture—a singularly able man. I am sure the Noble Lord will bear me out in that respect, and that he will discharge his functions quite judicially.

587
The fifth name is that of Mr. Alfred D. Hall, M.A., F.E.S., who is director of the Rothamstead Experimental Station, one of the most famous experimental stations in the agricultural world. There is hardly an agricultural experimental station in any country that can compete with it in some respects.
The sixth name I shall give to the Committee is that of Mr. Sidney Webb, LL.B. His name is so well known that I need not expatiate on his qualification. Those are the six names which I was not in a position to announce the other day, but which I am at present in a position to give to the Committee. With regard to the selection of these gentlemen, I have done my best to choose those who are not prominently associated with any political party. I am not aware that any of them have taken an active part in the political world, and that is very largely the reason why they have been chosen. It was, in my opinion, very important that they should be free from the taint which hon. gentlemen who are criticising this policy seem to have apprehended would be present. The fact that these gentlemen have never taken any active part in party politics fully justifies the submission of their names; and under these circumstances I hope the Noble Lord will allow us to get on to the other names. I agreed when the matter was under discussion that, while there should be no representation in the ordinary sense, different parts of the country should be represented on the Commission, and it will be seen, when the other names are stated, that I have fulfilled that pledge.
Sir W. ANSON: I should like to support the Amendment. I never doubted for a moment that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do his best to secure the services of men of great distinction, and in view of the names he has already submitted I congratulate him on the success which has attended his efforts. But I should still like to impress on the right hon. Gentleman the fact that these gentlemen will have duties of very great importance to discharge. They will not merely deal with the £500,000 which is secured to them in the Bill, but they will also have to administer such other moneys as from time to time the Treasury may grant. In other words, their powers in finance are indefinite; we do not know how much money they will have to dispose of. They will consider not merely schemes laid before them by Government Depart-
588
ments, and schemes which have been framed in accordance with the desires of local authorities, but they also will have power to frame schemes of their own, to initiate great schemes for the general development of the country. That seems to me to be an important power Which ought to be exercised by the whole strength of a small and compact Commission, and not by a large body which may be broken up into detachments with diverse interests, and who therefore may frame schemes which do not come with the responsibility of the whole body.
Not only may they do that, but they also have power to make orders for the compulsory acquisition of land. It is contemplated therefore that they may be in want of expert advice in the matter, and this is provided for. First of all the application will come to them through a Government Department, and they will have the advantage of the skilled advisers of that Department. The Commission may appoint Advisory and Consultative Committees under restrictions to be imposed by the Treasury. I therefore think that it is impossible to say that this Commission needs to be increased in number. We have got a very good body submitted to the House by the right hon. Gentleman, but one must look to the future, and I think it is inevitable that pressure will be put on a future Chancellor of the Exchequer to secure the representation of particular interests and people in this body of Commissioners, who will deal with the large sums of money placed at their control.
I cannot help thinking that that will lead to an undesirable use of this money, and that you will not get the whole judicial strength of the Commission concentrated on each measure, and this body of ten Commissioners may be broken up into sections, each proceeding on their own lines, having their particular interests, prejudices, and crotchets, and each competing for a larger share of this money. I cannot help thinking that the interest of the public will be weakened, and will not be so great in the larger as it would be in the smaller body. These eminent men whose names are before us should bring their whole energies to bear on the various schemes submitted to them, and it is not desirable that the responsibility should be more widely diffused. I think therefore this Commission will be weakened in value by the increase in numbers. It is most

589
important that the work of the Commission should give a sense of security to the public that the large sums hereafter placed at its disposal will be used to the best advantage, and I feel satisfied that the confidence of the public will be better secured if the number were diminished rather than increased, and I should be sorry to see it increased beyond the number of six.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: I wish to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the admirable selection he has made, and to beg him to restrict the number to six. I think there is a great matter of principle involved. We heard last night from the hon. Member (Mr. Courthope) that pressure had been brought to bear to give representation to tenant farmers and agricultural societies. The question for the House is whether they want to have represented on this scheme four additional names representing minor agricultural interests. It is very important to leave the matter in the hands of the six Commissioners at present appointed, and ask them to spend the money, using simply and solely their own judgment upon what experts tell them rather than to add four experts in agriculture and give them an equal voice with the Commissioners in deciding how the money is to be spent. It is not as though we were keeping experts out. You have judicial people whose names will meet with general acceptance throughout the country. Do not add to it four people who represent agriculture alone, and whom all those who sit for industrial constituencies will suspect from the very moment they begin to adjudicate on the schemes.
I was afraid last night, though I feel more satisfied to-night that we were going to see in this Development Bill the growth of another Agricultural Rating Act—another example of the taxpayer's money being taken from the industrial districts and squandered in the agricultural districts. I think there is still a risk of that if we add four tenant farmers names to it, and give them equal voting powers with Mr. Sydney Webb, Mr. Haldane, Sir Francis Hopwood, and Lord Richard Cavendish. The suggestion was made in the House of Lords the other day that we might stimulate the cultivation of beet sugar in this country by advancing out of the Development Fund moneys equivalent to the excise charge. That is Protection and nothing else, and we do not want to convert this
590
Development Fund into a county fund for bolstering up industries which cannot stand of themselves at the expense of all the other industries of the country. The suggestion has been made that the Commission will establish light railways all over the country. If light railways will pay, and will be satisfactory for the community, they will be built. If they are going to put down light railways where they do not pay, and keep them going at the taxpayer's expense, that is a departure which is thoroughly contrary to the best principles of Treasury management, and I can only deplore that anything of that sort should happen. The land would be bought at extortionate prices so that the very money paid by my constituents in the industrial districts goes into the pockets of the owner of the land.
Mr. SPEAKER: Those are objections to the whole Bill. The point at issue is the Commission.
12.0 M.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: I was trying to point out that the extra Commissioners proposed to be appointed, if this Amendment is not carried, will be four members representing simply and solely agriculture and the landed interest. These people will have a direct incentive in spending our money building light railways for the benefit of the landlords, and I think it would be undesirable to build light railways which would not pay, and which would be a charge on the localities for the benefit of one particular interest. In the interest of sound finance, if not in the interest of Free Trade, we ought to confine the Commission to people of judicial capacity, and not introduce the representative element.
Mr. COURTHOPE: The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Wedgwood) is quite unjustified in the construction he has put on the words I used last night, and I should not have troubled the House on this occasion but for the statement he has made. Representations were made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer through me on behalf of agriculturists. We did not ask an increase in the number of the Commissioners. We merely asked in the first place that the Act of last year should be put in force without delay. We asked for no representation until reports came to us through the Press and other sources, rightly or wrongly, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised what I may call territorial representation to Ireland and Wales. We thought if this was the

591
case, it was time that agriculturists should ask for representatives too. It was then only that a deputation waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who courteously received us, and urged that we too should have a representative, if it was to be a representative Commission. How does the hon. Gentleman opposite justify his statement that the other four members of the Commission are to be representatives of tenant farmers? How does he reconcile it with the fact that we are opposing the increase of the Commissioners from six to ten?
Mr. WEDGWOOD: I think that shows excellent common sense. I do not think hon. Members opposite wish this Commission to be a log-rolling Commission, and it speaks well for them that they oppose the increase.
Mr. COURTHOPE: I have heard the names of three gentlemen who, it is rumoured, may possibly be included in the four, and not one of them is representative of tenant farmers. I may tell the House that one of the names on which we laid the greatest possible stress, Mr. A, D. Hall, has already been appointed. He is one we asked the right hon. Gentleman to appoint, and the suggestion has been accepted.
Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: We are all fairly well satisfied with the names which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given us, but there seems to be no reason why the number should be increased to ten. The right hon. Gentleman has placed himself in a somewhat difficult position by provisionally appointing some members of the Commission before ascertaining whether the House of Commons was willing to increase the number from five to ten, and it might have been more courteous to the House if this amending Bill had been passed before any communications were opened with the additional gentlemen. It was suggested by an hon. Member on the opposite side that the four additional names would represent agriculture. From what I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say, they would not represent agriculture or any particular industry, but would represent different parts of the United Kingdom. This is perhaps even more objectionable than representing different industries. When the Bill left the Grand Committee there was in it a Clause that the Treasury, on the recom-
592
mendation of the Commissioners, might if they thought fit to increase the number of Commissioners, but that was taken out by the House of Commons. Therefore the House of Commons on the Report stage, after carefully considering the suggestion, was decidedly of the opinion that the number should be limited to five, and it is a very remarkable fact that we should now be asked without any sufficient reason to increase the number to ten. Of course, we are all quite willing to accept the suggestion of the Noble Lord that the number should be increased to six, though I believe that five would be still better; but I cannot help thinking that the objects of the Commission would be interfered with to a very large extent if we have representatives of different localities and different interests. I prefer, therefore, that the number should be six.
Sir F. BANBURY: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made the suggestion that we should withdraw the Amendment in order to put in the word "eight." We think that is reasonable, and we are prepared on this side of the House to accept the proposal.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Before the Amendment is withdrawn there is one point which the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not make quite clear in regard to the paid Commissioner. I understand there is to be one paid Commissioner, but the right hon. Gentleman has not told us whether one or two or four of those whom he is going to appoint are to receive a share of the £3,000.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No; they will be all unpaid.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: On this Commission England is to be represented, and Scotland is to have a very capable and efficient member, as far as I understand from the names, neither Wales nor Ireland find a place on the Commission. I think we are entitled to some indication that these two countries will at least have equal representation.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. Friend is quite right. I gave a pledge on behalf of the Government that different parts of the Kingdom were to have at least one representative each, and I am bound by that statement. I frankly confess that I would have preferred that the House assented to the number which I first indicated, but I am very desirous of meeting hon. Members, because I think it very

593
desirable that this Commission should start with the unanimous consent of both parties. It is important that they should be free from any suggestion of being a mere party machine, and that from the start the tradition of this body should be that it is free from any political control or political taint. That is why I assent to the proposal to substitute for the machinery which was in the Government Bill a perfectly independent body of that character. I agree with the Noble Lord and with Lord Robert Cecil that it is of the highest possible importance that it should be free, and that is why I am anxious that it should carry with it the general consent of the House. Therefore I am quite prepared to assent to the substitution of "eight" for "ten."
Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount CASTLEREAGH Viscount CASTLEREAGH moved to leave out the word "ten" and to insert instead thereof the word "eight."
I am very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman thought there was anything offensive to himself in the speech I made. That was not in my mind at all. The question I tried to elucidate was the reason for the change of policy, because my belief is that the smaller the Commission the more efficient it will be. It is obvious from the speeches we have heard and from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that the different parts of the country are to be represented, and that, of course, does away with the idea of a judicial body. It means there is a representative body that represents different parts of the country. I am very sorry he should not have seen his way to having a fewer number. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer my own personal thanks for the manner in which he has met the Amendment I have moved, and with that object I beg to move the Amendment.
Lord BALCARRES: The paid Commissioner is to be the Vice-Chairman, but I should have thought that the paid Commissioner, whom we know is a strong man, with great departmental and, so to speak, judicial experience, and a man who has travelled throughout the country, should be Chairman. I will not, however, press the matter.
Question, "That 'eight' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS Sir RUFUS ISAACS moved after the word "and" ["and one Commissioner shall retire"] to insert the words "after the first two years have elapsed."
This Amendment becomes necessary after the Amendment just passed, and its effect will be that the eight Commissioners will retire year by year.
Lord BALCARRES: Does that apply to the paid Commissioner?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: He will be one of them.
Lord BALCARRES: Will he retire in the ordinary rotation?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The question of rotation has to be considered by the Government. I am not at present to communicate to the House of Commons the order in which they will retire, but I shall be quite prepared to do so later on.
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
Sir P. MAGNUS: Will there be any alteration in the number of the quorum in consequence of the reduction in the number from ten to eight?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE Mr. LLOYD GEORGE moved to leave out the word "five" in the addition to Clause 1 ["Five shall be substituted for 'three' in Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the principal, as the number of the quorum by which the Commissioners may act"], in order to substitute the word "four."
I am much obliged to the hon. Member (Sir P. Magnus) for the suggestion. Last night five was substituted for three as the quorum out of ten, but as the number is now eight, I suggest four.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I can now give the names of the remaining two Commissioners. They are both gentlemen with practical knowledge and experience of agriculture. One is actually farming at present; he is a considerable farmer, a man of great experience of local government, who has been chairman of his County Council and of the Education Committee of his county. The other has done farming, but I think has now retired. One is

595
Mr. M. A. Ennis, of Dublin. He has already served on one or two Royal Commissions, and has the advantage of never having taken any prominent part in politics in Ireland. I did not know there were any gentlemen of that kind in Ireland; but from independent inquiries I believe that that is a true description of Mr. Ennis. He is about the only one in Ireland of whom that could be said, and I thought the best thing I could do was to put him on the Development Commission. The other is Mr. Henry Jones Davies, of Carmarthen, a farmer and an efficient agriculturist. I am not sure whether he is now chairman of his County Council. He has not been a political candidate; he is a magistrate of the county, and a member of the Education Committee. The work he has done is purely of a local character. He is a very able yeoman farmer, and I am certain he will be a considerable addition to the strength of the Commission.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read the third time, and passed.
And, it being after half-past Eleven of the clock on Wednesday evening, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Twenty-three minutes after Twelve o'clock midnight.

  Pensions and Patriotic Fund Grants.
  Pensions and Patriotic Fund Grants.
  Publication of Public Records.
  Publication of Public Records.
  Old Age Pension Claims.
  Old Age Pension Claims.
  University Colleges, Wales.
  University Colleges, Wales.
  Credit Balances, Public Departments, Ireland.
  Credit Balances, Public Departments, Ireland.
FINANCE BILL, 1909–10.
  LAND VALUATION, IRELAND
  LAND VALUATION, IRELAND
  MOTOR CAR LICENCES.
  MOTOR CAR LICENCES.
  UNDEVELOPED LAND DUTY.
  UNDEVELOPED LAND DUTY.
  COUNTY AND NON-COUNTY BOROUGHS.
  COUNTY AND NON-COUNTY BOROUGHS.
  SUPER-TAX (COLLECTION).
  SUPER-TAX (COLLECTION).
  DUTY ON SPIRITS.
  DUTY ON SPIRITS.
  WINE RETAILER'S ON-LICENCE.
  WINE RETAILER'S ON-LICENCE.
  Income Tax (Christmas Boxes).
  Income Tax (Christmas Boxes).
  Development Schemes.
  Development Schemes.
  Untenanted Land (County Cork).
  Untenanted Land (County Cork).
  Compensation for Malicious Injuries (Ennis).
  Compensation for Malicious Injuries (Ennis).
  Killina and Kinarra Estate, County Leitrim.
  Killina and Kinarra Estate, County Leitrim.
  Cowsheds and Dairies Order (Ireland).
  Cowsheds and Dairies Order (Ireland).
  Police Force, Clogher, County Tyrone.
  Police Force, Clogher, County Tyrone.
  Evicted Tenants, Queen's County.
  Evicted Tenants, Queen's County.
  Monaghan and Cavan District Asylum.
  Monaghan and Cavan District Asylum.
  Maintenance of Lunatic's Wife, County Sligo.
  Maintenance of Lunatic's Wife, County Sligo.
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Skibbereen Dispensary District (Medical Officer).
  Skibbereen Dispensary District (Medical Officer).
  Congested Districts (Ireland).
  Congested Districts (Ireland).
  Development of Irish Fisheries.
  Development of Irish Fisheries.
  Cattle Driving (Ireland).
  Cattle Driving (Ireland).
  Pony Shot, Ballycnshen, Corofin.
  Pony Shot, Ballycnshen, Corofin.
  Pollock Estate, County Galway.
  Pollock Estate, County Galway.
  Worthington Estate, County Sligo.
  Worthington Estate, County Sligo.
  Congested Holdings, County Sligo.
  Congested Holdings, County Sligo.
  Intermediate Education Board, Ireland (Professor Butler).
  Intermediate Education Board, Ireland (Professor Butler).
  Godfrey Estate, County Kerry.
  Godfrey Estate, County Kerry.
  Board of National Education, Ireland.
  Board of National Education, Ireland.
  Healy Estate, County Kilkenny.
  Healy Estate, County Kilkenny.
  Untenanted Lands, County Kilkenny.
  Untenanted Lands, County Kilkenny.
  Cooper Estate, Knocklong, County Limerick.
  Cooper Estate, Knocklong, County Limerick.
  Weir Wall, Tarmonbarry, County Leitrim.
  Weir Wall, Tarmonbarry, County Leitrim.
  Untenanted Land, Moorestown, Kilfinane.
  Untenanted Land, Moorestown, Kilfinane.
  Evicted Tenants Act.
  Evicted Tenants Act.
  Untenanted Lands, County Limerick.
  Untenanted Lands, County Limerick.
  Motor Car Service, County Cork.
  Motor Car Service, County Cork.
  Irish Magistracy (Mr. Thomas Jordan).
  Irish Magistracy (Mr. Thomas Jordan).
  Congested Districts Board, Ireland (Rules).
  Congested Districts Board, Ireland (Rules).
  Dr. Foley Brew's Estate, County Clare.
  Dr. Foley Brew's Estate, County Clare.
  Magistracy, County Kilkenny.
  Magistracy, County Kilkenny.
  Flooded Lands (Ireland).
  Flooded Lands (Ireland).
  Arrests for Drunkenness, Ireland.
  Arrests for Drunkenness, Ireland.
  German Navy Estimates.
  German Navy Estimates.
  Labour Exchanges.
  Labour Exchanges.
  Assistant Store Officers (Royal Navy).
  Assistant Store Officers (Royal Navy).
  Training of Special Reserve Battalions.
  Training of Special Reserve Battalions.
  Gaps in Territorial Regiments.
  Gaps in Territorial Regiments.
Preamble
Several Lords Several Lords—Took the Oath.
CITY OF DUBLIN STEAM PACKET COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendment considered, and agreed to.
PONTYPRIDD WATER (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
CENTRAL ARGENTINE RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a: Amendments made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
The Lord Steward (E. Beauchamp) appointed to take the Chair in Committees of the Whole House this day in the absence of the Chairman of Committees from illness.
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BERKS, &c.) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Education under the Education Acts, 1870–1907, to enable the councils of the administrative counties of Berks and Surrey, the county boroughs of Birmingham and Swansea, and the urban district of Rhondda, to put in force the Lands Clauses Acts—Was presented by the Lord Steward (E. Beauchamp) (for the Lord President (V. Wolverhampton)); read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 35.)

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 92 and 93 be suspended; and that the time for depositing petitions praying to be heard
740
against Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, also the time for depositing documents relating to any Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House at Whitsuntide, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the Recess.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bills reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived, and Bills to be read 3a To-morrow.

EDUCATION—PARTIAL EXEMPTION.
LORD SHEFFIELD*LORD SHEFFIELD rose to call attention to the Reports of the Departmental Committee on Partial Exemption from School Attendance and of the Consultative Committee on Continuation Schools, and to move to resolve, "That in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that legislative effect should be given to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Partial Exemption, and that a statutory obligation should be imposed on local education authorities to provide, where it is reasonably practicable, continuation schools, and that provision be also made by Statute to aid substantially from Parliamentary funds the cost of such schools."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in introducing an educational subject to your Lordships I feel that I am in the pleasant and unusual position of raising a discussion upon a matter which, I think, involves no controversy, and on which I hope both sides of the House will be agreed. In regard to this question of strengthening the education in our day schools and securing a continuation of instruction after the day school career is over, I have the satisfaction of noticing that on April 20 last the House of Commons passed a somewhat similar Resolution after a short debate, without a Division, and with the general approval of both sides. I was also glad to note that the Minister for Education, Mr. Runciman, stated the other day that the Government contemplated legislating on the lines of the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Partial

741
Exemption; but, as we know, no educational matter can be touched in the way of legislation during this year. Although this is not a time for introducing legislation it is a time when We may strengthen the hands of the Government with a view to future legislation by making them feel assured of the concurrence of both Houses and both Parties in anything which will make more profitable, more effective, and more lasting the expenditure, which is mounting up so high and which some people think excessively high, on our national education.
The Departmental Committee, which reported in July, 1909, recommended unanimously—

1. That partial exemption should be abolished.

2. That there should be no total exemption under the age of 13.

3. That no exemption should be allowed by reason of previous school attendance.

4. That exemption at the age of 13 should only be allowed for beneficial or necessary employment.

5. That in case of exemption before the age of 14 the obligation to attend a continuation class be imposed; or

6. That with the approval of the Board of Education the alternative of passing a standard not lower than the VI be permitted, and that these recommendations should override the Factory Acts.

It may be confidently affirmed that these proposals are in harmony with the present public opinion of the country. The criticisms of them fall substantially under two heads—(1) the allegation that the conditions of rural labour require the early diversion of children from school to field labour; (2) the needs of the textile trades where industrial half-time survives—mainly in Laneashire, but also to some extent in the West Riding and in the adjacent districts of North Derbyshire and East Cheshire.
To take the agricultural case first, it has been found by experience that what is known as the clause in Robson's Act is quite useless for farming purposes, and has either never been used or has after trial been abandoned. The return of a boy over twelve years of age to winter schooling after summer work on the farm is found objectionable as of little or no profit to the boy and as injurious to the discipline and teaching in the school to which he returns. Moreover, the farmers do not value this intermittent labour. They toll us that if they can get the boys full time at thirteen it is far better for them than to
742
get partial work before thirteen. The two counties which had the largest number of such exemptions—namely, Cambridgeshire, 978, and the East Riding of Yorkshire, 386—have both of them abolished partial exemption altogether. In Kent there is a certain amount of partial exemption for agricultural employment, but according to Mr. C. J. Phillips, His Majesty's Inspector, there are only about 200 employed in Kent in agriculture, and the demand for children for fruit and hop picking is met, according to the same witness, by arranging the school holidays. On the whole, therefore, it may be said that agricultural employment does not demand a system of partial exemption. No doubt many agricultural employers desire the children to be set free from school at thirteen, and the Departmental Committee make this concession—that where the local authority choose they may, for suitable employment, set a child free at thirteen. As the local authorities are the county council elected by the population they will act in accordance with local public opinion, but this school exemption must be for suitable employment, not, for street newspaper selling or other unprofitable or even injurious activity, and it must be coupled either with fair school progress measured by passing at least Standard VI, or it must entail attendance at a continuation school.
As to the textile trades, the employment of children is justified on the grounds of the necessities of the family, the social question, and the need for the earnings, and the expediency of a technical training. I contend that there is absolutely no social reason why children in textile towns should be put to work earlier than in others. In Lancashire, the East Riding of Yorkshire, and in parts of Cheshire and Derbyshire, the working classes are, if anything, in a better condition as to wages and comforts than in other parts of the country generally; and outside the textile towns no difficulty whatever is found in securing the attendance of children up to the age of fourteen. London has as great extremes of wealth and poverty as any town in England, but in London no difficulty has been found in enforcing attendance up to fourteen. Practically all the children in London attend up to fourteen years of age. In Hull ninety-four per cent. of the children in attendance between twelve and thirteen years of age continue in attendance between thirteen and four-

743
teen years of age; in Norwich the proportion is ninety-one per cent. Practically the great mass of the nation does without half-time. There is hardly a half-timer in the whole of Wales. In Glamorganshire and its great urban communities there are only twelve scholars—they are in Aberdare—obtaining partial exemption, and these are employed as errand boys. In Durham and its large towns there are no cases of partial exemption. Northumberland is practically in the same state. In Lancashire, Liverpool and Manchester are free from half-time. The system is concentrated in the east of the county in a few manufacturing towns. The manufacturers do not desire partial exemption, and although the opinion of the working people is not yet on a level with that of their leaders in respect to this matter, I am informed that if the practice was abolished there would probably be the same acquiescence which followed the raising of the half-time age.
It is unnecessary to dwell on the injurious effect of mill work on these children or on the schools which they attend. The evidence on this subject is overwhelming, and is only disputed by a few interested in upholding the system. The effect on the schools is also bad; either the other scholars in the class are kept back while the half-timers learn their work, or if the class goes forward at the pace of the full-timers the half-timers are unable to follow the lessons. The inability of the half-timer to profit by school teaching is especially noticed when he goes to the mill in the morning and attends school in the afternoon. The evidence before the Departmental Committee showed that employers do not desire this partial exemption; the demand comes from the parents who are unwilling to relinquish this accustomed source of income. But certainly the prosperity of the trade does not demand it. In many of the newer mills no half-timers are employed. Nor does the work of the half-timer lead, as a rule, to adult employment in the same trade, and in many cases the work done by the half-timer is no preparation or training for adult work. In a few cases it may be, but not as a rule. The evidence also showed that the amount of manual skill acquired by the half-timer required a very short period of work. On the whole it may be safely affirmed that while, there are many operatives in the textile towns who would not willingly give
744
up their right to make money out of their children before the age of fourteen, yet if the law were changed it would come quite quietly and easily into operation; the population would very soon be reconciled to the change which the more thoughtful leaders among the working-class Would welcome now. I may say that when the law enabled local authorities to raise the age of exemption from thirteen to fourteen, that change, which was far more extensive, took effect quite easily, and in London no difficulty or friction occurred but the whole population accepted cheerfully the new obligation. The whole system is one the need of which has long passed away. Germany and Switzerland do not find it necessary to have a half-time system. It cannot be justified on the ground that the children's earnings are indispensable to the parents, because, as I have said, the need of the parents in the districts where half-time prevails is often less than that of parents in other parts of the country.
One recommendation of the Departmental Committee would make a material change in many towns—namely, the abolition of exemption from school attendance on the ground of previous attendance. In many districts this attendance exemption leads to the bulk of scholars leaving soon after thirteen years of age, I am rather surprised that the great town of Leeds should allow practically the bulk of the children by previous attendance to escape from school at the age of thirteen. In Leeds nineteen per cent. of the children remain between thirteen and fourteen years of age; in Sheffield, twenty-five per cent.; in Salford, twenty-one per cent.; in Oldham, twenty-one per cent.; and in Preston, twenty-four per cent. In these towns more than three-fourths of the children escape from school through exemption on the ground of previous attendance. The experience of the districts which have not enacted the by-law shows that it is quite easy to secure the attendance of nearly all the, scholars up to fourteen. Of course, where there is real poverty and urgent necessity in the family, the local authority use a reasonable discretion in enforcing their by-laws. I will not trouble your Lordships with the evidence, but it was very strong as showing how impossible it is for these children as a rule to profit by the continuation school. Some of them go to a continuation school, and you find a few exceptional instances of wonderful

745
industry and force which enable a picked few to go ahead in spite of their disadvantages; but the evidence was clear that in these northern towns those children who have been half-timers are for the most part unable to profit by the further instruction which everyone now sees is quite necessary between the ages of fourteen and eighteen to make our rising generation grow up fit citizens.
I now pass from the question of partial exemption and the recommendations of the Departmental Committee to what I think is quite as important a matter—the recommendations of the Consultative Committee regarding continuation schools. Everyone connected with schools now sees that it is on the intermediate career of young persons between leaving the day school and growing up into manhood that the future of this nation depends. As we can interest them in good continuation schools so we shall form the characters of the young people of the future. By means of boys' clubs, boy scouts, and girls' clubs everyone is endeavouring to get hold of these young people at the impressionable age. The continuation school is one of the most important instruments for the purpose of helping them and keeping them from going to the bad. The Consultative Committee went further than I am able to invite your Lordships to go to-night. Not that I am not in sympathy with their recommendations, but I am going bona fide to assume the character of a moderate and a rather conservative person in this discussion. I do not want this House to outrun public opinion. I am not saying that in five years we may not be ripe for all the recommendations of the Consultative Committee, but for the moment I merely desire to take one or two of their suggestions for which I think we are absolutely ripe.
Many of the recommendations of the Consultative Committee do not require legislation at all. They begin by recommending an improvement in the day school by reducing the size of the classes, by increasing the proportion of qualified teachers, and, in addition to other changes, by at once abolishing all partial exemption under the age of thirteen and in a short time securing the attendance of scholars, with one or two slight allowances, up to the age of fourteen. As to increasing the proportion of qualified teachers and diminishing the size of the classes, that is within the power of every
746
local authority. The Board of Education can by the Code enforce it, and the new Code is doing a great deal in both of these directions. The proposals of the Committee which would require, statutory enactment comprise recommendations that local authorities should be compelled to provide continuation schools and empowered to make by-laws making attendance at such schools compulsory up to the age of seventeen years. I do not think the time is ripe for carrying out the latter proposal. A similar provision was made in the Scottish Educational Act of last year; but none of the great towns of Scotland have exercised the power to make such by-laws, and I am informed that none of them contemplate doing so. It is a curious and interesting fact that the one place which has made a proposal of the kind is the rural parish of Ecclefechan, the birthplace of Carlyle, showing that the genius of resolute, earnest study and tearing out the heart of things survives in that neighbourhood. I think myself that we shall do well to wait in England until the large towns in Scotland have adopted such by-laws and until we have seen how they work. Therefore I exclude from my recommendations to you the proposal for power to compel the attendance of young people up to the age of seventeen. If local authorities were empowered to establish such schools and to make, them attractive and interesting, I believe much might be done without compulsion.
We are, I think, ripe for the obligation on the local authority to establish continuation schools where they are needed. I would say, as to this proposition, that it should be enforced with moderation. Before a locality or individuals interested could demand, or the Board of Education impose the duty of providing, a continuation school there should be evidence, of a demand on behalf of, say, not less than fifteen pupils in a rural district, and not less than thirty pupils in an urban district for such a school. Concurrently with this obligation there should be a statutory subsidy where schools are opened providing for the payment out of a Parliamentary grant of one-half of the cost of maintenance of such schools up to an amount per head to be ascertained on the basis of the cost as worked out in fact under similar conditions.
A great mistake was made a few years ago when ordinary evening schools, as

747
distinguished from technical schools, were treated as part of the system of secondary education. There should be two forms of continuation schools, and those which form the necessary supplement of ordinary day schools should be under the management of the authority controlling elementary education. These schools would be so intimately connected with the elementary school by the use of the buildings, services of the teachers, and immediate transference of scholars from the elementary school, that in the smaller urban areas the two managements should be identified. In counties the cost, like that of the elementary schools, should be a county charge. Possibly it might also be well to continue school obligation in the day school up to fifteen for those who are not suitably employed. There is much to be said in the case of girls for making this instruction largely connected with domestic training, and possibly of a half-time character. The wider proposals for enabling local authorities to enact compulsory bylaws for attendance at evening school might stand over until we had seen the effect of the milder provisions I suggest, and until we could see how far the new powers of the Scottish Act are used and how they work. I am content in England to wait upon the experience and progressive action of Scotland. I could only wish that our authorities were more ready to follow Scotland's example where it is shown to have succeeded.
I may notice that even now the difficulty of establishing continuation schools in rural districts has not been found insurmountable. The Departmental Committee report that in Bedfordshire, Cornwall, Kesteven, Cardiganshire—all rural counties—there is at least one continuation school to every three public elementary schools, and the number of scholars in the evening schools is comparable with many of the urban enrolments. In Cambridgeshire, according to Mr. Keen, the secretary of the Education Committee, out of 130 parishes 100 had evening schools though the official figures do not confirm this statement. But if we are to make real progress in securing further study on the part of our industrial population after they leave the day school, I am sure that the following conditions are essential—(1) greater State aid; (2) the schools should be free, or at least the fee should be returned to scholars who make a reasonable number of
748
attendances; (3) great liberty should be left to the local authority and also to the local committees as to the subjects taught; there should be no limitation of the freedom of the scholars to take one or more subjects, and we should rather consult the desires of the scholars than our own general notions as to enforcing any one subject rather than another.
Moreover, the recreative element should be introduced—singing, gymnastics, dancing, magic lantern lessons, anything to attract somewhat sluggish and weary young people to the school. Where a school can be started in connection with a club so much the better. The young people's club might be a feature of every parish, town and county, and the managers of the club would be valuable co-operators in pushing and popularising the evening school. I am sure that at the present day one of the most valuable improvements we can make in our national education is the preserving of what has been learnt and the utilising of the school knowledge by means of cheerful instruction carried through the critical years from fourteen to seventeen. To do this we want the community, through its official agency of the education committee, to furnish the teaching and the equipment, but we want every local voluntary force that exists for the welfare of the population to be called in as helpers, to enlist the sympathy of those who are to be taught and of employers and all others who control or influence these young people. It is, then, to the free life of the locality, both the wider life of the county and the town as a whole and the more restricted activities of the parish, that I look for the real impulse. The State should find a large part of the means, but should not try from Whitehall to be over wise or too directive in controlling the wisdom and action of those who are administering the work throughout the country.
Moved to resolve, "That in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that legislative effect should be given to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Partial Exemption from school attendance, and that a statutory obligation should be imposed on local education authorities to provide, where it is reasonably practicable, continuation schools, and that provision be also made by Statute to aid substantially from Parliamentary funds the cost of such schools."—(Lord Sheffield.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I think we shall agree that the noble Lord has added to his long roll of services to education by the speech which he has just delivered. I do not think we have any happier experience than when the noble Lord is able for a time to lay aside the controversial side of his position on these matters and to come before us with his instructive thoughts and in the character of one, I suppose, of the greatest living authorities on the whole matter of public education, and perhaps the greatest authority in this House. I may take the opportunity of saying that the most rev. Primate desired me to express this evening his regret that an ecclesiastical engagement of a peremptory character, which will be seen in the newspapers to-morrow morning, absolutely forbade him from being here. The most rev. Primate felt it his duty to break a lance last night with the noble Lord. All the more, therefore, would he have desired to be here tonight to give the noble Lord the cordial support which he certainly would have given. I think, further, we shall agree that the noble Lord has fully justified his claim to appear before us this evening as a moderate reformer. He has shown us that he sees that beyond the lines which he indicates for present action there is, perhaps now and certainly in a little while, more to do, and I think we shall admit that he has restrained himself within quite a limited province.
There are two parts in the noble Lord's Motion. First of all, he grounds himself upon the Report of the Departmental Committee on Partial Exemption. When We look at those excellent recommendations there is very much that we are glad to see, and which would be a gain. The noble Lord dealt in a very skilful manner with the whole question of half-time, and we are glad to feel that this rather dismal controversy is apparently drawing to its close. But when we come to the matter of the total exemption which may still be granted at the age of thirteen, I cannot help expressing my regret that the Committee have not felt themselves strong enough, for I assume that they desired it, to make attendance at a continuation school the only ground for total exemption. They do make attendance at a continuation school the ordinary condition of total exemption, but the authority may adopt as an alternative condition the passing of a standard
750
not lower than the sixth. I do not know what was in their minds when they made that qualification, but whether or no they are right in making it, I think we shall agree that it is regrettable if such a qualification has to be made, because what is the effect of it? The effect is that if a boy by thirteen years of age has reached Standard VI, then we are, certainly not without regret but without any practical protest, to allow him to drop out of education altogether. As the noble Lord has said, it is one of the greatest evils at the present time in this matter of education, that those upon whom we have spent so much money, upon whom the teachers have spent so much in pains, upon whom the parents have in a way spent so much in wages not earned, go out after the age of thirteen and constantly lose, as there is abundant evidence to show, the greater part of what they have learnt. Of course, if they have reached a higher standard there is less likelihood of their losing it, but the danger is real.
The noble Lord, in the latter part of his Motion, passes away from that particular Report, and he would compel local authorities everywhere to provide continuation schools. I should think that would be excellent. But the most anxious and important question about these schools will be, what scholars will go into them. I cannot but feel—perhaps I am an extreme reformer compared with the noble Lord!—that the day cannot be far distant when we shall have as a nation to apply pressure upon young people in the years that follow the age of thirteen and fourteen to be educated; or, as I would prefer to put it, we shall as a nation have to surround those young people with safeguards against the pressure which prevents their continuing their education. Are there not some rather anxious features about this? I trust that the noble Earl will correct me if I am wrong on this or on any other point, but I believe that evening schools at present tend to decline rather than to go up. Certainly they have not made the large progress which we should have hoped. The suggestions referred to by the noble Lord with regard to making evening schools more attractive in their character are probably mere expedients which people have been devising in order to try and overcome that difficulty. But it is not a question only of quantity. It seems almost a more important matter

751
still that only a small percentage of those who attend the evening schools are children of unskilled labourers; that is to say, the class which demands from us most of our sympathy, which causes us most of our anxiety, which economically and nationally in all ways is our crux—that class is the one which is getting comparatively very little benefit from continuation schools. Therefore this is the class whose present defective educational condition is going to be prolonged. Those are the children that we most particularly want to get into continuation schools. We can imagine reasonable parents, themselves unskilled and having encountered all the difficulties which beset unskilled labour, saying that they want their sons to get on better than they have done themselves. We can imagine them saying, "I cannot get my boy to go to the continuation school. I wish to goodness the powers that be would help me by making it a rule that he should do so." I believe that things are moving in that direction. I saw an account of an interesting experiment not long ago in America—I think it was in the town of Chicago—where employers had made a move voluntarily in the direction of allowing their younger employés to have half their time off in order that they should enjoy the advantage of continuation schools. The noble Lord (Lord Sheffield) informs me that some employers are doing that in England too. That follows the line of most promise, because everyone knows that the great difficulty about anything like compulsory attendance at continuation schools is that when a lad has had the vital force taken out of him by a hard day's labour he has not much to give in the continuation school, and you may injure his health by compelling him to attend. But in such cases as I have referred to, where employers consent to allow their junior employés to have half their time off, they make in that way two boys count for one. We are abolishing—at least we hope we shall abolish—half-time exemption from school under the age of thirteen. I myself feel very much that we shall have to go on to a new kind of half-time exemption—not half-time exemption from school for the sake of work, but half-time exemption later from work for the sake of school, in order that young people may continue the education which they have received and get a training which will carry them forward into the ranks of skilled labour.
752
The last word I desire to say is upon the importance of what may contribute to that result. Directly we deal with an education question here, however skilled the speaker may be, we are landed at once in what appear to be a number of technicalities. No one feels more than the noble Lord, as his concluding sentences show, that what on one side sounds technical is on the other side the most vital question before the nation. I think I can speak for a good many people of different sorts, all of them actively and intelligently employed upon the work of dealing with the young people of this country, when I say this has got to be more and more urgently felt as the thing with which we must deal. Both Reports of the Poor Law Commission have set this on high as the prominent object of public attention. It is so everywhere. The response to that is coming, I think, from all sides. Incidentally I cannot help feeling a little proud and pleased that the religious bodies of this country have, to their honour, one and all contributed to the care of those who are in the critical years between fourteen and eighteen; and now, as so often happens, it is suggested that all this voluntary work may fall in and be combined in different ways with what can be done under public authorities. Let no one imagine that we are dealing here with technical points. We are dealing with the draining away of the vital force of the nation. I do not mean merely the physical force in their limbs; I mean the power which is in growing lads by which they may be made efficient citizens, and which is the highest asset the community possesses.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: My Lords, I desire to support the contention of the noble Lord which has been so strongly supported by my brother Bishop. Having been engaged in the education of the young for the greater part of my life, I have of necessity been led to feel that legislation of this kind is long overdue. It seems to most of those who are actively doing work in the education of the young that it is both most wasteful and even absurd that we should continue to allow the great mass of our children to leave the elementary schools at the early age of thirteen and drift we know not whither, to grow up through all the most critical years of early life without any certain discipline or instruction or those higher

753
influences which tend to make the good man and the true citizen. I have been led to feel over and over again that it is really absurd that we should allow the great bulk of our children thus to drift away from all the higher influences of life at the very time when your Lordships are sending your sons to Eton or some other public school for the best part of their education.
In supporting the contention of the noble Lord, my only regret is that he did not go a step further with the Consultative Committee. He urges that it should be made obligatory for local authorities to establish, wherever they seem to be required, continuation classes or schools. It seems to me to be only reasonable that, if we impose that duty on the local authorities, we should at the same time give them the power to see that the expenses incurred and the organisation set on foot should be really made use of by those for whom they are intended. They should be enabled to make by-laws obliging the children of their district to attend these classes or schools during a certain period. I myself have felt this so long that five or six years ago I ventured to introduce into your Lordships' House a Continuation School Bill. At that time the noble Marquess opposite was Lord President, and he did not see his way to give any support to that Bill. But I venture to think that during the last few years public opinion has advanced very much in this respect, and we are all thankful to see what a great impetus has been given to the progress of public opinion in this and other matters by the admirable Report of the Poor Law Commission. I sincerely hope that the measures for which my noble friend has pleaded so well to-night may be very shortly taken in hand. I hope that at the same time it may be found that public opinion is sufficiently advanced to go even one step further and to make attendance at continuation schools or some kind of training for life obligatory on our growing lads up to the age of seventeen or eighteen, so as to save them at this critical period from all the risks of an undisciplined youth.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): My Lords, the Lord President, to whom it would naturally have fallen to take part
754
in this debate, is not able to be in his place. In these circumstances I hope my noble friend will excuse me if it is with brevity that I deal with the important and interesting question raised by him. I heartily concur in what has fallen from other speakers, that we are always glad when my noble friend, speaking as he does with unique authority, gives us the advantage of his knowledge of this subject in such a debate as this.
Of the two parts into which my noble friend's Motion is divided I will first say a a few words on what is called partial exemption, or more familiarly half-time. I have no doubt that my noble friend, like many other educational enthusiasts, would have desired, if he had thought he was not going too far ahead of public opinion, to stop exemption altogether up to the age of fourteen; but he felt, and his colleagues on the Committee undoubtedly felt also, that it was useless to attempt more than public opinion would support. They therefore made the suggestion to which the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Southwark alluded. As regards half-time exemption, I think my noble friend is justified in saying that public opinion has advanced in the direction of abolishing half-time altogether. There can be no doubt that whenever its abolition takes place some employers would consider that they had a grievance. There would be, perhaps, even more parents of children who might be half-timers who will resent the loss of the small sums earned by those children. But, speaking generally, I think my noble friend is justified in his contention.
I feel that the one argument which used to be advanced with some force in favour of the half-time system has been swept away by the Report of the Committee. If it could be maintained that the half-time system was a kind of substitute for apprenticeship, and that those children who were subjected to it proceeded by an easy stage to undertake their life's work in the trade in which they had been half-timers, even at some sacrifice of education it might be maintained, the organisation of labour being so difficult as it is, that there is something to be said for half-time. But my noble friend has shown, I think very clearly, that this is not the case. It is not the fact that in the textile trades the half-time children

755
proceed by a sort of labour ladder to become regular workers in the trade, and in those circumstances I think we must feel that the case for the half-time system has practically altogether vanished.
Then my noble friend dealt with the rural side of the question, and I think the House must have listened with great interest to what fell from him on the subject. At the time that what was known as Robson's Act was passed—the effect of which, as your Lordships know, was practically to allow a child to do most of his schooling in the winter and be therefore able to undertake agricultural labour in the summer months—high hopes were entertained that that might operate in some degree as a solution of the problem. But my noble friend has pointed out that this Act has been very little used, and where it has been used it has not apparently been found to serve its purpose. That, I think, is a disappointing fact in itself, because this rural problem is something more than an educational problem. It is not merely a problem of teaching the children in the schools at one time and allowing them to work at another. It is a problem of giving them the kind of education in the rural schools which should induce them to remain on the land, and I think it was hoped that this form of the half-time system might assist in the object which we all desire to promote. If it cannot be assisted in that way, we must hope that it may be assisted in other ways—namely, by changes from time to time as may be found necessary in the curriculum of rural schools, in perhaps a still larger attention to various forms of technical training which may be later on applied to an agricultural life, and by expedients of that kind. But I am bound to say that, so far as the half-time system or any application of it to rural life is concerned, I think that my noble friend has again shown that it is of no very great value.
I pass to the second part of my noble friend's Motion—to the question of continuation schools, which, as he has reminded us, are by no means in all cases properly to be described as secondary schools as that term is generally understood. My noble friend stated, with some pride, that on this subject he was playing the part of the moderate man. That has, indeed, proved to be the case, because those who have spoken from the right rev.
756
Bench have shown themselves in this matter more advanced than he is. What my noble friend asks is that the provision of some form of continuation school should be made compulsory on the local education authority where a demand exists, the demand to be proved by the existence of a certain number of scholars wishing to attend the school. I confess I do not feel quite sure that the passing of a Statute of that kind would have in itself a very far-reaching effect. My noble friend will correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that the greater part of the local education authorities do now make provision of a kind for continuation schools. It really, therefore, comes to this, that it is not so much a question of merely saying that the local education authority must open, if required, a continuation school or class; it is not so much a question of merely ordaining that the local education authority should open a school or class, as the sort of obligations or regulations in reference to that school which you are to impose on the local authority.
I confess myself I should be very sorry—and this also, I believe, is the view of my right hon. friend—altogether to close the door to the idea of instituting in England and Wales the same kind of local option which was applied in the Scottish Act of 1908. The noble Lord told us that permissory power to enforce the attendance of scholars at continuation schools has not been used in Scotland so far; but the time has been very short, and I am not quite sure that there are not special circumstances which have caused some delay in the matter in the minds of some of the principal Scottish local authorities. Therefore I do not believe myself that we should be proceeding ahead at any rate of better public opinion if we were to institute some similar form of local option in this country. I am sure that in saying that my noble friend will not quarrel with me in any way. It is merely that he fears that the power may not be used. I quite agree that, speaking as a general rule, it is undesirable to confer upon local authorities or upon any administrative body optional powers of a nature which they are not inclined to use. It has been pointed out, so far as compulsory attendance is concerned, that there are several large and important firms who practically make it a condition that youths in their employment should attend continuation schools, and something of

757
the same kind is being done by the Post Office. As matters now stand, I take it that it is only possible for very large and well-known firms, into whose service young men are particularly anxious to enter, to make an obligation of that kind. So far as the smaller employers are concerned it would, no doubt, be difficult for them on grounds of expense, and each man would feel that he was doing something that he was not obliged to do—sacrificing something, perhaps, which his neighbour was not prepared to sacrifice.
My Lords, on the general question I agree most heartily with what fell from the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Southwark as to the supreme importance of what happens to the youth of England after they leave the elementary schools. The right rev. Prelate alluded to both of the Reports of the Poor Law Commission. Certainly those who were responsible for those Reports have in no way under-estimated the gravity of this question, I do not know any feature in our national life at this moment which ought to make us feel more thoroughly uncomfortable than the fact of this perpetual waste of power and of money which is going on by the blind alley, as it is called, into which so many of these young people enter after they leave the elementary school. In one point the Board of Education are anxious to assist, and it is a direction in which I think something practical may be done. It is, I admit, only a palliative, but still it is of some service. That is to say, to bring the school authorities into communication with those who desire to employ young people when they leave school—to institute a sort of information agency, or, if you like to call it so, a juvenile labour exchange, in each case, through which boys when they leave school may be tempted to undertake some employment which would be of a permanent character, and not slide so easily as they do into various forms of temporary employment which lead to nothing, and which, when they come to an end, leave the youth or young man, as he then is, unskilled in any useful trade, and almost certain before long to join the ranks of the unemployed. If noble Lords refer to the Scottish Act of two years ago they will see that a somewhat similar provision exists there of establishing these information agencies, and I understand that the Board of Education are about to issue an important
758
circular on the subject for the benefit of this country.
It is, of course, impossible for a Minister, when he speaks on a subject like this, not to draw attention to the fact that most of these improvements must mean a great deal of money. My noble friend behind me is well aware of that. He has indicated that it would be proper for Parliament when dealing with this question to tell the local authorities that it is prepared to pay half the cost which may be involved. I am afraid it is not very often the custom of the Treasury to undertake to pay half the cost of anything without knowing pretty clearly what that cost is likely to be, and I am afraid that, whatever contribution may be made from public funds, it is not likely to take the form of offering to pay half of an expenditure the gross amount of which is to be fixed by somebody else. But, short of that, I think it is quite evident that the cost of this education, semi-secondary if you like to call it so or in some cases secondary, will have partly to be met by contributions from the funds of the nation. It is too heavy a burden for the local authorities to bear alone. Upon that we should all be agreed. If you are going to institute a system of compulsory continuation schools for 1,500,000 or 2,000,000 of young people, it must mean a vast expenditure. I do not say that the expenditure would be wasted. Indeed, I conceive it might be necessary. If you can show that unless you undertake at any rate a considerable expenditure the enormous amount which you are expending upon elementary education is in some degree wasted, that, of course, is a strong argument for making your elementary education expenditure fruitful by going a little further. But we know that all those arguments, excellent though they are, do not always appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has to think of balancing his accounts, and although every Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whatever Party he belongs, would sympathise with the objects of such expenditure as this, he is not able, in the particular position which he fills, to look at ultimate results to such an extent as many of us desire to do. But, subject to that, I can assure my noble friend that his objects have the sympathy of His Majesty's Government, and I hope that when it is found possible to put forward a legislative project on the subject in the main at any

759
rate the provisions which he desires to see inserted in an Act of Parliament may be found to form part of the proposed measure.
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I desire to express my great pleasure at having heard such a very sympathetic reply from the noble Earl the Leader of the House to the Resolution moved by the noble Lord. I am certain that many of your Lordships have for years felt, as I have, that one of the greatest dangers to our country is the fact that we allow our children to leave school at the age of thirteen, and that all the money expended upon them up to that age is in many cases lost to the country. Many of them after that age really forget for a time how to read and write, and if we are going to make our education of real use to the country and to place ourselves on a par with other nations, it is absolutely necessary that we should turn our attention to the subject brought before us by the noble Lord, and strain every effort to have these continuation schools made as far compulsory as possible. I fully admit that it is impossible for us to go in advance of public opinion; but I have some knowledge of what those are thinking who are interested in educational matters, and I am convinced that the public opinion of the present day, so far as those classes are concerned, is entirely in favour of the noble Lord. I have only lately returned from a long voyage. I visited many countries, and it is always a grief to me to feel when I come home that our young people are the only people in the world amongst civilised nations who have not the opportunity of continuing their education up to the age of sixteen, seventeen, and even eighteen. It is one of the great dangers which I fear to the Empire, that our young people are not being trained in the same efficient manner as the younger generations of other countries. I thank the noble Earl for his sympathetic reply, and also the noble Lord for having brought such an important subject to the notice of your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COUNTY COMMON JURIES BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
GLASGOW UNIVERSITY (CHAIR OF CLINICAL MEDICINE AND CHAIR OF CLINICAL SURGERY) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.] (No. 36.)
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Glasgow University (Chair of Clinical Medicine and Chair of Clinical Surgery):
ST. MUNGO'S COLLEGE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.] (No. 37.)
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to St. Mungo's College: and

MUIRHEAD TRUST ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.] (No. 38.)
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to the Muirhead Trust:
Were presented by the Lord Pentland (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, sections 8 and 9); read 1a, and to be printed.

THE HOUSE AND GOVERNMENT BILLS.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will grant a Return stating—

1. The number of Bills brought before the House of Lords, whether introduced in that House or the House of Commons, from 1906 to the present time.

2. The number of such Bills passed by the House of Lords.

3. The number and titles of such Bills, which having been before the House of Lords, were dropped by His Majesty's Government.

4. The number and title of such Bills rejected by the House of Lords.

I have ventured to ask for a Return which seems to me to be of very great importance, and as there exists some little misunderstanding as to what precisely I ask for, perhaps I may be allowed a short time in which to explain.
In the first place, I would like to point out that what I refer to are public Bills. One of the principal reasons given for the destruction of what is known as the Lords' Veto is the unfair treatment that Liberal measures are supposed to receive at our hands. This is a very grave charge, and in view of what is before us I think it is desirable than an official statement should be given showing what we have actually done. We have had

761
experience of the difference between general statements and particular statements. The former, of course, are not always very easy to meet, but the experience we have had of the particular statements that have been made against individuals is that almost in every case there are important omissions, and often gross misrepresentation, which entirely alter the character of the charge that is made, and refutation is a simple and easy matter. Perhaps I might be allowed to state my own experience.
Your Lordships will remember that there was a campaign of Peers during the last General Election in which many of your Lordships took a not inglorious part. I was one of those who took part in that campaign, and I am bound to own that the exaggerations which I met with made my position one of considerable difficulty. Take the many decorative posters that offended the artistic eye during the whole of that campaign. In localities where a peer was known it did not very much matter, because the people knew what to expect and were not disappointed; but in localities where Peers were not known there was a considerable amount of disappointment when the audiences realised the difference between a Peer in the flesh and a Peer on the posters, and I think many of them were inclined to agree with the description of this House which was given by Mr. Redmond. Speaking soon after the Prime Minister spoke at the Albert Hall, he referred to the fact that for the first time for over a century the Nationalists had the best opportunity they had had of trampling on and tearing up the Act of Union, and the only obstacle in the way were three or four hundred common-place, obscure, unrepresentative old gentlemen. The audiences on those occasions would always listen to what one had to say, and while they could judge for themselves of the exaggerations in the posters they felt that there might possibly be an equal amount of exaggeration in the picture of the Peer as painted by the speakers on the platform. I should like to take this opportunity of recording my own experience with regard to those who differed from my political opinions in the audiences I addressed. I had occasion to address audiences sometimes consisting of a majority of those opposed to me in politics, and in no single instance did I fail to meet with courtesy and fair play.
762
What is it we are charged with? In the first place, we are told that our motives are always mean, selfish, and sordid. The attribution of motives is not a very powerful argument, because, obviously, no one knows our motives but ourselves, and if others accuse us of sordid and selfish motives we can imagine where they get their ideas from. Then we are supposed always to be opposed to progress. That is absolutely untrue, and for proof that it is untrue you have only to compare the Statute Book of to-day with the Statute Book as it was on the accession of the late Queen Victoria. I will undertake to say that in no country during a period of the same time has there been so much social progress, so much improvement in the conditions and in the welfare of the people, as has taken place in that time in this country. When I was a Member of the House of Commons it was an interesting controversy between the two parties as to which Party was responsible for these measures of improvement; and while I do not propose to argue that point now I think I can safely say that the Unionist Party have no need to be ashamed of its share. But no matter which Party has the credit for the inception of those measures, your Lordships have the credit of having passed all of them.
Then we are told that we set ourselves against the will of the people. That is not true either. We always endeavour to carry out the wishes of the people, but we always like to make certain what really is the will of the people. It is a remarkable fact that when in 1906 a large majority of the electors supported the Liberal Party, they were then supposed to show great intelligence and political integrity; but when, after four years experience of a Liberal Government, they changed their opinions and voted the other way in large numbers, then we are told that it is beer in the boroughs and feudalism in the counties. The reason of the change, my Lords, is neither beer, feudalism, plural voting, nor undue influence. We say that the reason for the change is to be found in the disappointment felt by the electors at the failure of the Government to carry out the lavish promises made at the last election and distrust of the methods employed.
Again we are told that we are the lethal chamber of Liberal legislation, and if

763
I am granted the Return for which I ask, we shall have all these matters definitely shown to the public. If this House is the lethal chamber of Liberal legislation, at any rate the death rate is not a very heavy one. There was a letter written by Lord Avebury the other day in which he quoted from an article in the Fortnightly Review, from the pen of a Liberal, in which it was stated that 236 measures had passed the House of Commons and of these 232 had also been passed by the House of Lords. Therefore in view of the difference between these two estimates it is of very great importance that we should have a definite and official statement as to what actually has taken place. We cannot forget that there are great changes promised in the future the result of which no one can foretell. If those changes are to come, I maintain that they should not be produced by vague general charges incapable of substantiation, but that, in fairness to your Lordships and in the general interests of the country, the facts should be fairly placed before the electors.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will not press for this Return. As the guardians of the paper and ink of this House, we are bound, I think, to consider what the real value of such a Return as this would be. The noble Earl devoted a considerable part of his speech to matters which he would be the first to admit do not directly concern this House—namely, what he describes as the exaggerations and misrepresentations which accompany electioneering campaigns—although I am glad to know that he himself always met with the cordial reception which I am confident, knowing something of the neighbourhood in which the noble Earl lives, would be certain to meet him everywhere. But when you come to this particular Return, would it have any real meaning or value? As I understand, the noble Earl's one argument in favour of granting the Return is that if it is possible to show that you have passed two or three hundred Bills and have only rejected four or five, then the case as to undue harshness in regard to Liberal legislation is disposed of. Is that so? I will put a parallel to the noble Earl. His return for some reason only goes back to 1906. I think the starting point ought to have been 1895. He would find that during the years 1895 to 1906 no Bill coming from the House of
764
Commons was rejected in your Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: That is just the reason I did not ask for the Return from that year. I knew there were none.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Supposing during that whole time only three Bills had been thrown out by this House, and those three Bills had been the Education Bill of 1902, the Irish Land Bill of 1903, and the Licensing Bill of 1904. It is quite true that an enormous preponderance of Bills brought up from the House of Commons would have been passed by your Lordships' House, but the result would have been that no important measure of the then Government would have been allowed to pass into law. My argument, therefore, is that the purely numerical test is an absolutely misleading one. If it is of any value to the noble Earl to say at one of his public meetings that the House of Lords passed 300 Bills and only threw out four, he can say it. I do not think it is a very difficult argument to dispose of, or that it really meets the gravamen of the charge brought against your Lordships' House. Therefore I do not think that such a Return would have any real value, and in view of the fact that it would be actually misleading I must ask the noble Earl to be good enough not to press for it.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I was rather surprised when I heard the noble Earl who leads the House express his unwillingness to grant the Return asked for by my noble friend. If it had been a difficult and expensive Return to compile I could have understood his opposing the request, but I take it that the preparation of these figures would be an extremely simple matter. The noble Earl complains that my noble friend only desires to carry the Return back to the year 1906, but I think there is an excellent reason for which my noble friend adopted that limit of time. It is constantly stated by the friends and supporters of the Government that the last four years during which they have been in office have been years of humiliation to them—that is the usual expression—years during which their position has become intolerable owing to the practice of this House in throwing out Government measures. That is a charge which my noble friend wishes to disprove, and he says, I think naturally enough,

765
that it is impossible to disprove it unless you have authentic and official figures to which you can appeal. I admit, as the noble Earl has said, that a purely numerical test is not by itself conclusive. Supposing this Return were to be produced, everyone who studied it would, of course, have to distinguish between small, trivial, and unimportant measures and measures of an opposite character. The noble Earl would find, however, that this House has not only accepted the passing, but done a great deal to facilitate the passing, of a considerable number of measures of great importance promoted by His Majesty's Government, measures which at some points might have been expected to tread upon the toes of the particular class to which your Lordships are supposed to belong. I do not know whether, after the objection of the noble Earl, my noble friend will press for this Return. But I must say that if the Return is refused we shall draw our own conclusions, and when my noble friend reappears on the public platform I fancy he will be much tempted to comment on the manner in which this very useful information is being withheld from the House.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: My Lords, after what has fallen from the noble Earl and the noble Marquess it is not my intention to press for this Return, but I should like to endorse what has fallen from my noble friend Lord Lansdowne. I quite realise that a numerical test is of no value at all, but as one of my requests was that the Return should give the names and titles of the Bills so rejected, obviously everyone would be able to form his own conclusion as to the importance of a particular measure. I am sorry we are not to have this Return, but after what has been said I will not press for it.

THE ANGLO-RUSSIAN CONVENTION.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government how far the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1899 affects the proposal to build a railway from Chinchow to Aigun. The Convention lays down that this country engages not to seek for any railway concession north of the Great Wall of China in return for a similar undertaking by Russia in the Yangtsze Valley. In November last I drew attention in this House to the fact that Russian financiers had intimated their intention of
766
participating in railway enterprise in the Yangtsze Valley, and I asked whether, in those circumstances, British subjects were still debarred from enterprise north of the Great Wall. The noble Earl the Leader of the House, in a reply couched in language all too kind to me, stated that the proposed participation by Russians did not appear to contravene the terms of the Anglo-Russian Convention, and he went on to add that" His Majesty's Government did not anticipate that British participation in railway enterprises north of the Great Wall of China on similar terms to those on which the Russians were engaged in the Yangtsze Valley would occasion any protest on the part of the Russian Government."
Since that time there appears to have been some change in the policy of His Majesty's Government, for on March 23 the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, replying to a Question in another place, said—
"In the matter of the Chinchow-Aigun Railway, in which His Majesty's Government have been pressed to take an active part, they are unable to do so as they are bound to pay some regard to the provisions of the Anglo-Russian Agreement of 1899, which has never formally teen abrogated."
I am advised that the terms under which it is proposed to construct this railway north of the Great Wall are considerably more favourable to China than are the terms under which Russian financiers propose to construct the railway in the Yangtsze Valley. If His Majesty's Government are of opinion that the Russian loan in the Yangtsze Valley does not contravene the terms of the Agreement, then the proposal to construct this railway north of the Great Wall would not appear to do so either. What is sauce for Russia in the Yangtsze Valley should be sauce for Great Britain north of the Great Wall. There appears to be some feeling that this country is being made the catspaw of Japan in regard to Manchuria and Mongolia. That is not a question into which I propose to enter at the present moment. But I trust that His Majesty's Government will make it clear that, so far from backing up those who oppose the construction of this railway, they will take at any rate as active a part in promoting the enterprise of British subjects north of the Great Wall as the Russian Government have done in the matter of the enterprise of Russian financiers in regard to the railway in the Yangtsze

767
Valley, and that it is not to be the open-door policy in the Yangtsze Valley and the spheres of influence policy north of the Great Wall, but the same policy in both regions.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Earl has stated quite correctly the purpose of the Agreement of 1899. The proposed Chinchow-Aigun Railway would begin north of the Great Wall, and, therefore, at first sight might seem to fall within the scope of the Agreement; but it is, of course, also true that China proposes to construct the line, and therefore, in a strict sense, it might be argued that this particular line does not fall within the terms of the Agreement. If it does not fall within the letter of the Agreement His Majesty's Government think that it certainly does fall within its spirit, because the Russian Government have intimated to us that on strategical and economic grounds generally they consider themselves interested in the scheme for the line. When the noble Earl compares the two spheres it must be remembered that this line runs right up to the Russian frontier, and I believe actually crosses the Russian railway. The Government have been pressed to take an active part in the matter because British contractors are interested in it; and it is only this regard to the spirit of the Anglo-Russian Agreement which in our opinion forbids us to do so. But it would be altogether a misapprehension to say that in doing this we are running counter to the British or American interests involved. We are obliged to take the line that in view of the terms of the Agreement it is not proper for us to exercise diplomatic interference in the particular region in which it is proposed that this railway should be made.

THE CHINESE MARITIME CUSTOMS.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government what is the nature of the changes which the Chinese Government have made or propose to make in connection with the Imperial Maritime Customs Service by the establishment of a Board of Control; what are the powers and composition of the Board and whether, in view of the recent changes in the personnel of the Board, His Majesty's Government will insist upon a full recognition of the Inspector-General's undivided control over the personnel and finances
768
of the Chinese Imperial Customs in accordance with the Loan Agreements of 1896 and 1898.
This is a question of considerable importance touching very vast interests. It really concerns the security of capital of the amount of over £40,000,000, the greater part of which is invested by people in this country, but a great deal of which is also invested by persons living on the Continent and in America. Perhaps it would be to the convenience of the House if I should state, very briefly, the views which I believe are generally held, and thus give an opportunity to the noble Earl of contradicting such as are erroneous or based upon misconception. In 1896 and 1898 the Chinese Government desired to raise this loan of something over £40,000,000, and the sole security was to be the Imperial Maritime Customs Service. In order that this service should be administered to the satisfaction of Great Britain and foreign countries, it was agreed that the whole service should be under the absolute control of an Inspector-General who should be an Englishman. The clause in the Agreement reads as follows:—
"The Chinese Imperial Government undertake that the administration of the Chinese Imperial Maritime Customs shall remain as at present constituted during the currency of the loan."
That is to say, up to the year 1943. Sir Robert Hart, the then Inspector-General, had been already, I think, about thirty years in the service of the Chinese Empire.
That remained the position of affairs, perfectly satisfactory to this country and other countries on the Continent, until May 9, 1906, when an Imperial Edict appeared appointing two distinguished Chinese officials to be Administrators-General of the Customs, with control over all Chinese and foreigners in the Customs Service. Naturally that move on the part of the Chinese Government created a considerable feeling of alarm on the part of those interested in this matter, and, not unnaturally, a perfect avalanche of questions descended on the head of the Secretary of State in another place. There was also a debate in this House, in which the then Under-Secretary was enabled to inform your Lordships that His Majesty's Government were pressing for an assurance that the authority of the Inspector-General should be in no way interfered with. Shortly after that an assurance was given

769
stating that the Imperial Edict did not make any change in the administration of the Customs Service. That assurance, however, was never really circulated, although Sir Robert Hart was authorised to inform the Customs Service some months afterwards—in September, 1906—on the authority of the Administrators-General, that the work was to proceed as before and the staff remain in the same relation to the Inspector-General as before the issue of the Edict.
An assurance has very little weight in China as compared with an Imperial Edict; and, as The Times correspondent in Peking has on several occasions pointed out, the Administrators-General, or the Board of Control as they came to be known, were issuing orders in every one of which they repeated the words "in accordance with the Imperial Edict"; and it soon became apparent that the Board of Control were beginning to take considerable hold over the Customs Service. That at first did not appear to be of any great moment, for Sir Robert Hart naturally had such immense influence and was so respected on all hands in China that one could be perfectly certain that his authority would remain unimpaired. But it was found that the Customs Service, by being severed from its connection with the Wai-wu-pu, of which till then it was a department, lost a certain amount of authority and standing in its intercourse with Chinese officials. In April, 1908, Sir Robert Hart left Peking on leave of absence, and Sir Robert Bredon was put temporarily in charge of the Customs Service. With Sir Robert Hart's retirement from Peking the Board of Control naturally took the opportunity to strengthen their hold over the Customs, and that, I think, is more or less continuing up to the present time. Recently Sir Robert Bredon retired from the appointment of acting Inspector-General, and Mr. Aglen was appointed in his place, but on retiring Sir Robert Bredon was forthwith added to the Board of Control. I venture to think that by that appointment the whole character of the Board of Control was completely changed.
Recently Sir Robert Bredon retired from his position on the Board of Control, and His Majesty's Government have now a favourable opportunity—one, perhaps, that will never recur—in view of the appointment of a new Inspector-General and of the Board of Control returning
770
to its original composition, of pressing the Chinese Government to make the Inspector-Generalship absolute over the personnel and finances of the Customs Service—as absolute as it was before the issue of the Imperial Edict of 1906. By so doing I believe His Majesty's Government would not only ensure the safety of British and foreign capital, but would also maintain the financial stability of China herself. I venture to hope that His Majesty's Government will be able to give such information to the House as will satisfy the natural anxiety which is growing on this matter, and that they will endeavour not only to get an assurance from the Chinese Government, but an Imperial. Edict so that there shall be not the slightest doubt as to the absolute control of the Inspector-General over the Imperial Maritime Customs Service.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, in the latter part of his speech the noble Earl seemed to imply that by the creation on May 9, 1906, of this Board of Control or, as I think it is more technically called, Revenue Council, some important change took place in the relations of the Imperial Maritime Customs Service to the Chinese Government, but, as a matter of fact, the changes resulting from the creation of that Council have so far been purely changes of form, departmental changes, because the relations of the Inspector-General to the Council are, exactly the same as those which formerly existed between him and the Wai-wu-pu. The noble Earl has stated what the Revenue Council is. When that Council was created its chief member conveyed an assurance to Sir Robert Hart that the only changes which were involved in its creation related to the manner in which the ordinary reports were to be sent in and to other purely routine matters.
Then the noble Earl spoke of the changes in the personnel of the Revenue Council. It of course is common knowledge that Sir Robert Bredon became for a short time a member of the Council, but he has since then, as the noble Earl knows, resigned that appointment, and therefore I do not know that anything special arises out of that. When the Council was created His Majesty's Government entered a protest against its creation because they were quite content with the relations as they existed at the time between the Chinese Foreign Office and the Customs, and they

771
received a written official assurance from the Chinese Government that the existence of the Revenue Council was to make no change in the Customs administration laid down in the Loan Agreements of 1896 and 1898. Sir Robert Hart issued, by direction of the Revenue Council itself, the circular of September, 1906, to the members of the Customs Service, stating that the two Controllers had explained to him that work was to proceed as before the institution of the Council, and that they had authorised him to announce that the Inspector-General would have the same relations with the Revenue Council as he had had with the Wai-wu-pu, that his duties would continue to follow the same lines, and that the officials would work as heretofore and remain in the same relation to the Inspector-General.
It was naturally important that this circular should receive publicity, and His Majesty's Minister at Peking arranged with the Chinese Government that the Revenue Council should officially forward it to the Wai-wu-pu in order that they might authorise the Council to instruct Sir Robert Hart to publish it in the Customs "Quarterly Gazette," which is the regular organ for making announcements and which is circulated and published both in Chinese and in English. In those circumstances, and in view of the fact that no specific instances of interference on the part of the new Board with the Inspector-General have been brought to the notice of the Foreign Office, there does not seem to be, as matters stand at present, any means for addressing further representations to the Chinese Government with regard to the position of the Board. I did not hear the noble Earl say anything about Papers. As a matter of fact, I am informed that there are no Papers of any public interest on the subject since last we laid Papers in 1906. In those circumstances I hope the noble Earl will not ask for Papers.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think the House is indebted to my noble friend for having brought this matter before our attention. If I may be permitted to say so, he did so in a speech characterised by great clearness and evidently careful study of the intricacies of the question. It is of vital importance to this country that the work done by Sir Robert Hart should be continued and should not have been performed in vain. I was under the impression—
772
though I am bound to say that my knowledge of these matters is not very recent—that there had been continual attempts on the part of the Chinese Government to set up a Chinese Commission composed of Chinese officials, in a position which would have impaired the authority of the official at the head of the Board of Customs. That was, unless I am mistaken, the real source of contention between His Majesty's Government and the Chinese Government. Now it is quite clear that any arrangement of the kind would be a violation of those pledges and assurances which my noble friend recited during the course of his speech. I am glad to gather from the statement of the noble Earl that His Majesty's Government are, upon the whole, satisfied that this Revenue Council is not intended to usurp functions which did not belong to it before. That, as far as it goes, is satisfactory, but what I did not gather from the noble Earl, and what I cannot help thinking my noble friend desired to elicit, is this. Sir Robert Bredon has resigned, and what he would like to know is whether he is to be replaced by a British official who will be in the same position in relation to the Revenue Council.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I have no information on that point. But I think it was stated by the Chinese Government that Sir Robert Bredon's appointment was of a purely honorary character.

SMALL DWELLING-HOUSES IN BURGHS LETTING (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Law as to the Letting of Small Dwelling-Houses in Burghs in Scotland; and for other purposes relating thereto—Was presented by the Earl of Camperdown; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 39.)
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.
The Lord GRANARD (E. Granard)The Lord GRANARD (E. Granard)—Chosen Speaker in the absence of the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Commissioners.

FINANCE BILL, 1909–10.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a Tomorrow (The Lord Privy Seal (E. Crewe)). (No. 34.)
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Ten o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.