Sitting of 4 July 1910

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time to-morrow.
Great Western Railway (General Powers) Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Cardiff Railway Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Garnant Gas Bill [Lords],
Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Matlock Bath and Scarthin Nick Urban District Council Bill [Lords] (King's Consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Lancaster, signified),
Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Provident Association of London Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Tynemouth Corporation Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified),
Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Yorkshire Registries and Driffield Navigation Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill,
As amended, considered:—
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now-read the third time.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Kirkcaldy Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,
Read a second time; and ordered to be considered to-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 13) Bill,
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 15) Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 11) Bill (by Order),
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 12) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.
Message from the Lords:—
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the time limited for the construction of certain works by the London United Tramways, Limited; and for other purposes."—(London United Tramways Bill [Lords].)
And, also, the Abertillery and District Water Board Bill.
London United Tramways Bill [Lords],
Abertillery and District Water Board Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (REMISSION).
Committee to consider of authorising the remission of a debt due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to grant money for the purpose of certain local loans out of the Local Loans Fund, and for other purposes relating to local funds (King's Recommendation signified), to-morrow (Tuesday).—[Mr. Burns.]
MALICIOUS INJURIES (COMPENSATION) (IRELAND).
Return ordered "giving for each county in Ireland the sums awarded by county court judges at the last two quarter sessions as compensation for malicious injuries."—[Mr. Lonsdale.]
PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES ACTS, 1879 TO 1908.
Return ordered, "showing the working of the Regulations made in 1886 for carrying out the Prosecution of Offences Acts, 1879, 1884, and 1908, with Statistics setting forth the number, nature, result, and cost of the Proceedings instituted by the Director in accordance with those Regulations, from the 1st day of January 1909 to the 31st day of December 1909 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 177, of Session 1909)."—[Mr. Masterman.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Religious Instruction in State Schools (Queensland).
  Mr. HENRY WALKERasked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies with reference to the referendum recently taken in the State of Queensland on the question of religious instruction in the State Schools, what was the question asked of the electorate; whether women as well as men were qualified to vote; whether the referendum poll was taken concurrently with a general election; and what were the figures upon the question as thus submitted to the electorate?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): The questions put to the electors in the referendum recently taken in the State of Queensland on the subject of religious instruction in State Schools were as follows:—"Are you in favour of introducing the following system into State Schools, namely: The State schoolmaster in school hours teaches selected Bible lessons from a reading book provided for the purpose, but is not allowed to give sectarian teaching; Any minister of religion is entitled, in school hours, to give the children of his own denomination an hour's religious instruction on such day or days as the school committee can arrange for; Any parent is entitled to withdraw his child from all religious teaching if he
  1304
  chooses to do so? "Both women and men were qualified to vote, and the referendum poll was taken concurrently with the election of members for the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia. I gather from the newspapers that the figures were in favour of religious instruction—69,321 against 51,955.

  Coolie Labour (Trinidad).
  Mr. HENRY WALKERasked with reference to the statement in the Report of the Committee on Coolie Immigration as to the existence of a law in Trinidad which limits the amount of wages that may be paid to free and unindentured labourers, if he could state when this statute was first enacted; whether its object was to prevent a rise in wages at a time when labour was scarce; what penalties are imposed upon the employer who pays and the labourer who receives wages in excess of the statutory maximum; and what advantages the labourer is supposed to obtain in return for the restriction of his bargaining power as to the scale of his remuneration?
  Colonel SEELY: My hon. Friend is misinformed as to the existence of a law in Trinidad limiting the amount of wages that may be paid to unindentured labourers. There are, on the contrary, several provisions, designed to prevent under payment of indentured labourers, which incidentally tend to prevent indentured labour underselling unindentured labour. I am sending my hon. Friend a memorandum explaining fully the provisions of these complicated regulations.

  Labourers' Wages (British Colonies).
  Mr. HENRY WALKERasked whether in any other British Colonies or protectorates there were laws similar to that in Trinidad whereby free and unindentured labourers were precluded from receiving a higher rate of wages than that which was fixed by statute; and whether, at the other end of the scale, there was a minimum rate of remuneration for the protection of the labourer?
  Colonel SEELY: I have explained to my hon. Friend that there is no law in Trinidad containing such a provision as he suggests, nor do I know of any such law in any other British Colony or Protectorate. Provisions similar to those contained in Section 117 of the Trinidad Immigration Ordinance are included in the Ordinances of British Guiana, St. Lucia and St. Vincent.

  Gold Coast Land Concessions.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether he had any information that the Equatorial Rubber and Mahogany Concessions, Limited, claimed to have acquired a concession of over fifty square miles in the Axim district of the Gold Coast for a total annual rental of £52; that the Panni Lands and Rubber Estates, Limited, claimed to have acquired from the chiefs of Axim a lease of 64,000 acres for ninety-nine years at an annual rental of £21; that the Boinsu Rubber Company, Limited, claimed to have acquired from the Chief of Boinsu a lease of twenty square miles for ninety-nine years at an annual rental of £5; and that the Aywara Rubber and Cotton Estates claimed to have acquired four leases aggregating thirty square miles in the Axim district for an annual rental of £102; whether he could state if certificates of validity under the Concessions Ordinance had been granted to all or any of these claimants; whether he was satisfied that the legislation provided under the Customs Ordinance was sufficient to protect the aboriginal inhabitants of the Gold Coast from the consequences of agreements concluded by the chiefs with third parties; and whether he had considered if the public interest of the Colony was sufficiently safeguarded against arrangements of this character, which tended to place the economic development of the native races in the hands of European financial corporations?
  Colonel SEELY: The Secretary of State has no official information respecting the concessions to which my hon. Friend refers and is not aware whether they have been validated by the Supreme Court of the Colony on which the duty of protecting the interests of the natives, in respect of such concessions, is imposed by the law of the Colony. The Secretary of State will not fail to watch carefully the working of this law with a view to the introduction of further safeguards for native rights should such appear to be needed.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether the Colonial Office contemplate taking any steps to put the land system of the Gold Coast under which the native chiefs can alienate the land of their followers on the same footing as in other British Colonies on that coast?
  Colonel SEELY: I am not prepared to make a statement now, but I shall be very glad to consider the matter if a statement of the particulars is placed before me.

  Southern Nigeria (Fines Paid in Gin).
  Colonel WILLIAMSasked the Undersecretary for the Colonies (1) whether he was aware that a court clerk of the Brass district of Southern Nigeria was sentenced to imprisonment for embezzlement of fines paid in gin, and what steps he would take in this matter; (2) whether the practice which obtained for some time in the Brass district of Southern Nigeria of accepting fines in gin was contrary to the instructions of the Colonial Office; if so, who was responsible for this practice, and whether any, and, if so, what, notice had been taken by the Colonial Office of such a breach of duty; (3) whether he was aware that the statement made by Bishop Tugwell, of Western Equatorial Africa, that fines were paid in gin in certain; courts of the Brass district of Southern Nigeria was proved, before the recent Committee of Inquiry into the liquor traffic of Southern Nigeria, to have been the common practice in six courts of the Brass district; if so, what action he proposed to take to put a stop to this practice?
  Colonel SEELY: The matter of payment of fines in gin was inquired into in 1908, and it was found that in certain native courts fines had been received in gin, contrary to the law. The practice has been absolutely prohibited since 1901, and the abuse which had grown up was stopped as soon as attention was drawn to it. In the circumstances, there would appear to be no ground for taking further steps in the matter of the alleged imprisonment, about three years ago, of a native clerk for embezzlement of fines illegally paid in gin.
  Colonel WILLIAMS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that will be communicated to Bishop Tugwell, because it will be remembered that he was rather unfairly accused of making wrong statements on the matter?
  Colonel SEELY: I think if Bishop Tugwell keeps his eye on this matter he is pretty sure to know what has been stated to-day, and, if he does not, I will see that he is informed of it.

  Southern Nigeria (Governorship).
  Mr. KINGasked when the period of office of Sir Walter Egerton as Governor of Southern Nigeria would terminate; whether he had applied to be continued in office; and if any decision had been made in this connection?
  Colonel SEELY: Colonial Governors are Appointed not for stated terms but during pleasure, and the Secretary of State has every reason to hope and believe that Sir W. Egerton will continue to administer the "Government of Southern Nigeria for some time to come.
  Mr. KING: Is it not usual that shorter terms of office should be given to (Governors in this part of Africa?
  Colonel SEELY: It is the fact that the place where Sir Walter Egerton is administering as Governor is one of the most unhealthy character, and therefore he is to be congratulated on having filled the position with very great success, and without severe injury to himself.

  Southern Nigeria Colonial Service (Mr. Treasing).
  Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. H. Tressing, in the South Nigerian Colonial Service; whether Mr. Tressing was convicted of manslaughter for shooting his servant; whether he was bound over to come up for judgment; whether he was continued in charge of the same workers for some time by the Governor; and whether his services in that connection have now been terminated?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes, Sir. The facts are as stated. It was proved conclusively at the trial before the Acting Chief Justice, sitting with native assessors, that Mr. Tresing, a mechanic in the Public Works Department, shot a native watchman by accident. The agreement on which he was serving was terminated, not on the ground of culpability, but because the result of his action had impaired his value s an efficient servant of the Government.

  Emigration and Immigration.
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH - COOKEasked the Under - Secretary for the Colonies whether he will now consider the advisability, in the best interests of the homeland and of the self-governing Dominions oversea, of taking advantage of the resolution passed at the last Imperial Conference to hold a subsidiary conference on the question of emigration and immigration, to which should be summoned special appointed representatives of all the Governments concerned?
  Colonel SEELY: His Majesty's Government are not prepared to consider the
  1308
  possibility of summoning a special conference on emigration unless there is clear indication that the Governments of the self-governing Dominions desire such a conference.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend that this question of immigration and co-operative emigration should be placed on the agenda of the Imperial Conference?
  Colonel SEELY: I hope to be able to make a statement about the agenda of the Imperial Conference very shortly and to be able to publish papers on the subject.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: If the subject is placed on the agenda paper will the right hon. Gentleman see that the Prime Ministers of our self-governing Colonies get longer notice than they got on the last occasion?
  Colonel SEELY: If the hon. Gentleman means to imply that on the last occasion we did not give due notice I am afraid I cannot accept his statement. I hope we shall give adequate notice of all such matters.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether his attention had been called to the statement made by the President of the Local Government Board at the Imperial Conference, 1907, that it had been the settled policy of Parliament for some years not to grant votes of Imperial money for emigration; whether that was still the policy of His Majesty's Government; and, if so, would he inform the House how it was proposed to give effect to the resolution, proposed by Mr. Deakin and carried unanimously, to the effect that the Imperial Government be requested to co-operate with any Colony desiring immigrants in assisting suitable persons to emigrate?
  Colonel SEELY: I am aware of the statement referred to. The policy, as stated by my right hon. Friend at the Conference, is still the policy of His Majesty's Government. As to the question of co-operation with the Dominions I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Gentleman's question on 22nd June.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether his attention had been called to the statement made by the President of the Local Government Board at the Imperial Con-

  1309
  ference, 1907, that if the Colonies think that the work done by any of the Home emigration agencies was of such a character that it might be improved upon, the Government would be only too pleased to respond to any advice, suggestion, or information; whether the Government had received any such advice, suggestion, or information; and if so, what action had been taken or is it proposed to take in the matter?
  Colonel SEELY: I am aware of the statement in question, which still holds good, but no suggestions of the kind have, so far, been received from any of the Dominion Governments since the Conference of 1907.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the statement made by Mr. Deakin, late Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia, at the Imperial Conference, 1907, that the Agents-General of the several States of Australia thought that no effective assistance was being given to them by the Emigrants' Information Office; whether he is aware that in replying to this criticism the President of the Local Government Board said that the reorganisation of the Emigrants' Information Office is under consideration; and whether he will inform the House what steps have been taken, or what steps it is proposed to take, in the matter of reorganising the Emigrants' Information Office?
  Colonel SEELY: I am aware of the statements referred to. No steps have been taken to alter the functions and organisation of the Emigrants' Information Office.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does the right hon. Gentleman state that His Majesty's Government will take any such steps?
  Colonel SEELY: There is no present intention. I mean no intention at the moment. The whole question is a very difficult one, and it is not one that we can possibly discuss usefully, I think, by question and answer.
  Mr. LAWSON: Is the whole subject now under the consideration of the Colonial Secretary?
  Colonel SEELY: The question is embarrassing because the hon. Gentleman knows that I had a consultation with him
  1310
  on the subject. There is no immediate prospect of a change being made, but the matter is important and demands consideration.

  Hudson Straits (Canadian Jurisdiction).
  Mr. MACMASTERasked whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies has any information showing that the Government of the United States of America has authorised American whaling ships to disregard Canadian jurisdiction in the Hudson Straits and in Hudson Bay?
  Colonel SEELY: I have seen a statement in the Press on the subject, but no official information has been received.

  Labourers Acts (Ireland) Advances.
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN (for Mr. Patrick White)asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state what is the total amount repaid to the Treasury out of advances made under various Acts for the erection of labourers' cottages in Ireland; whether the Irish Land Commission has advanced the total amount authorised under Section 16 of the Labourers Act, 1906; if so, whether further sums can be advanced out of the Irish Land Purchase Fund without special legislation; and, if not, what steps the Government propose to take to continue the working of the Act of 1906 on the same financial basis as heretofore; and whether there is anything to prevent the National Debt Commissioners from making temporary advances to preserve the continuity of the policy of the Act, pending a new flotation of guaranteed land stock, or legislation if required?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): Loans made by the Board of Works for the erection of labourers' cottages are repaid on the annuity system, and the amount of the sinking fund included in the annuity varies with the rate of interest charged at the time loans are made, and the term of repayment of such loans. It is not, therefore, possible to say what the amount of the sinking fund contained in the annuity as a whole is, without calculations involving considerable labour and time. The number of loans made is 1,220 at rates of interest varying from 2¾ per cent, to 4¼ per cent, per annum, and periods varying from twenty-five to sixty-eight and a half years. Allowing for accumulations, the total amount repaid to the board since the beginning of the service out of the total

  1311
  sum of £3,460,556 advanced was, up to 31st March last, £698,355. Under the Labourers Act, 1906, loans are made by the Land Commission for the erection of labourers' cottages by annuity extending over a period of sixty-eight and a half years at a fixed rate of interest for the whole term of 2¾ per cent, with a sinking fund of ½ per cent, in addition. I am informed that the total amount of the sinking fund repaid to date is £337. The whole amount authorised under Section 16 of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906, has been either advanced or earmarked to existing schemes. No further sums in excess of 4¼ millions could be advanced by the Irish Land Commission under that Section without special legislation, and it is not intended to propose such legislation at present.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Do I understand that it is impossible for the National Debt Commissioners to make temporary advances?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not think that there is any need to do so. I am informed that it will take three or four years to get through the money that is available for the cottages which it is intended to build under this section. There is plenty of money.
  Mr. MOORE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that owing to Liberal finance in every rural district in Ireland there are schemes which cannot be proceeded with on account of the money not being forthcoming?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That cannot be the case because there are a great many cottages, 5,000 or 6,000, remaining to be built, and there is plenty of money for them.
  Mr. MOORE: But with regard to further schemes under the Labourers Acts which day by day are being put forward and which the Local Government Board are suspending because there is no money?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No such representation as that has reached us.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: With reference to the right hon. Gentleman's statement that it is not proposed at present to introduce legislation on this question, is he not aware of the fact that the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Birrell) within the last couple of months stated that the question of introducing the necessary legislation
  1312
  to enable the labourers' schemes to go on was under the consideration of the Government, and that he had hopes that legislation would be introduced?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No representations ever reached me from the Irish Office.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: Would it not be well that the Treasury in dealing with questions connected with the Irish Office should communicate with the Irish Office and find out how the matter stands?
  Mr. MOORE: Otherwise the Nationalists will put them out.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think in this case the representations ought to come from the persons who want to borrow the money. If it is necessary to spend this money at all the representations should come from the people who desire to spend it. It is not the business of the Treasury to find out whether people want to spend money.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: That is not exactly the point of my question. My question to the right hon. Gentleman is this: When questions are addressed to the Treasury dealing with Irish matters of this sort, is not it the duty of the Treasury, before giving an answer in this House, to communicate with the Irish Office and find out how the facts really stand?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is so. I have communicated with the Irish Office, and it is in accordance with the information received from them that I have given the answer which I have given to the question on the Paper.
  Mr. MOORE: Is it a well-settled principle now that the Irish rural district councils are to communicate directly with the right hon. Gentleman or with his Department, and not with the Irish Local Government Board, which has been the practice for the last forty years?
  Mr. DILLON: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the Irish Office has informed him that no applications are now before the Irish authorities for loans under the Labourers Acts?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No. I have made no such statement as that. What I said was that there was still some money available to build cottages, and that it would take two or three or four years to get to the end of these loans.
  Mr. DILLON: What has that to say to-the applications now made?

  Crown Leases (London)
  Lord ALEXANDER THYNNEasked whether the Crown have since January, 1900, granted or renewed a number of leases within the county of London at increased rentals; and if he can state the total amount of such increase of annual rental, as well as the total amount of the fines or premiums received in respect of such Grants or renewals?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The information desired will be found in the Schedules to the annual Reports of the Commissioners of Woods, etc., in which full particulars are given of leases granted, showing the old and new rents and the fines, if any, taken.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what course the Treasury followed?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: If the Noble Lord will look at the Schedule to which I referred him he will see the whole facts set out.

  Kingstown Harbour Dues (London and North-Western Steamers).
  Mr. CLANCYasked if the right hon. Gentleman will now state specifically, giving in detail the money value of each, what are the services performed by the London and North-Western Railway Company on account of which the Lords of the Treasury have been considering for more than two years past whether the Kingstown Harbour dues, which the steamers of that company are legally liable for, shall be charged or not; will he give similar information as to the services performed by the Great Western Railway Company and the dues for which their steamers are liable; and when will a decision be come to on the entire matter?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: During the last fortnight the negotiations between the London and North-Western Railway and the Treasury have been continued, and I hope I may be in a position to conclude them at no distant date.
  Mr. CLANCY: Did not the right hon. Gentleman state that the, negotiations were suspended for a year or so?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I did not make any such statement.
  Mr. CLANCYasked whether there has been any correspondence, in addition to that already published in the shape of a Parliamentary Return, in reference to the use of the pier at Kingstown by the
  1314
  steamers of the London and North-Western Railway Company, and the dues to be paid for the use of Kingstown Harbour by that company; and if so, whether he will publish it either in a Parliamentary Paper or otherwise?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No further correspondence has passed.
  Mr. CLANCY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he or his predecessor said two years ago that further correspondence had passed even at that time?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No; I do not recollect making any such statement myself, and I cannot be answerable for what may have been said by my predecessor.
  Mr. MOONEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was stated that there had been further correspondence, but that it was not wise to publish it, as judicial proceedings were pending?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not recollect. If the hon. Gentleman will give me dates and particulars, I will look into the matter.

  Public Health Act (Pulmonary Phthisis).
  Mr. WILLIAM YOUNGERasked the Lord Advocate if, in view of the small proportion of local authorities which have applied to have pulmonary phthisis included in the list of notifiable diseases, and of the fact that the circular of the Local Government Board of 10th March, 1906, pointed out that a system of notification is essential for the effective application of the Public Health Act to pulmonary phthisis, he will consider the advisability of making the notification of this disease compulsory throughout the country?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): Up to the present seventy-four local authorities representing almost 50 per cent, of the total population of Scotland have ex-tended the provisions of the Infectious Diseases (Notification) Act, 1889, to pulmonary phthisis. The Local Government Board regard the progress made in this direction as very satisfactory. They will continue to urge on local authorities the advisability of extending the Notification Act to phthisis, but they do not think that such a measure as is indicated in the last part of the question is necessary or advisable meantime.
  Mr. WILLIAM YOUNGERasked, in view of the fact that many local authorities have not yet taken any steps to carry

  1315
  out the recommendations of the Local Government Board, as suggested in their circulars of 10th March, 1906, and 15th July, 1908, in the latter of which it is stated that the obligation resting on local authorities to deal with pulmonary phthisis has become more imperative, if the right hon. Gentleman will take steps to compel such local authorities to fulfil their obligations towards sufferers from phthisis within their districts?
  Mr. URE: I am informed that the Local Government Board continue to press on local authorities the necessity for action in dealing with this question, and to warn them of their responsibilities in the matter, that in most districts preventive measures of some kind are in operation, and that the Board propose shortly to issue a further circular on the subject.

  Sheep Stock Valuations (Scotland).
  Sir MARK STEWARTasked if it is the right hon. Gentleman's intention' this Session to introduce a Bill with regard to sheep stock valuations in Scotland?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Edward Strachey): I hope such a Bill will be introduced at an early date.

  Towyn Church School.
  Mr. CLOUGHasked the President of the Board of Education whether he can explain how it was that the average attendance at the Towyn Church School rose rapidly from twenty to fifty-six; whether the Church of England parents in the district voluntarily contributed to this increase or were incited thereto by the incumbent; whether he can give particulars of the teaching staff; whether the incumbent is on the teaching staff or regularly takes charge of certain classes; and, if so, during what hours, in which subjects, and at what salary?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): With regard to the first and second parts of the question the Board have no information. As the school has been removed from the Annual Grant List the matters referred to in the rest of the question do not come within the cognisance of the Board.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that until two years ago the average attendance of this school was
  1316
  over fifty, that the attendance only went down temporarily, and that it has now reverted to its former standard?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I have not the exact figures, but the attendance has been down for the last few years.
  Mr. CLOUGH: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to whether the incumbent or curate is not now teaching the children in attendance at the school?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: It has nothing to do with the Board of Education who is teaching the children.
  Mr. CLOUGH: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiry?

  Welsh Language (Summer Course of Instruction).
  Mr. EDGAR JONESasked whether the statement in his Report for the year 1908–9, page 65, that the Cardiganshire County Council has provided a holiday course of instruction in the Welsh language is accurate; whether he is aware that the holiday course held at Aberystwith was under the auspices of the Welsh Language Society, which has been arranging such a course every summer for some years with the assistance of many of the Welsh local education authorities; and whether the Board of Education has any knowledge of the voluntary work that has been done by the Welsh Language Society?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: The statement referred to is not accurate. It was desired to show in the Report where the various summer courses took place, and, by inadvertence, the course in question was referred to as being provided by the authority in whose area it is given. The course referred to was that arranged by the Welsh Language Society. The Board are fully cognisant of the work of the Society, to whom they have been paying grants in respect of their summer courses since the year 1907.

  Irish Provincial Mails (Greystones, County Wicklow).
  Mr. MULDOONasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that there is no collection of letters for the English or Irish provincial mails at Greystones, county Wicklow, on Sunday evenings, although towns and villages further down the same line have such service; and whether he intends to remedy this inconvenience?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I am inquiring whether the desired facility can be granted.

  Post Office Promotion (Dublin).
  Mr. NANNETTIasked whether in the recent promotions of postmen in Dublin to head and assistant postmen the positions were, in three cases, given to junior men numbering 152, 162, and 183 on the seniority list; what steps were taken to ensure that among the men passed over there were none who were qualified by character and ability for these positions; whether nearly all of those passed over were Roman Catholics, while the three junior men promoted were Protestants; and if he will take steps to ensure that senior men are not passed over without proper inquiry, and that Roman Catholic postmen get their fair share of promotion at the Dublin office in future?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In accordance with the usual procedure invitations were issued to the postmen generally to apply for the vacant allowances, and fifty-nine applications were received. The officers selected occupied respectively the following places on the list of applicants:—9th, 12th, 20th, 21st, 32nd, 36th, 39th. They were regarded as the best qualified for the efficient performance of the superior duties. I am assured that the officer responsible for the selections had no knowledge of the religion of any of the applicants, and as no inquiries are made on this point, I am not aware what proportion of the postmen who have been promoted are Roman Catholics and Protestants respectively.
  Mr. NANNETTI: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry as to whether the facts that have been published are correct or not?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No; I think it is very undesirable to inquire into the religious beliefs of Post Office servants.
  Mr. NANNETTI: As I know that there is general dissatisfaction on this matter—it is painful to me to ask these questions—and that it has caused great complaint in the City of Dublin, will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry and see that justice is done?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Secretary to the Post Office in Ireland belongs to the Roman Catholic faith, and I cannot
  1318
  believe that there is any prejudice against Roman Catholics.

  Post Office Wages (Bristol).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked upon what principal of classification three maximums have been established for Post Office wages at Bristol, and what paragraph of the Hobhouse Committee's Report justifies such diversity of wages in one town?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I assume that the hon. Member refers to the remuneration of postmen. In the town postal area of Bristol there is but one scale of pay for postmen, namely, that specified in paragraph 341 of the Select Committee's Report as applicable to offices in Class I. Sub-offices in the neighbourhood of the Bristol town postal area have been placed in Classes II. and III. in accordance with the principles explained on page 56 of the Parliamentary Return—Post Office (Changes in Wages, etc.)—issued in July, 1908.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the question where I ask for reference to the paragraph of the Hobhouse Committee's Report which justifies three sets of wages?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There are not three sets of wages in the town. There is only one town postal area and one rate of wages.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Am I to understand that you have separated the city of Bristol into three sections?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There is one postal area, and there are some offices in the districts surrounding the city of Bristol on different scales in accordance with the principles followed in the Post Office, the wages paid varying with the amount of work performed in the different offices.

  Postal Officials and Elections.
  Mr. NIELDasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the local postmasters at Upton and Clap-gate (East Dorset) have each of them exhibited election bills and literature in favour of the Radical candidate during the by-election in that Division; whether he has caused any remonstrance to be made to such postmasters, or whether any objection has been intimated to them by their official superiors as to their being liable

  1319
  to dismissal; and whether any differentiation has been made in their cases and the case of the retired soldier postmaster at Lytchett Minster, upon whose cottage a Conservative poster was affixed in January last and allowed to remain, as to the consequences of such conduct?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There have been four cases in which my attention has been drawn, in Connection with the recent election in East Dorset, to breaches by sub-postmasters of the rule which forbids them from taking an active part in party politics. The first was that of a sub-postmaster from a neighbouring constituency, who spoke at meetings on behalf of the Liberal candidate. He was censured and informed that he could not be retained in the service of the Post Office if he persisted. He has not again infringed the rule. The next case was that of the sub-postmaster of Lytchett Minster, who exhibited on the walls of the post office placards in support of the Conservative candidate. He was seen on the subject, and requested to remove them, which he refused to do. He was then informed that if he deliberately disobeyed the rules of the Post Office he could not be continued in it service, and as he still declined to remove the placards he was suspended from his functions. At the same time I was informed that the sub-postmasters of Upton and Clapgate were exhibiting on their premises placards in the interest of the Liberal candidate. Similar instructions were immediately sent, and the sub-postmasters in both cases at once removed the posters. The allegation that any discrimination in any particular has been made in these cases in favour of one party as against another is wholly unfounded. I may add that as the sub-postmaster of Lytchett Minster has been a useful and efficient servant of the Post Office, and has, in addition, previously served with credit in the Army, I propose to reinstate him in his position, on an assurance being given that he will not again offend against the regulations of the Department. It must not, however, be assumed that this course will be followed if other similar cases occur.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Who was deputed to remonstrate with the postmaster at Lytchett Minster?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The surveyor sent one of his staff.

  Post Office (Girl Messengers).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Postmaster-General whether he will take steps to ensure that the scale of pay of the proposed girl messengers in the Post Office is not inferior to that of the boy indoor messengers whom they are intended to displace, seeing that the duties performed by them will be the same as those now performed by boys?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The scale of pay for girls, whom it may be decided to substitute for indoor boy messengers, has not yet been settled. But I would observe that the less strength of girls will necessitate the heavier duties which fall to this class being still performed by boys. This will make the services of the girls of less value than that of the boys, and their remuneration will consequently be somewhat less.

  Cork Prosecution (Case of Patrick Hanley)
  Mr. MULDOONasked the Attorney-General for Ireland whether Mr. Anthony Carroll, Crown Solicitor for Cork, obtained his directions as to a prosecution instituted against Patrick Hanley, on a charge of forcible possession; whether those directions were that the prosecution should be abandoned, as there was no evidence against the accused; whether Mr. Carroll had acted for the landlord against the accused in civil proceedings relating to the subject-matter; whether, when he found himself unable to utilise the Crown in the criminal matter, he became prosecutor himself and engaged counsel and solicitors to prosecute; whether it is intended to allow the conviction, so obtained, to stand; and whether Mr. Carroll has been allowed to offer to Hanley terms in Cork Gaol?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry): My directions in this case were not that the prosecution against the accused should be abandoned, but that it should be left in the hands of the private complainant who had instituted it. Mr. Carroll, I am informed, did act as solicitor for the landlord in the ejectment proceedings taken against the accused, but he never was the prosecutor in the criminal matter, and he took no part in the prosecution beyond retaining, as solicitor and agent for the complainant, an independent solicitor to conduct the proceedings. In submitting the case to me for directions, Mr. Carroll acted in the regular course of his duty,

  1321
  and in doing so he made no indirect use whatever of his position as Crown Solicitor. Mr. Carroll had no communication with Hanley in Cork Gaol. In the circumstances I see no reason to question the propriety of the conviction.

  Departmental Committee on Deep Excavations.
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Departmental Committee on Deep Excavations have visited and inspected any deep trenches in course of execution in this country; and whether they have begun to take evidence upon the subject?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman): The Secretary of State is informed that the Committee have already visited and inspected several works in course of construction, and are proposing to visit others. Arrangements have been made to commence the taking of evidence in London at the beginning of September.
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked whether it is proposed that the Departmental Committee on Deep Excavations should issue special interim Reports upon the causes of the recent disasters at Newport and Birkenhead Docks?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It is not proposed to ask the Committee to make interim Reports upon the causes of the disasters at Newport and Birkenhead Docks. The reference to the Committee is to inquire generally into the dangers attending deep excavation in connection with the construction of docks and other similar works, and to consider and report what steps can be taken to minimise such dangers. A Report on the causes of the Newport disaster has already been made by Mr. Squire, who is one of the members of the Committee, and has been presented to Parliament.
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked whether he can give the name of the member of the Departmental Committee on Deep Trench Excavations who is supposed to represent the workers' interest in the pending inquiry; and what are the terms of reference upon which the committee are seeking information?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The Committee is a small committee of expert engineers, and does not include representatives either of employers or workmen. The terms of reference are: "To inquire into
  1322
  the dangers attending deep excavation in connection with the construction of docks and other similar works, and to consider and report what steps can be taken to minimise such dangers."
  Mr. J. WARD: Is there a single Member who has not at some time or other been retained as an expert adviser or engineer for big contracting firms?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I could not answer that off-hand.

  Bronzing (Factory Inspector's Report).
  Sir CHARLES DILKEasked whether the Report dealing with bronzing as a dangerous trade, announced in the general Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories as shortly to appear, will soon be in the hands of Members?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The Secretary of State hopes it will be in the hands of Members in the course of the next two or three weeks.

  Cordite Supply.
  Mr. HUNTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there is now in the country an ample supply of cordite for both the Navy and Army in case of sudden emergency or war, without counting the amount returned to the manufacturers as unsafe to use because it failed to pass the heat test?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The reply is in the affirmative so far as the Navy is concerned. As regards the Army, I would suggest that the hon. Gentleman should address the question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War.
  Mr. HUNT: Are we to understand that there is no truth in the statement in the Press by Mr. Arthur Chamberlain that the only magazines in the country which are full are the magazines of the people who had cordite returned, and that, if the country were in danger, that the Government would have to pick up any cordite it could get?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am not aware that such a statement has been made, but if it has been, it is devoid of all truth.
  Mr. HUNTasked what is the amount of cordite which has been returned as unsafe to use because it had failed to pass the heat test?
  Mr. McKENNA: Any cordite that has been returned to the makers has not been returned as unsafe but as not fully complying with the Government specifications.
  Captain JESSELasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty had been accepting cordite below the standard test, and, if so, whether he could state the reason; and whether the reserves of cordite in the magazines are now equal to the amount usually so kept?
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative as regards private firms; a small amount from the Government Waltham Abbey factory has failed to pass the test and is being used up for proof and experimental work on shore. Until the amount now due on contracts, most of which is ready for delivery, is passed into store, the stocks will be not more than 1 per cent, less than the amount usually kept.
  Captain JESSEL: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the account of the annual general meeting of Kynoch's at Birmingham on that question?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir, I regret that I have not.
  Captain JESSEL: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will?
  Mr. McKENNA: I cannot undertake to, read it.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked what proportion of cordite has failed to pass the heat test during the last twelve months for the Navy; and whether all cordite which has failed to pass the heat test has been returned to the makers?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is not in the public interest to give this information.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked whether any cordite has ever been conditionally accepted for naval purposes?
  Mr. McKENNA: A certain quantity of cordite that has recently failed to reach the full heat test is undergoing a confirmatory test which will take about eight months. Provisional payment on this cordite is being made to the firms, the latter guaranteeing to refund payment or replace the cordite if it fails to pass this test and is consequently rejected.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Where are these tests being carried out?
  Mr. McKENNA: I could not tell the Noble Lord without reference to all the bases where these particular tests are made.

  Cigars and Cigarettes (Manufacture in India).
  Mr. RICEasked the Prime Minister why the Government allows the manufacture of cigars and cigarettes in India to be protected against competition from the United Kingdom and other countries and yet refuses to protect the manufacture of goods in this country against foreign competition?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I may remind the hon. Member that, in reply to a question asked by the hon. Member for Christchurch on 10th March last, on the subject of the Indian Tobacco Duties, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for India stated that the duties in question have been imposed for revenue, and for no other purposes, and involve no alteration of the fiscal principles of Indian finance. I may further remind him that my hon. Friend added that the Government of India were considering the question of putting a corresponding Excise duty upon tobacco manufactured in India.
  Mr. RICE: Can the Prime Minister say when the Government of India are likely to give an answer to this question, which was raised two or three months ago?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.

  International Ornithological Congress (Plumes of Wild Birds).
  Mr. ALDENasked the Prime Minister whether he has received copies of the resolutions passed by the International Ornithological Congress at Berlin, calling upon the Governments of the countries represented at the congress to prohibit the import and export of plumes of wild birds for millinery purposes and the prohibition of buying and selling such feathers as are not wanted for scientific purposes; and whether, under the circumstances, he would arrange for a short Departmental Bill dealing with this matter to be introduced?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir, I have received a copy of the resolutions adopted by the conference, and the matter will be considered.

  Alteration of Local Government Boundaries (Financial Adjustments).
  Mr. RYLAND ADKINSasked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to secure the appointment of a Joint Committee of both Houses to inquire into the application of the provisions contained in the Local Government Acts, 1888 and 1894, relating to financial adjustments consequent on the alteration of the boundaries of a local government area, and to report to both Houses if they are of opinion that any amendments in such provisions are desirable?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Government are prepared to accept the Motion for a Joint Committee which is being moved for in another place. In so doing they rely on the county councils concerned with the three Provisional Order Bills for the extension of boroughs, which are now before this House, consenting to withdraw opposition to the Bills so far as relates to the question of compensation for loss of rateable value, subject to the insertion in the Confirming Bills of a clause to the effect that if the Joint Committee recommend the payment of compensation for such loss the adjustments between the boroughs and the counties concerned shall be on those lines. I understand there is good ground for hoping that this course will be taken, and I am sure I can rely on my hon. Friend using his best efforts to that end.
  Mr. EUGENE WASON: Can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to extend this Committee to Scotland?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I would rather have notice of the question.
  Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, seeing that these difficulties are very acute in Scotland, that it would be most desirable that he should include Scotland in the inquiry?

  Navy Estimates (Shipbuilding, Repairs, and Maintenance).
  Mr. BYLESasked the Prime Minister when he proposes to take Vote 8 of the Navy Estimates?
  The PRIME MINISTER: On the 14th, as I stated on Thursday.

  Co-operative Credit.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether the Government propose to act upon the recommendation contained in paragraph 114 of the Report of the Departmental Committee on Small Holdings in
  1326
  1906 to the effect that, in view of the great advantage offered to small holders by the employment in rural districts of the Raffeisen form of co-operative credit, an advance from the Post Office Savings Bank's deposits shall be made available for the use of village co-operative credit societies on approved security offered by a central co-operative agricultural credit association?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I promised, in answer to a question addressed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 29th ultimo, that either he or I would receive a deputation on the general subject of credit banks. I do not think that any object would be served by discussing particular aspects of it in the form of question and answer.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is it proposed to receive the deputation at an early date, as the matter is of great public interest?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would communicate with me on the subject.

  German Warship "Zieten" (Fishery Service).
  Mr. HUNTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether in view of the official notification that the German warship "Zieten" will be stationed at Lerwick, the capital town of the Shetland Islands, from 24th June until further notice, it is the usual custom of Foreign warships to be stationed for an indefinite time at a British port; and whether Germany allows British warships to be stationed at Heligoland or other German ports?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is understood that the "Zieten" is engaged on fishery service, and there is nothing unusual in her remaining at Lerwick till further notice.
  Mr. HUNT: May I ask a reply to the second part of the question?
  Mr. McKENNA: Our ships are stationed frequently at Heligoland whenever the exigencies of the service require. There is no difficulty in having our ships at suitable stations.

  Naval Manœuvres (Nucleus Crews).
  Mr. WILLIAM BOYLEasked if the nucleus crews of the Nore flotilla boats had been wholly or in part, and, if in part, to what extent, withdrawn to complete the complements of the Third and Fourth Divisions during the manœuvres?
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer is in the negative?

  Greenwich Hospital Pensions (William Cruse).
  Mr. PERKINSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he could state, in respect of the Greenwich Hospital pension No. 13,500, granted to William Cruse, of Quay Street, Lymington, who was invalided for paralysis on 6th October, 1903, why the pension of £13 12s. per annum had been reduced to £9 2s.; and, in view of the fact that the pensioner was permanently invalided, whether he would take steps to increase the pension to the former rate?
  Mr. McKENNA: William Cruse served only six years in the Royal Navy, and was invalided in 1893, not 1903, for a disease which was not occasioned by the service. Since the date of his being invalided Cruse has been receiving a pension varying from £9 2s. to £13 12s. a year; and in view of his short service and of the increasingly heavy claims on the funds available for Greenwich Hospital pensions, it is considered that a larger pension than £9 2s. would not now be justified.

  German Navy (Sale of Destroyers).
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the German Government negotiated the sale of four destroyers, the "Jadika-i-Millet," "Muavenet-i-Millet," "Mahabet-i-Watan," and "Nuhum-i-Haniyet," to Turkey; whether the Elbing Yard of Schickau or the Germania Yard at Kiel was building units for the German navy to replace them; and whether he could assign any reason for such a sale having taken place?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is understood that torpedo destroyers S165 to 168 have been sold to the Turkish Government, and that four others will be built to replace them. No reason can be assigned for the sale.

  "Dreadnoughts" (Austria and Italy).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked if the Admiralty had any official information to the effect that Austria would have four battleships of the "Dreadnought" class added to her Navy in 1913, and that in the same year Italy would have four vesels of this type?
  Mr. McKENNA: The reply to the first part of the questoin is in the negative. Four vessels of the "Dreadnought" class are provided for in the Italian naval estimates.
  Mr. LEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to have full information on the subject laid before the House when he introduces the Shipbuilding Vote?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, I will have all the information which is available.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman in possession of any information in reference to this question?
  Mr. McKENNA: The information I have is that Austria will not have four battleships of the "Dreadnought" class added to her navy in the year 1913.

  Shipbuilding Programme.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked if, with the information in the possession of the Admiralty that Germany and Austria would possess twenty-five "Dreadnoughts" in 1913 compared with twenty-seven possessed by Great Britain, or a margin of two, it was still intended to defer the commencement of the five new ships of the new British programme until the end of the present financial year?
  Mr. McKENNA: We have no information that Germany and Austria-Hungary will possess twenty-five "Dreadnoughts" in 1913. In estimating the British number at twenty-seven, the hon. Member has apparently not taken into consideration the British programme for 1911–1912. It is not, and never has been, the intention to defer the beginning of the five ships of the 1910–1911 programme until the end of the financial year.
  Mr. LEE: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has provided in the present financial year an amount of money equal only to about one-sixth of the cost of one ship?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am aware of the figures referred to by the hon. Member; but the inference he wishes to draw from them is a mistaken one. In the earlier months of the building of a ship very little is earned, and it is impossible to pay, because the instalments do not become due. As a matter of fact, the ships will be begun long before the end of the financial year.

  German Navy ("Dreadnoughts" in 1912).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he had any official information showing that the four battleships of this year's German programme could, if required, be completed in the course of the year 1912; and if he had

  1329
  reason for doubting that Germany would have seventeen vessels of the "Dreadnought" type available for war in the year 1912?
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; but if the German Government wish to complete these vessels in the course of the year 1910, it is presumed that it would be possible for them to do so.

  Ordnance Survey Employées (Committee of Inquiry).
  Mr. NANNETTIasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the Departmental Committee to inquire into the grievances of the employés of the Ordnance Survey had yet been appointed; if so, could he give the names of the Committee to the House; whether any representative of the Irish members of the Service had been appointed or was intended to be appointed; and whether he could give the terms of reference to the said Committee governing the inquiry?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Yes, Sir. A Departmental Committee was appointed on the 18th instant, to inquire into the pay and classification of the Civil assistants, temporary Civil assistants, and labourers employed on the Ordnance Survey, and to report whether, having regard to the conditions of their employment and to the rates current in analogous occupations their remuneration is adequate. Sir Walter Foster is chairman, and the other members of the Committee are the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Mr. G. D. Kelly), Mr. F. Newman Rogers, and Mr. G. L. Barstow. It will be observed that no one serving on the Survey in any capacity has been appointed on the Committee, but evidence will, of course, 'be received from representatives of the various grades of the Service.
  Mr. NANNETTI: Who is to be Secretary of the Committee?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I have not the name with me.
  Mr. NANNETTI: Is it a fact that Colonel Hedley, who was already in the Service, has been appointed to the Committee, and that many matters connected with his own administration will have to be inquired into? Will the hon. Baronet see that this is an impartial Committee?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I do not think the hon. Member is right in saying that
  1330
  Colonel Hedley's conduct ought to be inquired into. I will inquire who is Secretary. Of course, it will be an impartial Committee.
  Mr. NANNETTI: Will the inquiry be public? Will the evidence be available to Members of the House before the Report is published?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: As far as I am aware, it will be like any other Departmental Committee.
  Mr. NANNETTI: Will the Minutes of Evidence be published, so that the House can form an opinion as to the merits of the Report?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: As far as I am aware, it will be like any other Departmental Committee; but I will inquire and let the hon. Member know.
  Mr. CLANCY: As the Irish section of this Service amounts to about 40 per cent, of the whole in point of numbers, does not the hon. Baronet think it would be right to have an Irish representative on the Committee?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: We will consider the matter.

  Ordnance Survey (Employment of Royal Engineers).
  Mr. NANNETTIasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if volunteers had been called for from the Royal Engineers serving on the Ordnance Survey for training in one-inch revision work; whether there were already Civil assistants trained in this work available; and, if so, could he say why the services of these civilians were not utilised instead of going to the expense of training other men?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: It is desirable for military purposes that a certain number of Royal Engineers should be well acquainted with survey work on the one-inch scale, It is for this reason that volunteers for training in that work have been called for. There is no intention of replacing any of the civilians at present employed on the work by Royal Engineers, so long as their services are available.

  Exportation of Unfit Horses.
  Mr. WILLIAM YOUNGERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he was aware that the Belgian Government was about to publish

  1331
  a decree prohibiting the landing of broken-down English horses; and, if so, would he consider the advisability of putting a stop altogether to the export of horses which a foreign Government thought were not fit to be landed in their country and against the landing of which they were about to issue special legislation?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I have seen newspaper statements on this subject, but the Board have no official information as to the intention of the Belgian Government in the matter. The exportation from this country of horses which, owing to age, infirmity or any other reason cannot be conveyed without suffering is already prohibited.
  Mr. WILLIAM YOUNGER: Will the hon. Baronet ascertain definitely from the Belgian Government whether this law is about to be promulgated?

  Small Holdings.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he could now state the results of inquiries made respecting the measures taken to provide applicants in Beddington with land under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The county council are in negotiation with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for some land at Bedding-ton which would be suitable for small holdings. The applicants for allotments will be provided for on the allotment ground already belonging to the parish council. There is considerable difficulty in obtaining the land required in this neighbourhood, inasmuch as most of it is ready for building.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked how many approved applications for land under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act had been received from Cheshunt by the Hertfordshire County Council; whether any land had yet been supplied; and, if not, whether the Board contemplated any action to facilitate matters?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: There have been five applicants in the neighbourhood of Cheshunt. Two of them have been provided with small holdings by the County Council, another has been satisfied by private arrangement, and negotiations are proceeding for the acquisition of the land necessary to provide small holdings for the other two.

  Belfast (Building By-laws).
  Mr. DEVLINasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he could state how many building inspectors were employed in Belfast, what were their qualifications, and how many of them were practical bricklayers, or had a practical knowledge of bricklaying; whether he had received any report as to buildings in the suburbs of Belfast, within the boundaries of the city area, having been condemned recently after erection, and who was responsible for the inspection in this case; whether he was aware that, in February last, a deputation from the Belfast Bricklayers' Society waited on the improvement committee of the Corporation to urge the carrying out of existing by-laws; whether any action had been taken by the Corporation in regard to the representations made by that deputation; and whether, in view of the housing scheme being promoted by the corporation, and of the number of new buildings in course of erection in Belfast, he would take steps to ensure that the requirements of the Board of Trade in regard to proper inspection by practical workmen were fully met?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The details of administration to which it relates are not within the control of any Government Department, but rest entirely in the hands of the Belfast Corporation.

  German Pig-iron (Imports).
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON (for Mr. Norman Craig)asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he was aware that the total amount of pig-iron of all sorts imported from Germany into this country in the year 1908 was 703 tons of the value of £4,463, and that the total amount of pig-iron of all sorts imported from Germany into this country in the year 1909 was 22,445 tons of the value of £76,467; and, having regard to the relative average values, namely, just under £6 7s. per ton for the small German imports in 1908 and just over £3 8s. per ton for the enormously increased German imports in 1909, he had any information showing that pig-iron was dumped in large quantities at cheap prices by Germany into this country in 1909; (2) whether the total amount of pig - iron imported into this country for the month ended 31st May, 1910, was 18,382 tons as

  1333
  compared with 2,523 tons for the same month in 1909; that the average value for imported pig-iron in May, 1909, was £5 7s. 6d. per ton as compared with £3 18s. 4jd. for May, 1910; and whether he could explain the reason of this increase in imports coupled with a large decrease in value; and (3), whether in 1908 the imports of pig-iron of all sorts into this country were, by Sweden 56,461 tons of the value of £296,024, averaging just under £5 5s. 7d. per ton, and by Germany 703 tons of the value of £4,463, averaging approximately £6 7s. per ton; whether in 1909 the imports of pig-iron of all sorts into this country were, by Sweden 62,390 tons of the value of £332,611, averaging approximately £5 6s. 7d. per ton, and by Germany 224,445 tons of the value of £76,467, averaging approximately £3 8s. per ton; and to what he attributed a fall of over 46 per cent, in the value of the German imported pig-iron in 1909 occurring contemporaneously with a rise in the value of Swedish imported pig-iron?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): The figures are substantially correct. The increase in the imports of pig-iron began in June, 1909, and has continued until the present time. Prior to June, 1909, the imports were small in quantity, and, as their exceedingly high price shows, must have been of a special quality. The apparent fall in the average price may have resulted, not so much from a fall in the prices of particular descriptions as from the importation of pig-iron of other and more ordinary kinds than formerly. As the hon. Member is doubtless aware, the price of special qualities of pig-iron may easily be more than twice as high as that of ordinary qualities. I understand that a large part of the imports at present consists of Westphalian hematite, but the average price of all pig-iron imported is even now in excess of the price of English West Coast hematite, and, of course, considerably in excess of that of ordinary forge or foundry pig-iron. The great increase in the imports from Germany is attributed to the increased production which followed the break-up of the syndicates which previously controlled production and prices in that country, and the conditions are, therefore, entirely removed from what is generally known as dumping, by which term organised exportation at reduced prices by a trust or syndicate is usually meant. I may add that the price of the principal grades of pig-iron of United Kingdom
  1334
  manufacture has, on the whole, been higher this year than it was on the average in 1909 or 1908, although the price of English hematite has shown some decline since March. The high price of Swedish pig-iron is due to the fact that it consists mainly of charcoal iron of a very special quality and commanding a very special price.

  Railway Pensions (Ireland).
  Mr. DAVID SHEEHY (for Mr. Condon)asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will lay upon the Table of this House a list of the pensions or compensations given by the Great Southern and Western Railway Company of Ireland to officials or other persons in the employment of the Waterford and Limerick Railway Company at the time of the amalgamation in 1900, in pursuance of 63 and 64 Vic, c. 247, s. 24, and showing the length of the service and salary of each official so pensioned or compensated, and his tenure of office; and, if any of those officials are at present employed, where, and on what terms?
  Mr. BUXTON: The Board of Trade have no information on this subject, and I cannot, therefore, I fear, comply with the hon. Member's request.

  Registered Companies (Profit Sharing).
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can supply any figures as to the number of registered companies which have issued debentures, preference or ordinary stocks, or shares to their employées with the object of promoting profit-sharing in their several undertakings?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have no official information in my possession as to the number of registered companies which have issued debentures, preference or ordinary stocks or shares to their employées with the object of promoting profit-sharing in their several undertakings.

  Clay Industries (Suggested Research Grant).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the, Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that Germany, the United States of America, France, and Switzerland give Government aid for investigations in ceramics, clays, etc.; whether he is aware that, excluding coal and iron, the clay industries rank of very high importance; whether it has been brought to his knowledge that Stoke-upon-Trent is the natural centre for the clay industries, is in close

  1335
  touch with the pottery and clay industries, has a temporary laboratory partially equipped for the purposes of research and a small band of specially trained men, and that a considerable amount of valuable research work has been done there, despite the lack of equipment and of funds; whether he is cognisant of the amount of research work which is needed and which cannot be undertaken by individual manufacturers, and whilst this country has better fire-clays than, say, Germany, that our resources have not been properly developed, and so the demands of the gas engineers cannot be satisfied and the manufacture of cheap hard-paste porcelain to compete with the Continental manufacture cannot at present be entertained; and whether he will give favourable consideration to a Grant in Aid of such research work?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I think this is a matter which should, in the first instance, be brought to the notice of the Development Commissioners.

  FINANCE ACT, 1909–10.

    TAX COLLECTORS (CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION).
    Mr. GERSHOM STEWART (for Mr. Nield)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the cases in which he has power to interfere, he will insist that a person holding the office of assessor or collector of taxes, and who at the same time is carrying on the business of an auctioneer and valuer, shall not be permitted to act as valuer against the Crown in the negotiation and settlement of land valuations under the Finance Act, and so be enabled to use confidential information acquired by him in the discharge of his official duties?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not consider that the assumption contained in the concluding words of the hon. Member's question is sufficiently warranted to justify me in interfering in the manner suggested.
    Mr. G. STEWARTalso asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will issue instructions to the District Commissioners and others who have the supervision of the officials engaged as assessors and collectors of taxes to prohibit any official so engaged accepting employment in relation to the negotiation and settlement of land valuations under the Finance Act, or acting in any way against the
    1336
    Crown in any connection with such matters?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have nothing to add to the reply given to a similar question put by the hon. Member on the 23rd ultimo.
    Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Is it not the case that these surveyors have to take an oath?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes.

    BEER AND SPIRITS OFF-LICENCES.
    Mr. BOYTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in the notices to pay the sums required to be paid in July under the last Finance Act, which have just been delivered to off-licence traders in London, repayment is made of the wholesale spirit licences at present held by retail spirit traders who have hitherto been required to take a wholesale licence in order to obtain a retail licence, and no corresponding repayment is made of the wholesale beer licences at present held by retail beer traders who have hitherto been required to take a wholesale beer licence in order to obtain the retail licence; and whether he will direct that repayment be made in respect of the beer licences as well as in respect of the spirit licences at present held?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In the past a person who desired to sell spirits by retail in England for consumption off the premises could not do so unless he first obtained a dealer's (wholesale) licence. The cases where a person has been obliged to take out a beer dealer's (wholesale) licence to enable him to obtain a retail beer licence are, I am advised, few in number. If such cases are brought to the notice of the Board of Customs and Excise, they will be prepared to follow the principle adopted with regard to the spirit licence, as described in the first part of the question.

    REGISTER OF ANNUAL LICENCE VALUES.
    Mr. GEORGE YOUNGERasked what progress has been made with the issue of schedules and the preparation of the register of annual licence values in the case of fully-licensed houses and beerhouses under £500 of annual value?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Up to the present no progress has been made. Of course, the preliminaries have taken so long with regard to other parts of the

    1337
    Act. We hope, after having cleared off the first part, the licences, to proceed afterwards to the enumeration of the schedules. So far the issue of schedules in the case of houses under £500 of annual value has been confined to licensed premises which it is expected will be entitled as hotels or restaurants, under Section 45 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, to have the benefit of the reduced charge of duty by reference to the "annual licence value" of the premises. The ascertainment of the annual licence value in the case of fully licensed houses, and beerhouses of an annual value exceeding £500, as well as of all hotels and restaurants must of necessity occupy some time. The schedules will later on be issued in respect of all other houses with a view to the completion of the register of annual licence values as required by the Act, and it is intended to complete the register as soon as possible.
    Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: Is the right hon. Gentleman bearing in mind that we have only got nine months of the financial year to run from now, and that there is a monumental work in front of the Excise Department; and is it really not necessary to hurry up?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that it is no fault of the Government that there are only nine months left. Had the Bill passed in time the registers would have been completed by now.
    Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: The right hon. Gentleman did not bring in his Bill in time.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am only calling attention to the fact that the Bill ought to have passed in December of last year.

    Development and Road Improvement Funds Act (Appointments).
    Lord ALEXANDER THYNNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any appointments under the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act have been filled otherwise than by promotion from the Indian, Colonial, or Home Civil Services, or by competitive or qualifying examinations; and whether he is in a position to estimate the probable number of appointments that it will be necessary to make during the current financial year for the purposes of the before-mentioned Act?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Under the provisions of Section 3 (5) of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, the Development Commissioners are empowered, with the consent of the Treasury, to appoint such officers and servants as they think necessary. No examination, competitive or qualifying, is required by the Act, nor is it necessary that the persons appointed should have served either in the Indian, Colonial, or Home Civil Services. The Noble Lord will readily understand that until the Act has been longer in operation it is not easy to estimate what staff will be required.
    Lord CASTLEREAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any idea of the number of the appointments?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No; but if the Noble Lord puts down a question I will inquire.
    Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason for the differentiation in this respect between one Government Department and another?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not aware that there is any differentiation at all. The Noble Lord asked me a question as to the administering of an Act of Parliament, and I pointed out that it was being administered in conformity with the principles laid down.
    Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: I wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman why it should be necessary to pass a competitive examination to enter the Board of Trade, the Home Office, or any similar Government Departments, and not necessary to pass a competitive examination for the new Department which the right hon. Gentleman has just created?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a question the Noble Lord should have put when the Act was going through.
    Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: I was not in the House.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: One reason was that there has been no time to set up a special examination for the purpose.
    Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: Is it proposed to institute a competitive examination at a future date for these appointments?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Is there not a general examination for the different Departments of the Civil Service, from

    1339
    which persons who are examined are passed on to the Department for which they may be required?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There are great portions of the Service, as the hon. Member knows perfectly well, where there is no examination at all. With regard to the question put by the Noble Lord, if he gives me notice I will try and get an answer later.
    NEW MEMBER SWORN.—Major Christian Henry Charles Guest, commonly called the Hon. Christian Henry Charles Guest for the County of Dorset (Eastern Division), in the room of Captain the Hon. Frederick Edward Guest, whose election has been declared to be void.

SHOPS (No. 2) BILL.
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): I beg to ask for leave to introduce a Bill "to consolidate, amend, and extend the Shops Regulation Acts, 1892 to 1904."
I ask leave of the House to introduce, or, rather, to reintroduce the Shops Hours Bill. This Bill is the same as that introduced in the last Session of the last Parliament by Lord Gladstone, the then Home Secretary. The House is therefore familiar with its general provisions, and it will only require the very briefest explanation. I will venture to make a general observation with regard to this measure. Any measure "which seeks to restrict by law the hours of labour for adult males is rightly subjected to severe scrutiny by the House of Commons. The House always insists that good and special reasons shall be shown in every case. But in the case of the regulation of the hours of shop assistants, while all the arguments in favour of the limitation of their hours can be stated at the very strongest, the principal argument usually urged against such limitation does not in this case apply. There will be, there can be, no reduction of output in consequence of the Bill. We are not dealing with any branch of production at all. We are not seeking to touch, wisely or unwisely, rightly or wrongly, any form of economic or productive activity. It is merely a question of distribution. It is more a question of making good arrangements to
1340
govern the distribution of articles already produced and certain to be consumed. We are merely seeking to make such arrangements for this distribution as shall secure to the distributors a reasonable opportunity of rest and leisure. That cannot be done by themselves, as has been abundantly proved. Shop assistants cannot by their organisation effect this reform; they cannot do it by any form of organisation. The shopkeepers cannot do it by agreement. That has been tried, and has failed. Both sections ably supported by the public, and energetically supported by a section of the public, have attempted to effect these alterations of hours, and both have succeeded so little that I think we are entitled to say that voluntary effort in this direction has conclusively failed. The conditions are so varied and the interests are so tangled and complicated that neither the shopkeeper nor the shop assistant, nor the customer, have the power of themselves to draw the line and make the rule. They must come to Parliament if this reform is to be achieved.
The Bill is one which affects intimately the lives, it has been computed, of nearly 1,000,000 shop assistants and perhaps 500,000 shopkeepers, whose work at present is sprawled all over the day and all over the week to their own detriment, to their own injury, and without any corresponding gain or advantage to the general public. The one general observation I would venture to make is this: We must bear in mind throughout the immense variety of conditions which are dealt with in this sphere of legislation. There are shops in which shop assistants are employed, and shops managed by the occupier, or by the occupier and his family, and this latter class exceed the former class by over ten to one. There are shops which serve the needs of the rich and the leisured class, which are able to close earlier. There are shops which serve the poorer class, which must necessarily open late, and remain open still later. There are shops which provide largely the necessaries of life, which sell food which is needed. There are others which deal with purchasers whose urgent needs must be promptly met, as in the case of medicines. There are some shops which have to open very early in the morning, like those which sell milk and newspapers, and there are others which have practically no business before nine. There are others whose chief custom is, in the time of public amusement, or bank holidays, and half

1341
holidays, at night. There are those that have no business in these hours, and there are some shops in which there is a system of business which is practically unaltered throughout the day. There are others with busy periods, but intervals of several hours in between, and at the extreme end of the scale there are shops whose business is so intermittent that the shopkeeper has to be summoned from the parlour by the ringing of a bell. Therefore, it is quite clear that any provision for attempting to regulate the hours of persons serving in these shops, so infinitely varied in character and circumstances, must be flexible and elastic in its character. There must be exemptions and restrictions, and those provisions necessary if this legislation is to be successful and generally accepted, constitute, I think, the main details of the Bill which is now brought before the House for the second time.
My Noble Friend who preceded me at the Home Office as well as myself and the Department have very closely considered and examined in conjunction with many advisers the details which are necessary and the detailed examination and inspection which are necessary if this Bill is to become a practical measure. And we quite agree that all provisions of this character will greatly gain by close and thorough examination by the House of Commons. The Bill which is now introduced represents our views, as at present informed upon these points of detail, and I should like to take this opportunity of saying that I shall be ready to profit by any information which is given me during the course of the discussion from any quarter of the House. The Bill, in certain general provisions, does not touch the small shops which are served by the occupier alone, or by the occupier and his family. It does not touch those except in certain general provisions. In the main it deals with the hours that shop assistants may work, and with the hours that shops may remain open. It provides that the shop assistant shall not be worked for more than sixty hours in any week; that he shall not be worked after eight o'clock on more than three afternoons—subject to the exemptions and restrictions to which I have referred—and that he shall have proper time for meals. These are the main proposals, and they are the new proposals of the legislation of this character. But, further, the Bill provides for a universal half-holiday. It provides for the closing of shops on Sunday, subject to the
1342
necessary provisions for Sunday trading, which are rather complicated in themselves, but are well known to many Members of the House. It enables the local authorities to retain the power of making further closing orders, with a view to remedying excessive hours in particular districts or particular trades at the demand of a two-thirds majority. That provision has been very successful in previous, legislation, and it is reembodied in this consolidating Act. The Bill also contains provisions with regard to ventilation and the provision of sanitary convenience, and it re-enacts and carries on the legislative provision which secures seats for female shop assistants, without which undoubtedly they suffered injury during the long hours they were standing. That is the Bill, and the House generally is familiar with its principles. Let me say one word about its prospects. I shall endeavour as far as lies in my power to carry this Bill into law this Session, but I recognise it can only pass if it is regarded, not only as a non-party Bill, but as a non-controversial Bill.
Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I object to it altogether.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not mean that there may not be differences as to detail. I have no doubt there are, nor do I think that there ought not to be a detailed and careful discussion and examination of many of the provisions of this Bill, though I hope they can be overcome. But if the Bill was seriously resisted in any formidable quarter of the House, that is to say, in any quarter of the House that was formidable and implacable, I recognise its prospects would not be good.
4.0 P.M.
I can make but very moderate demands upon Parliamentary time, but the Grand Committees are standing idle, and this is a Bill which is especially suited for discussion in Grand Committee. It is there it will receive the fullest examination. Every point of detail can be thrashed out and every interest affected can be considered with a view to the conciliation of interests which are concerned, or, failing that conciliation, with a view to the adjustment of minor differences. It is to the Grand Committee that we shall ask the House, if it assents to the Bill on Second Reading, to consign this measure. Although I am not blind to the difficulties of the existing situation so far as the passage of Bills is concerned, I confess I am not hopeless, on the contrary, I am

1343
hopeful, about the prospects of this measure. I believe this new House of Commons is very well disposed towards social legislation of this class. I have often mourned the hard fate which threatens so virtuous and admirable an Assembly with the possibility of an untimely Dissolution. Although our days are uncertain, and although the tale of legislative achievements of this Parliament may perhaps be brief, we can, I believe, with a little goodwill and a little diligence, do this. We ought to do it. We ought to do it now. We ought to do it for the credit of our own reputation as a Parliament. We ought to do it out of consideration for an intelligent, deserving, hard-pressed, overstrained multitude of young men and young women who look to the House of Commons as the bulwark of their needs.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary Churchill, Mr. Masterman, Mr. Herbert Samuel, and Mr. Solicitor-General. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time to-morrow.

BILL PRESENTED.
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (ALTERNATIVE VOTE) (NO. 2) BILL.
  "To amend the law relating to Votes at Parliamentary Elections," presented by CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMS; supported by Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Hills, Mr. John Robertson, and Mr. Wiles; to be read a second time upon wednesday.
WAYS AND MEANS.— [30th June.]

  BUDGET RESOLUTIONS.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
  (IN THE COMMITTEE.)

  INCOME TAX AND SUPER-TAX.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Income Tax shall be charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and ten, at the rate of one shilling and twopence in the pound, and that the same Super-tax be charged for that year as was charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is understood that, with your permission, we are to be allowed to continue on this Motion the general discussion to which the introduction of the Budget gives rise. I understand the Government allot practically one and a half days for the Resolutions. Although nominally two days are allotted, the second day is Wednesday, and the latter half of Wednesday will, I understand, be taken up by the consideration of the Birmingham Bill. There is practically only one Resolution besides the Tea Duty we have passed necessary to be passed this year—the Income Tax Resolution and the ordinary Resolution for the amendment of the law. If that is so, I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee generally that the discussion should go on on this first Resolution practically up to 8.15 on Wednesday, or at any rate as long as is required, and that the Second Resolution should, if necessary, be taken formally after eleven o'clock that night. I may have to press the Government to reconsider their plans, for my hon. Friends tell me that not only is half of Wednesday withdrawn from public business for private business, but there is an important Instruction down by Order tonight on the Port of London Bill, which may withdraw half the time this evening.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I was not aware, when I named Wednesday, that it was to be taken up by the Birmingham Bill, otherwise I should not have named that day.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am much obliged to the Prime Minister. I am sure he will meet the House pretty fairly in his plans and in regard to what inroads may be made on the time it was intended to allot. All I wish to say at the moment is that I think it would be for the general convenience of the Committee that we should be allowed to continue as long as the Committee wants the discussion of this first Resolution and skimp the mere formal Resolution if it becomes absolutely necessary. In following immediately upon the speech in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer opened his Budget the other day, I made some observations on some of the things which that speech contained. It was remarkable in some ways for introducing matter not usually contained in a Budget statement. He went out of his way to challenge a discussion on the relative merits of our own and other fiscal systems. He went out of his way to forecast what might be the

  1345
  position of the Government and the powers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to expenditure, not in the year for which he was providing, namely, 1910–11, but in the early months of 1912. I think that was unusual and remarkable, but I am bound to say, after carefully reading the speech, I think the things he left out, the gaps which he left in his speech, were at least as unusual and as remarkable.
  This is probably the first time the Chancellor of the Exchequer has succeeded in introducing his Budget without telling the Committee at what rate he proposes to collect any tax in the year with which he was dealing. I thought at the time I had failed to follow the right hon. Gentleman, and that at some moment when my attention had lapsed he must have told the Committee at what rate he proposes to levy the taxes. Not a bit of it. That was a matter he did not think it worth mentioning in his Budget speech. I infer from his silence that the taxes are to be collected, all of them, at the existing rate. Neither did he mention at what rate he proposes to fix the Sinking Fund, and that is really a very important matter. Half an hour ago, or rather more, when I came down to the House, I was still in hopes the Chancellor had chosen a better course than he has, for until I came down to the House I was unable to have a copy of the financial statement with the figures filled in which it is customary to distribute the day after the Budget statement. I do not want to lay stress upon this, but I do enter a protest against the delay in the appearance of that statement this year. I do not think the delay is due to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I would ask him to inquire why the usual practice is not followed, and why, in fact, his statement has not been circulated even now. The Budget statement was made on Thursday, and this Paper was not available until we came down to the House to-day and inquired for it at the Vote Office. That was very inconvenient, and. if I may be permitted to say so, it caused me, and I daresay other Members who have been trying to understand the statement, an infinitude of trouble, which we might have been spared if we had had the Paper before us.
  I gather from that statement that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes, as though it were a matter of course, to fix the Sinking Fund at £24,500,000 for the year. Against that I enter my protest.
  1346
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer will recognise I have not been unreasonable in my criticisms or in my observations on his treatment of the Sinking Fund; indeed, there has been much sharper criticism from his own side than I have thought it necessary to make. I raised no protest, under the circumstances of the time, to his reducing the fixed debt charge to £25,000,000. In the course of the Budget discussions of last year, which were very prolonged, he was led to make certain concessions which cost him about £500,000, and when, in the late autumn, almost in one of the winter months, he presented his final estimate of the cost of these concessions, he said, I thought very fairly, that at that time of the year he could not be expected to raise a new tax to meet the concessions he had made, and he must draw upon the Sinking Fund for another £500,000. Again I did not criticise him. I did not utter a word which was hostile to his proposal. That further raid of £500,000 was justified, and only justifiable, because of the period of the year which we had reached, and of the impossibility of adjusting taxation to meet it at the moment. Now I find from this White Paper a fact which was never mentioned in the Chancellor's speech, that he proposes to stereotype the fixed debt charge at £24,500,000 instead of £25,000,000. This Paper is inaccurate. It states in a footnote that the permanent fixed debt charge of £24,500,000 was approved by the House of Commons on the Finance Bill of 1909–10. That is not so. All that the House of Commons approved of was a temporary reduction. It approved, in the first instance, of fixing the permanent charge at £25,000,000, but later in the autumn months it approved of a reduction of that sum by £500,000 for that particular year. I should like to know on "what grounds the Chancellor of the Exchequer now, as a permanent proposal, and not under the necessity of any temporary emergency, proposes to take, not the figure which he originally chose as the right figure, but the figure he was forced temporarily to adopt in consequence of the difficulties of adjusting taxation at the moment. For my part, I say that to make this new raid permanent is a bad step, and here, at any rate, I separate myself from the course of action which the Chancellor is taking in regard to the Sinking Fund. The Chancellor's dealing with the Sinking Fund when he did mention it was, I think, not quite candid. He spoke of the total reduction of the debt to be effected in

  1347
  the course of the year, but in order to produce a good effect on the mind of the Committee he lumped on to the amount available for the Sinking Fund the other Special Sinking Funds which appear in the Votes and which are not charged on the Consolidated Fund, but which are attached specifically to certain short guarantee loans, and which were so attached at the time they were raised. In that way he produces a total of about £9,500,000 as the amount to be applied to the reduction of the debt in the present year, but of that £9,500,000, £3,000,000 in round figures—a little over £3,000,000, in fact—is attributed to these special Sinking Funds. These Sinking Funds were set up, specifically and intentionally, quite apart from the fixed debt charge. It was intended that they should be treated entirely separate, and that the loans to which they were attached should be kept apart from what I may call the permanent funded debt of the nation, and that these loans should be redeemed in most cases, as to large amounts at any rate, within a very short time. I think nothing but confusion and misconception can arise by lumping the two together. It is absolutely unjustifiable, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer did, to take credit for the amount attached to these short loans and to use that as an argument to persuade the Committee to reduce the Sinking Fund and the amount available for debt reduction within the fixed debt charge. Having said so much about the Sinking Fund and the rate at which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to levy his taxes, perhaps I may summarise what I understand to be the figures of the year. I shall be much obliged if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will follow my summary and correct me if I am wrong. I understand the actual tax income of the year is £169,745,000, and that the arrears of 1909–10 to be collected this year amount to £30,046,000, giving a total income appertaining to the year itself, and to the past year, but to be collected this year, of £199,791,000. Against that you have to set off the actual expenditure properly attributable to this year of £171,857,000; then you have carried forward from 1909–10 £26,248,000, arrears of local taxation due to the same cause £825,000, making a total expenditure of £198,930,000, and producing a balance of £861,000.
  If these figures are right, the first point to which I wish to call attention is that
  1348
  the revenue rightly attributable to the year does not balance the expenditure of the year. What I may call the true revenue of the year is £169,745,000, while the true expenditure is £171,857,000, or more than £2,000,000 in excess of the revenue. These figures, of course, exclude arrears of both revenue and expenditure. The arrears of revenue to be collected this year are greater than the arrears of expenditure by about £3,000,000, and the point I wish to urge, as resulting from an examination of these figures, is this: not only is the surplus of £861,000 entirely due to the revenue of last year, and not to the revenue of this year, but instead of there being a surplus at all, there would be a deficiency of something like £2,000,000 sterling.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I think it ought to be fairly stated.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I believe I was coming to the point which induced the right hon. Gentleman to interrupt me. I will deal with it at once, and alter a little the order of my speech. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer was about to say, what I should have said at a later stage, that though he is going to meet this year's expenditure in part out of last year's revenue—out of revenue which really belongs to last year—he estimates that of the revenue which ought to be collected this year an equal sum of £3,000,000 will be thrown forward into next year.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: More.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I fail to follow the word "more." I did follow in the right hon. Gentleman's statement his anticipation that £3,000,000 on account of Income Tax which ought to have been collected in this year will not be collected until next year, and therefore I presume the right hon. Gentleman said, in effect, if he robs last year to pay this year, after all, it does not much matter, because next year will be able to rob this year. Is that a perfectly satisfactory position? Does it leave us where we ought to be when the whole transaction is concluded? How does he get the surplus from last year? He gets it by having last year extinguished every penny of the Sinking Fund which it was in his power to do. There were annuities which he was obliged to pay. There was £1,000,000 sterling which, I have some satisfaction in thinking, I put it beyond his power to absorb, because that million in bonds had to be drawn and

  1349
  paid. But every penny of the Sinking Fund the Chancellor of the Exchequer could lay his hands on he took to meet his current expenses. On what ground did he do that? On the ground that, owing to the delay in the passage of the Budget, he would be unable to collect his revenue within the year, and he could not pay off debt with one hand while he was borrowing money in the market with the other. But I said to him at the time, and I repeat it now, that that was a legitimate and proper arrangement provided, when his revenue did come in, as it was going to a little later, he refunded the money which he had abstracted from the Sinking Fund. He told us in one of his speeches that when the accounts were finally closed he would have a balance on the year. I at once inquired what he was going to do with that balance, and whether, having secured it by raiding the Sinking Fund, when he got it would he return it to the Sinking Fund and use it for the reduction of debt? The Chancellor of the Exchequer behaved very prudently, as he habitually does when questions are put to him in Debate, and he refrained from answering the question. He devoted himself to other matters which perhaps were less difficult to deal with. But I make my protest against the Chancellor of the Exchequer permanently treating this money as revenue when, in fact, it ought to be part of the Sinking Fund, when it ought to be paid back to the Sinking Fund and go to the reduction of debt. It is no answer to that contention to say that next year there will be £3,000,000 of Income Tax which ought properly to be collected this year. That brings me to another question which I wish again to address to the right hon. Gentleman. Last Thursday he was good enough to refer to various observations of mine, but one specific question which I asked he passed over in silence. The question was: Why does he anticipate he will be unable to collect £2,000,000 of the ordinary Income "Tax this year? I do not profess to have very much experience in these matters; I was only a very short time at the Treasury as Chancellor of the Exchequer; but I put it to any Member of the Committee whether there is any reason why ordinary Income Tax to the extent suggested should be outstanding at the close of the present financial year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us that when he made his statement on 30th June he had collected every penny of arrears outstanding from last year. It
  1350
  is notorious that the great bulk of Income Tax is not collected until after 1st January, and therefore he has cleared off all arrears six months before the moment comes when Income Tax collection becomes active in the normal year. What happened six months before 1st January which should delay the collection of Income Tax afterwards? In what has occurred at any rate between 1st January and 31st March I can see no possible explanation for the estimate which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made, and I should be very much astounded, providing that the Inland Revenue people do their duty, as they always do, if they are not able to make practically as close a collection up to 31st March next year as they have done in any normal year. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not answer my question the other day, and I therefore venture to repeat it to him to-day. I understand, of course, the position in regard to the Super-tax. T can well understand that there may be greater delay, but I am really surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put the amount of the delayed collection so high as he has done.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is a question of assessment.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Why should there be any delays in the assessment to the ordinary tax? I understand there will be delays in the assessment to the Super-tax, because the authorities are busy over the assessments to the Supertax for last year, and that may delay them in getting up the assessments for it this year. But why the assessment to the ordinary Income Tax should be delayed by what has happened passes my comprehension, and I think I may safely say that, whatever be the reasons that convinced the Chancellor of the Exchequer, there is no Member outside the official classes who can give to the House any justification for the estimate which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made. I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told us a little more about the Tobacco Duty. I confess I had viewed with grave anxiety the effect on the tobacco trade of the imposition of these large new burdens. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that the results have equalled his highest anticipations; that the revenue has been ample, and that, therefore, he has been justified this year in estimating for an increased

  1351
  yield of £763,000, or, putting it alternatively, in estimating for an increased consumption of 1.5 per cent. That looks very encouraging, £763,000 as partly the effect of the forestalment of the new duties. The amount of additional revenue which he hopes to get this year is £763,000 and the additional consumption is 1.5. I am not being led into the mistake of supposing that I can convert the £763,000 into the 1.5 in any way or derive from the £763,000 in figure 1.5. No, but the Chancellor gave us those two figures; they are interesting. Of course improving trade under ordinary circumstances means a greater spending power among the working classes, and that would produce a larger revenue in tobacco; but the accounts that I get from trade sources I must say I find very hard to reconcile with the accounts with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is supplied. My anxiety originally was, not merely the effect on the total tobacco consumption of the country of the new rise in duty, but as to the destruction and as to the disturbance in trade which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would produce. The tobacco trade has been coming through a period of very considerable difficulty. It has been opposed within the last few years by an American competition which at one time was very sharp and led to the formation here of a very powerful combination which has absorbed a great number of formerly independent manufacturers. I do not wish to be considered as blaming their action, but still the effect has been the driving of a number of small men out of the trade because they could not compete.
  I am always sorry to see that. It is a tendency which is prevalent in all branches of national industry, I am afraid, and although it may be necessary in order that the trade and production of the country should compete with foreigners on equal terms, it is in itself an undesirable thing; it is in itself socially bad; it tends to a greater separation of classes and prevents or tends to prevent the diffusion of wealth. It is a thing to be regretted and is certainly not a thing to be fostered or encouraged by the State. Holding that view, I saw with some anxiety the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I have read with considerable regret information that has reached me at different times from correspondents connected with the trade as to the disastrous
  1352
  effect which the increased burden is having, especially upon smaller manufacturers, particularly upon those who are most dependent upon the trade in the working man's 3d. an ounce tobacco. They have had to raise the price in many cases, and in other cases I dare say they have tried to diminish the quality and so save part of the cost; but I am informed that firms who were mainly dependent upon that trade have found it excessively difficult to make both ends meet, and several of them have gone out of existence. I am further informed that the total consumption of tobacco last year was decreased by six million pounds. I have not been able to test these figures, of course, though I think they are quite reconcilable with those which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given with regard to the trade. But I wish he would say what the consumption of last year was and how it compared not with the year before, but how it would have compared with the normal increase of consumption if no increase of duty had taken place. I think this increase of duty gave a distinct check to the steady growth in the consumption of tobacco which bad been taking place, and I am a little surprised that, having regard to what reaches me from the trade, the Chancellor of the Exchequer felt justified in anticipating so large an increase in the present year.
  I come to the Spirit Duty, and as to that the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that he anticipates an increased revenue of £1,800,000. Considering how much of the battle was waged about the Spirit Duty no doubt an additional revenue of £1,800,000 looks as if it was an additional feather in the cap of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but in fact he has no increase; he has no real additional revenue which he has described. He has accelerated the decline in the consumption which was already going on, and the result is, taking his own figures, and I am accepting them for this purpose, that instead of having gained £1,600,000, as he hoped last year; from his Spirit Duty, or £1,800,000, as might be inferred frm his statement, he has only got £500,000 to bless himself with. Was it worth while creating the confusion which he has brought about, the hardship which he has inflicted, the amount of ruin,, or, at least, of prohibition of trade upon a certain number of firms, and striking through those on whom the charge was directly made at the agriculturists behind them in poor districts, where they

  1353
  were mainly dependent upon the whisky trade alike for the market for the cereals which they produced and the offals which they required—was it worth while to do all these things as a financier only to get £500,000? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think in his candid moments that had he left the trade alone he would have been better off financially now than he will be with his increased duty? As to the improving trade, of which he takes a much more sanguine view than I do, such few inquiries as I have made amongst men engaged in the business do not lead me to think that they have yet seen all the blessings which have occurred to the lively imagination of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But does not he think that the improving trade under the old duty might have checked the downfall of consumption, and that he might have been financially better off if he had left the Whisky Duty alone? I am convinced that he would have been, and I am convinced that as a financial expedient it was not worth while to inflict all the hardship he did in order to obtain half a million of money.
  Of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has two strings to his bow. He commended this duty a year ago to us as a great financial expedient, but when that string breaks he takes a different view, and while he says it is not of much use for finance the blessings which it has achieved in other ways are of a desirable character. I am sceptical about the permanent and enduring effects of this increase of duty, and I must confess I am sceptical about the fairness of the comparison which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made in his Budget speech. He took the figures of a far too short a period, and with regard to particular instances alone, but although particular individual trade interests are very suggestive and interesting, to be conclusive of anything you want much wider and more experience to justify the broad fabric of speculation which the Chancellor builds upon this very shallow foundation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that beer will be £432,000 down. I assume, I do not know—perhaps he can tell me across the Table whether I am right—that does not include the brewer's licence of 3d. a barrel on manufacture, and that would not go into Customs and Excise. Therefore it must be remembered that, in addition to a decrease in the consumption of whisky, there is also a decrease in the consumption of beer. Just think of it!
  1354
  The Chancellor is delighted to have reduced in some cases, he says, by 33 per cent., and largely in other cases, excepting the city of Waterford, the consumption of whisky, but the consumption of beer is also going down, and that is the moment he chooses to put an unprecedented burden on people who have to make their living out of selling whisky and beer. Does he really think that at the moment when he was killing one-third of the trade in whisky, and the beer trade was falling itself without any aid from him, that that was the proper moment to put a large burden upon the trade?
  I think the moment was badly chosen, unless he wanted to inflict upon the people from whom it was raised the maximum of hardship and suffering; but will the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us about the licences? That is one of the gaps in his speech which it would be extremely interesting if he would fill up. He told us that very little had been collected except in Scotland, and he praised the Scotchman for paying off his obligation. [Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER dissented.] I was not making myself responsible for all the statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but for my present purpose it is quite sufficient to quote the right hon. Gentleman, and I will not deprive my hon. Friend of the pleasure of proving that his countrymen are not so virtuous as the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks them. But although the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not collected it all, he has demanded it, and I should be glad if he could give me the complete figures. He will not have assessed all the houses over £500 in value—hotels and so forth. I should be glad if he can tell me what is the amount of the increase in Licence Duty demanded by the Commissioners in the case of fully-licensed houses and of beer-houses of under £500 in annual value in Scotland, Ireland, and England and Wales respectively. I should like to have not merely the totals but, if he would give them to me, the separate figures for the three countries of what is the amount of the increase in Licence Duties demanded by the Commissioners as for the past year in the case of fully-licensed houses and beer-houses under the £500 annual value in the three parts of the United Kingdom respectively. I should like the figures for over £500, but I imagine their assessments have not been made, and that the demand has not been presented, and therefore, in regard to licenses not covered by the

  1355
  question I have put, I was going to ask what is the latest estimate of the Inland Revenue of the amount which they will receive?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I want to understand the question. Does the right hon. Gentleman want to know the aggregate amount, because after all there are three categories. First of all there is the ordinary public-house and beerhouse, the case under £500, where the publican could not claim what I call hotel terms. The second class is the case of the publican under £500 who can claim hotel terms. Then comes the third case of the publican over £500. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman wants to know the aggregate, because that would be quite impossible now?
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: My first question is directed towards a fact, and I conclude that there can be no difficulty in answering it. What amount do the Commissioners demand? Where the house is over £500 in value they have not demanded anything, because they have not yet made their assessment where the house comes under the hotel clause, but for the ordinary house not over £500, and not coming under the total exemption for hotels, the demands have been issued. I think they were payable on 1st July, and they ought to have been issued at least a fortnight before that date. They were not issued a fortnight before that date, but I believe they have all gone out so as to be received on 1st July. What is the amount the Commissioners have demanded—the excess amount over the old licences? Let us have, for these houses on which the new demands have been sent out, the amount that they would have paid under the old system, and the excess amount demanded by the Commissioners.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The aggregate?
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not want each house separately, but the total for each part of the United Kingdom. Then as regards the rest, which is still speculation, I want the latest speculation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his advisers. He has more information now than when he last spoke on the subject. What do the Inland Revenue now think they will get for last year? Both these questions refer to information as regards last year. Then I want information as to the current year. What does the right
  1356
  hon. Gentleman anticipate that he will get from the increased Licence Duties this year? He surely does not suggest that he cannot tell me that. He has budgeted for a figure. It is included in the revenue of the year.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I put exactly the same figure. May I point out that I am exactly in the same position as I was in last year? There are two disturbing factors. One is the number of houses which will be closed, and the second, a much greater disturbing factor, is the number of houses which can claim hotel terms, and, if they can successfully claim hotel terms, what the assessment will be. I know no more about it than I did then. I probably shall in a few days know the number of houses which will claim hotel terms, but I cannot know their assessment. I put in the same identical figures as last year because I have no further information.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is the answer to my question. Last year, of course, the right hon. Gentleman allowed for a considerable number of houses being unable to carry on the business by reason of the new terms that he exacted from them. He has seen no reason to modify them, and he expects that the Licence Duties which he now demands will drive a great number of men out of business and force them to close their houses. Now I come to the Death Duties. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, as I thought wisely and rightly, that he could not take last year as a measure of the yield of the Death Duties this year. Last year was an abnormal year. He was extraordinarily fortunate in the number of big fortunes which passed during the year and paid tax, and he cannot take the same figures as the basis of his estimate this year. "The ordinary course is to take a three years' average, and that," he said, "I have done, subject only to this: that as trade is improving, and as collection of revenue and methods of valuation are improving also, I make some addition." What is the addition which he has made? I do not quite understand how the improvement of trade can directly affect appreciably the amount of Death Duties. Is the improvement of stocks what he meant by the improvement of trade? I thought the reason why Consols were so low under the present Government, according to the present Government, was because trade was so active that it required all the money in

  1357
  the country, and no one put it into Consols. But it is not good trade which appreciably affects the amount of Death Duties for that year. Of coarse, good trade increases the capital of the country, and in the long run makes it richer and makes the yield of Death Duties greater, but one year's good trade will not in that year produce any appreciable effect. A rise in the price of securities produces an immediate effect. My first question is, Was it the rise in the price of securities that the right hon. Gentleman meant to allude to and not the improvement in trade? If it is the improvement in trade you cannot attach much importance to that. It will not explain much of the increase. I admit I am astounded. The right hon. Gentleman estimates for £4,200,000 more than the original estimate of last year. The original estimate of last year, according to the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, was the result of an average of the three previous years. But he said that though it is £4,200,000 more than the original estimate of last year, it is only £2,500,000 more than the actual receipts of last year. But last year was an abnormal year which the right hon. Gentleman could not expect to repeat. Does he really think that by improved methods of collection or by the improvement of trade he can make such an addition this year as will bring up the average of three years to £2,500,000 above the abnormal and phenomenal year, which he says is no safe guide? Surely there must be some mistake in the figures which he gave and which are printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The additional Death Duties come in for the first time for a full year.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Oh, it is not due to the improvement of stocks or the improvement of trade or the improvement in collection. It is due to the fact that the new Death Duties come in for the first time for a full year. That is a point which the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not mention in his Budget statement. Am I not right in saying that if he had left out the things which were not necessary to clear apprehension of his speech, and if he could have found time to put in the things which were, he would have saved us a great deal of trouble? Now I come to the surplus, and the use which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to make of it. There, again, what I have to say takes the form of questions rather
  1358
  than of any criticisms of my own. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman proposes in the first place to rescind the bargain which he made in the House last year that half the new Land Taxes should go to the local authorities, and that he proposes to substitute for that a Grant which gives to the local authorities what they have lost in Whisky Duty, and perhaps gives them something more. He treats them generously, and, where they were entitled, on a strict interpretation of their rights, to £240,000 or £250,000, he gives them £328,000. But is not that rather a Greek gift for the local authorities? In the first place the Whisky Duty might have yielded more. It might have recovered part of its fall, though the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks not. But, putting that on one side, the promise was that half the Land Duties should be additional to anything that the councils then had. Now, having given it to them as a free gift—I do not think it was a very free gift; it was a gift under compulsion, but it was to be for them to use as they pleased—he says, "I will give it you to make good the deficit from the Whisky Duty." I think that is rather a bad bargain for the county councils and a worse bargain if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right about his Land Tax, because his promise to the local authorities was that they should have half the Land Taxes, and it was only on that that he got the Land Taxes. That was an open Parliamentary bargain made in the House to induce the House to pass the taxes, and to obviate the hostility which was general in all quarters of the House at taking away from the local authorities all chance of enjoying the revenue to be derived from taxes of which certain of these local authorities had been the first and foremost advocates, and which had always been supported by those who did support it as revenue for local purposes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "Instead of halving these taxes, which are going to do magnificently—we are still in the day of small things, they only bring in £600,000 now—I will give you half that £600,000 in pepetuity." But the moment before he told you, "Wait a year or two and see the results they will bring in." Are the local authorities to sell their birthright for a mess of pottage? In order to get £300,000 now, are they to give up all their share in the future growth of these taxes, which are to be so fruitful? I do not think that a good bargain. I do not think that when the local authorities look at it they

  1359
  will like it, and it seems to me so unfair and so contrary to the Parliamentary undertaking given last year, and on which the taxes were voted, that I really cannot believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself realises what he is doing. I shall be interested as to what he has to say in reply. Then I come to the other portion of his surplus. That he proposes to spend in relieving the pauper disqualification from 1st January. I confess that after our experience of the initiation of old age pensions, I distrust all estimates of the cost of anything to do with old age pensions. When the Prime Minister brought in his proposals he thought that they would involve an ultimate burden on the taxpayer of £6,000,000, We are now within sight of £12,500,000, if the Chancellor's estimates of future expenditure, and which he himself does not lay much stress on, are as correct as the Prime Minister's were wrong. I am afraid that is not likely to be the case, and I put in a word of warning against this practice of beginning large expenditure just at the end of the year, so that with a very little sum at the moment, when you are beginning, you undertake a liability of enormous amount thereafter, and that, really, without any security that when the time comes you will have the money to meet those liabilities. We surely had a lesson with old age pensions of the rashness of starting schemes lightly without making sufficient provision for their cost, and I think it is regrettable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not merely repeat that same procedure, beginning his removal of the pauper disqualification with a margin of £400,000 or so, but should do so without knowing what other calls are going to be made upon him next year, and knowing that if this call involves him in the least possible deficit he will have to find at least a further £2,000,000 next year. And not content with that he goes on to say what he will do if he is spared to grace the position he now occupies on 1st January, 1912. He thought I was unjust to him the other day for talking of his speculative estimates and his speculative prophecies. Could anything be more speculative? I am afraid that people in the country—and I know his partisans of the country—do not put in the qualifications which he himself puts in. They leave them out and they promise that if only you will keep the right hon. Gentlemen in their office these great schemes shall be initiated on 1st January, 1912, to be paid
  1360
  for in 1913, because there, again, you are to begin with only a quarter of a year and having found only a quarter of the money you are to leave to the future the responsibility of meeting the new deficit you create. On what will these promises depend? "Next year," says the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "if the taxes come up to expectations and if we return to a normal naval expenditure we can see our way," etc. "If." Most Chancellors have been content to make Budget estimates for one year, and on the few occasions on which Chancellors have estimated for more they have generally signally failed. At the moment I recall only Mr. Gladstone's attempt to forecast seven years, at the end of which period he would be able to dispense with the Income Tax. In the meantime the Crimean War and the Indian Mutiny intervened and instead of dispensing with the Income Tax at that moment we have never been able to dispense with it and no one now suggests that we should dispense with it, not even my hon. Friend the junior Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). Is it not rather rash to begin holding out hopes of what you will be in a position to do on 1st January, 1912, when you have not the slightest conception of what may intervene to upset all your calculations or what possibilities there are in store for us between now and then? That is not all. "If we are able to bring back our naval expenditure to the normal." I do not know what he calls "normal," and I do not suppose he knows himself. In an earlier passage of his speech he explained to some extent what he had in his mind. The original naval programme of Germany comes to an end in that time and the rate of construction provided by the original scheme, of big ships at any rate, is, I think, reduced to one half, "if things remain unchanged." Yes, Sir, but does he think they are likely to remain unchanged? Does he think that Germany, having entered on this path, is likely to be content with the scheme they set forth some years ago, and does the right hon. Gentleman think it well to begin holding out expectations to poor men of the vast benefits that he will confer upon them some eighteen months hence when his power to fulfil those expectations depends, on his own showing, on the naval policy of another Power? Does he think it right or statesmanlike or wise to tell the people, as he does on these occasions, that if they want social reform they must give up national defence; to set the two

  1361
  always in opposition, and to tell them to choose present comfort instead of permanent and future security? I think it an ill-omen when a person with the responsibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer shows so little regard to his duty as one of the confidential servants of the Crown in relation to the matter of defence as to invite and to seek on every occasion in his Budget statement opposition from below the Gangway opposite to the naval expenditure which his colleagues have found necessary and have agreed upon. There is only one course for a Chancellor of the Exchequer who thinks the naval expenditure of the Government not justified to pursue. It is to resign his office. As long as he sits on that Bench he is bound, in honour to his colleagues, he is bound, in honour to the nation, to defend and to support on every occasion the programme upon which the Government have agreed.
  Mr. JOHN DILLON: I think that all Members of the House will agree that the speech to which we have just listened was an exceedingly mild speech; there was no fight in it. This Budget, which is a repetition of the Budget of last year, is treated by the right hon. Gentleman as a humdrum, matter-of-course Budget, and he confines his entire speech, which was very able in detail, to throwing cold water upon all the good intentions of the Government as regards social reform. Well, that speech gives one the idea—I do not know whether it is a correct idea or not—that the proceedings of the Conference must be exceedingly peaceable, and I suppose the temper of the Conference room has spread to the two Front Benches. The Budget has been described as a "humdrum" Budget. I do not think a greater misdescription has ever been applied to any measure in this House. It could not truly be spoken of as a humdrum Budget, inasmuch as it follows the financial revolution of last year, and no Budget which accepts the financial provisions of last year can be treated in any respect as matter-of-course. Not only is it true that this Budget accepts as part of the permanent financial system of the country all the great revolutionary changes which were made in the Budget of last year, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer went out of his way to raise many other questions in the course of his statement, all of which are, to say the least, very highly debatable and of exceedingly interesting character. First, he spoke of the future provision for
  1362
  technical education in this country and for intermediate education in Ireland. That is a subject of considerable interest, and one which will necessarily lead to much debate. Secondly, he spoke of his new scheme—because it is a new scheme—for the removal of pauper disability in relation to old age pensions, a scheme which will also necessarily lead to a great deal of debate and complication. He then spoke of the prospects of unemployment and sick insurance next year, and the relation of those prospects to increased naval expenditure. I think there could not possibly be a subject thrown down upon the floor of this House more calculated to provoke discussion. The right hon. Gentleman has given his views on the relation between naval expenditure and social reform. Fourthly, the right hon. Gentleman, in discussing the separate taxes, raised an astounding and a most far-reaching principle, as he will find out in the course of these Debates; a principle which, so far as my knowledge goes, has never in the whole history of British politics been asserted by a Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House of Commons, namely, that you are entitled to maintain a tax which produces no revenue, but which injures revenue, in order to effect a social reform. That is another contentious and debatable point of which the Chancellor will hear a great deal during the coming Debates. I must say I think that, in view of all these points, the Government has acted most wisely in adjourning the later stages of the Budget until the Autumn Session, because it would be absolutely impossible—and I do not for a moment imagine they contemplate such action—to closure, or attempt to curtail, the necessary discussions of the details of this Budget. There is one point which the right hon. Gentleman himself appears to me to have to a great extent overlooked, and that is the enormous change in the situation, which was alluded to by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Redmond). I am speaking rather from the point of view of the Irish, although I think the same point of view affects a great many others. Last spring, after the last election, the Budget of last year was presented to us as a whole, as part of a great policy, and the only choice left open to us, if we wished to take action was to defeat this Government and to defeat the whole policy contained in the Budget, the whole policy of social reform for which this great financial reform was introduced.

  1363
  The only issue given to us was, "Shall we defeat this Government and destroy the whole structure of reform which is involved in the Budget, or shall we swallow certain taxes and details of the Budget to which we strongly object?" We took our choice, and I think we were amply justified. We were told on these benches that on account of the course we took we dare not go back to Ireland and show our faces to our people. The result has shown that an overwhelming majority of the Irish people endorsed our action on that occasion. But now the whole situation is changed. It is changed, not only in the particular directions mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond), but also because the Budget of this year comes up under such circumstances that its details are open to separate criticism on every single point. Any single principle in the Budget of last year can be raised under this Budget, and discussed as a separate issue. All those points will be discussed, no doubt, with regard to the consideration whether they are vital to the whole structure of the Budget or not. If they are not vital to the whole structure of the Budget, they must be decided on their merits, and therefore I say our attitude towards these reforms will be entirely different. I shall follow the example of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself when he made his Budget statement on Thursday last and deal first with the Spirit Duty, and at the very outset I must protest in the strongest manner I can against the language which was used by the right hon. Gentleman. Without waiting to hear if any argument could be made against the Spirit Duty, and without, so far as one can judge, devoting the smallest attention to the case against that tax, he said:
  "I say if any Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the face of these facts, in response to any appeal from any interests, were to alter a tax that had such very beneficent results, he would be guilty of a crime against society."
  I say that is a monstrous statement to make. I say that the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to wait before he makes such a statement and before he burns his boats in such a complete manner, to wait until he has heard in Debate what can be said against a tax. That attempt on the part of a Minister to foreclose discussion and to inform us beforehand that, no matter how strong the case may be, he will not listen to it, as he has already made up his mind, was
  1364
  followed by the statement that he must adhere to the tax, because
  "financially, and from a higher point of view, I consider it an unqualified success."
  So far as Ireland is concerned, no facts were brought forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer except that the consumption of spirits had enormously fallen, that a leading manufacture of the country was very severely injured, and that financially the tax had been a most dismal failure. Let me take, first, the statement as to the financial success of the tax. I was amazed to hear the statement of the right hon. Gentleman who accepted the estimate, or rather statement, because I will not call it an estimate, that by this extra Spirit Duty he would be better to the extent of £500,000. Here is the language which he used in attempting to justify that statement:—
  "I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is bound merely to consider that, and I think this is the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman sitting opposite—that is not his view certainly of this fiscal reform—at any rate, he is bound to consider the revenue. Now, what has been the effect upon the revenue? I should like the Committee just to follow the figures. There is an idea that we have lost money by it. We have not. Take the following: There was a steady, continuous-diminution in the quantity of spirits consumed in this, country. There was a drop of ft per cent, between 1907 and 1908. Taking the true revenue of 1908–9—we must eliminate forestalments for that period—there was a drop of 5 per cent. If you assume for a moment that we had not touched the Whisky Duty, but kept it at 11s., the diminution, which had been steady and continuous for years at something like 3 per cent, per annum, going on at the same rate in 1909 and 1910, what would happen? If you put the revenue at 11s. and on that basis compare it with the revenue and diminution of consumption at 14s. 9d., we have at least £500,000 to the good. It has been a substantial gain to the revenue and not a loss."
  That is one of the most extraordinary statements I have ever heard made in the House of Commons. I base myself on the figures given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary to the Treasury. I must say that in all my experience of statements by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and I have heard about twenty of them—I never heard a more loose statement made in the House of Commons, or one less justified by figures than that which I have just quoted. Let me say a word or two on the reference to the decrease in the consumption of spirits of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a great deal. In the first place the decrease in consumption in 1908 was due, of course, to a fall in trade, but there were two other causes powerfully in operation so far as Ireland is concerned, which accounted for a great deal of the fall in consumption. The first is a cause which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, throughout the whole

  1365
  of his speech ignored, although it is a matter of the highest importance, namely, that there has been in operation in Ireland for the last four or five years one of the most remarkable temperance movements known in Ireland since the days of Father Mathew. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that in some parts of Ireland the arrests for drunkenness had fallen 70 per cent, or 80 per cent. That has nothing to do with the Whisky Tax. I could show him parishes in Ireland where before the tax was ever heard of drunkenness had fallen 50, 60, and 70 per cent, following on missions to the people and on the appeals made by the priests—parishes where nearly the whole of the population had taken the temperance pledge and kept it for a year or two. [Laughter.] Yes, I am very doubtful of the permanence of the movement. But this is no laughing matter. It is one of the most beneficent movements we have known in Ireland, and it unquestionably accounts for a great deal of the fall in the consumption of spirits.
  There is another point, and that is that Ireland has been steadily and very rapidly becoming a beer drinking country. You would be astonished if you had the figures on that matter. It has generally been understood hitherto that Scotland and Ireland were whisky-drinking countries, and that England drank mostly beer. That was the case until fifteen years ago, but Ireland has become rapidly a beer-drinking country, and the consumption of spirits has been falling rapidly owing to the consumption of Guinness's porter and other beers. I am sorry to say that it is quite as easy to get drunk on Guinness's stout as on whisky. [Several HON MEMBERS indicated dissent.] I believe it is possible if consumed in sufficient quantity, and a great number of people enjoy the pleasure of drinking the greater quantity, to get drunk. The greatest part of the drunkenness in Ireland is due to the consumption of beer and porter. Therefore those causes which I have mentioned have been at work, and they account for the decrease in the consumption of spirits. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO."] It is a matter of opinion, and that is my opinion. All these causes have been ignored by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his very insufficient treatment of the subject. He says it has been an unqualified financial success. How does he make that out? Let me deal with the figures. According to his own figures, given by the Secretary to the Treasury,
  1366
  in answer to a question two or three days ago, he estimated that last year he would realise an increase of £1,900,000 from the tax. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will correct me if I am wrong in any of these figures. As a matter of fact, he realised £3,559,000 less, and I say that in the whole history of British finance there never has been a case of so outrageous a miscalculation on the part of the Inland Revenue as this instance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt with that lightly. He said, "I was wrong by millions, but the only comfort I have is that everybody else was more wrong." That is not a very satisfactory excuse for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give when he has all the enormous machinery of the Inland Revenue Department for making his estimates.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What better machinery had I for estimating the probable decrease in the consumption of spirits than any other person? The yield of the tax depended entirely on the effect which the tax would have on the consumption of spirits by the people. There is no machinery by which you can estimate that.
  Mr. DILLON: I thought that was what the Inland Revenue had been doing for years. Surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not mean to tell the House of Commons that when he refers to the officials of the Inland Revenue, and asks how a new tax or an alteration in a tax will affect the revenue, the officials do not attempt to estimate what the effect will be, having at their command all the vast machinery of the Department and all the experience of the men who have been at this work all their lives. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that they have no better means of estimating the effect of a tax than an ordinary man? I think that is most absurd. If it were true I should say that the Inland Revenue officials must be of very little use. Now the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that he estimates this year for an increase of £1,555,000 over last year.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I said £1,800,000 for spirits alone.
  Mr. DILLON: That leaves this year, according to his own estimate, £1,700,000 short of 1908. He said that figure had to be corrected by making an allowance for the gain of revenue in 1908–9 in respect of forestalments. I have looked into the figures very carefully, and I think the full

  1367
  allowance would be £1,000,000 gained by forestalments in the revenue of 1908. That would produce these results. The result of the new tax according to the right hon. Gentleman's own figures is a loss of £700,000 this year as compared with the true revenue of 1908. And when we remember that the Estimate for this year applies to a year of greatly increased prosperity as compared with 1908 I think it is amazing on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that he is better off by £500,000 a year when, as I make out, by the figures he is certainly worse off by £700,000 a year.
  I am perfectly well aware that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes the excuse which he has made for this extraordinary miscalculation, that he is better off, he is nearer the mark than the trade and other people. I am perfectly well aware that the trade and certain other critics of ours, whom I am accustomed to describe as the two million a year critics of Ireland, did make, and are making, most preposterous statements, and in my opinion are largely contributing to the maintenance of this tax by their wild exaggerations and ridiculous charges. Last year, undoubtedly, certain Irish Members attacked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and pointed out that under this new Whisky Tax Ireland would be made to pay at least £700,000 a year extra taxation. As a matter of fact, Ireland is paying a great deal less taxation under the new Whisky Tax. Instead of taking more taxes out of Ireland it is taking less. But in their efforts to make up this £2,000,000 a year extra which the Budget is placing on Ireland they were obliged to assume that there would be practically no diminution in the quantity of whisky consumed, in order to show that £800,000 a year would be laid on Ireland by the new Whisky Tax. Then we have the case of the distillers and brewers. I really was exceedingly amused to read in the newspapers the other day the wail about the closing of the great distillery of Kinahan's in Dublin. First of all, I read in one Irish newspaper and one English newspaper—I think "The Times"—as an instance of the scandalous conduct of the right hon. Gentleman and the dreadful effects of the Budget that Kinahan's distillery, one of the greatest and most valuable distilleries in Ireland, had been closed that morning; and I read in another English newspaper that Kinahan's well-known brewery, one of
  1368
  the greatest breweries in Ireland, had been closed, and all the employées were dismissed. In the first place, Kinahan's—about the quality of whose whisky a great deal of difference of opinion exists—never had a distillery, and I need hardly say they never had a brewery, and really I cannot avoid reading, in order to show the monstrous mischief done by these reckless statements, an extract from the report of the meeting of Kinahan's, which took place in Dublin, on Friday last. Here is the statement of Sir Robert Gardner, one of the greatest accountants whom we have in Ireland—I suppose the greatest. He was called upon to address the meeting, and he said:—
  "The facts were that for more than ten years the ordinary shareholders had received no dividend, and for two years the preference shareholders had received no dividend. And then a third and even more important factor was that the dwindling profits of the past years had totally disappeared last year."
  That is the statement made by the official accountant of Kinahan and Co. That has gone the whole round of the English Press, as an instance of the destruction of Irish distilleries and breweries caused by last year's Budget. That class of argument, and the class of argument to which I have alluded by the Gentlemen who want to make out that Ireland had to pay two millions a year extra under the Budget, is responsible for a vast deal of mischief, and has incidentally done much to encourage the Chancellor of the Exchequer in persisting with what I think is a most unwise and most unjust course, by displacing or neutralising the strength of our argument against this tax. When I protested against this tax last year, and asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he had selected this Budget against alcoholic liquid for his taxation, his answer was not that he desired to promote temperance. We never heard a word about that last year. He said, "I have to find £16,000,000. I looked at sugar, tobacco, and every other article I could tax, and the only thing I could tax was whisky." He never said his object was to promote temperance. He said it was to get money. That is his only excuse. Then I asked him, "Why not tax beer? "His reply was, "If I tax beer I would get a great deal more than I want." That is a rather unusual complaint for a Chancellor of the Exchequer. But now he says that this tax must be looked at from the point of view of the highest interests, and he is bound to consider, not only the financial aspect of the tax, but its moral effects upon the

  1369
  people. I think that I have proved that from the financial and fiscal point of view the tax is condemned. It has produced no revenue, and the Chancellor's statement that it has is, in my opinion, entirely incapable of being supported by figures. As it has produced no revenue, it is, therefore, according to all the principles accepted up to this date by English financiers, a tax that ought to be dropped. It cannot be defended. Then he says that he is bound to defend the tax, as it has produced the most extraordinary results in Scotland, where the arrests for drunkenness have fallen off by over one-half. I cannot answer for Scotland; I know nothing about it; but I do know about Ireland, and I say the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not give a single figure in support of his statement about the effect of his tax upon Ireland, and I deny that this tax has had any wonderful effect in reducing drunkenness in Ireland. But suppose, for the sake of argument, I were to allow—which I do not—the assumption upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer based his statement that it had reduced drunkenness, does he not see how far that will carry us? It is a totally novel principle in British taxation.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is not.
  Mr. DILLON: It is absolutely. I defy the right hon. Gentleman to mention a single case in which a tax has been laid on, admittedly not bringing in a revenue, and for the purpose of producing some moral result.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It absolutely destroyed gin-drinking in this country.
  Mr. DILLON: When was that passed? I never heard of it. I am speaking of the great days of English finance—since the days of Sir Robert Peel and the modern principles of English finance which govern us in these days—and I want to direct the attention of hon. Members opposite to the interchange which took place between the two Front Benches at that particular point in the Chancellor's speech. Speaking to the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), the right hon. Gentleman said, "You at least would not repudiate the doctrine that a Chancellor of the Exchequer may aim at other doctrines by extra taxation." The Member for East Worcestershire heartily cheered. He was thinking, no doubt, of Tariff Reform and he cheered the principle. The ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer was thinking not only of the revenue but of another
  1370
  purpose. He did not go as far even in this, principle as the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, because, as far as I know Tariff Reform, its friends always claim that they will kill two birds with one stone—that in the first place they will get revenue and, in the second place, promote industry at the same time, or Imperial union. But I never yet heard a. Tariff Reformer admit that he proposed to lay on Tariff Reform taxes for the purpose of promoting industry and without any reference to revenue at all. This is a new and very far-reaching principle, and if it is accepted I do not quite know where it is going to end. Because, after all, one of the greatest evils of these modern days is the gross inequality of incomes, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if his principle is once embodied in the finances of this country, may come down here in a year or two and say that every man with over £3,000 a year must give up 50 per cent, of his income to be distributed among those who have less. That would be having a good moral object in view. Some hon. Members cheer that, but I do not know that the whole of the Liberal party would accept it; but it is based on precisely the same principle. No doubt it is an extension of the principle, but if you accept the principle that you may pursue objects of moral reform and the greatest good of the people, apart from finance, by taxes, then it will carry you very much-farther than you have the slightest idea; of at present.
  I will pass to the next point which the Chancellor of the Exchequer raised, and I would only say, in conclusion, that as far as I am concerned I am opposed to this tax, and when the proper time comes I think we will make so strong a case against it on the arguments that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have seriously to reconsider his declaration as to a crime against society. On the question of education I must confess that I am grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having raised it. The state of affairs in Ireland with regard to the Whisky Duty and intermediate education has long been a crying scandal. It is most shameful that for nearly thirty years, since the intermediate education system was forced upon us—a horribly bad system in my opinion—we have been denied an opportunity of discussing this matter on the Estimates in this House. We have again and again asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and we have never been allowed to discuss it except on private

  1371
  Member's Motions, which is a very ineffective method of discussing it. While as regards England and Scotland, the whole educational system of the country has been brought up for review every year, yet in Ireland where the system is infinitely worse and owing to many causes is starved, we are not allowed to discuss it. I was delighted to hear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has decided to put the payments on a firm basis and not to have them subject to the fluctuations of the consumption of whisky. I will not enter into that now because it will be debated fully when the matter comes on. But I wish to protest against the suggestion that we can accept as satisfactory the basis of 1908. He said it would be placed on the basis of that year. According to the figures which I have here that would not be a satisfactory result for Ireland because in 1908 the Grant to Ireland had decreased by something like £20,000 as compared with six years previously. I suppose it was because of the steady decrease in the consumption of whisky in Ireland. According to this principle, the more sober our people and the less whisky they drink the more they starve the education of the country. When that subject comes up I wish to give the Chancellor ample notice that we shall feel it our duty to raise the whole question of the financial treatment of secondary education in Ireland, and to show that whereas in Ireland we only get this decreasing and vanishing Whisky Duty large sums are granted in Scotland and England from the general finances of the country.
  I pass to the question of pauper disqualification, and must point out to the Chancellor that this is a new proposal. We were distinctly given to understand, all of us, that this was to be an automatic removal of the pauper disqualification, and that the pension should be given on the same terms as those on which it was given to the old age pensioners who already receive it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer now tells us that it can only be done by compelling the local authorities to contribute what it costs them for paupers to old age pensions. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this question. In the first place there will be bitter disappointment among the local authorities, who, in all the discussions which took place, never heard the suggestion that this would be
  1372
  the basis. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, yes."] I do not think there was any statement that they would be bound to contribute the whole sum that it cost them for the paupers. I know it was not so understood in Ireland. The difficulty of calculation will be extremely great, and I should like to have some word from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that point. Take the case of the North Dublin Union. There, thinking that they were sure to have the pauper disqualification removed, they automatically put the old age paupers outside on 4s. or 5s. a week, believing that it would be only for a few months. Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer going to charge them that, because they had the humanity to treat the paupers in that way? Then take the case of indoor paupers. How is a calculation going to be made with regard to them? Is it intended to take the cost of administration, or only the cost of food? The calculation will be an extremely difficult one; it will vary from union to union, and there will be different bases of contribution in the unions. It is unfortunate that this should take place, for it will make the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme fall to the ground, because those unions will profit where they have treated the paupers most cruelly, while those who have been humane in their treatment of the paupers will not profit. In the City of London the whole thing will result in the union having to bear the entire cost, so far as I know. I am afraid this new principle will lead to infinite complications in the removal of pauper disqualification. I am one of those who have held that the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the most magnificent one ever devised for the poor and for the workpeople of this country, and I would be very sorry to see it involved in prolonged wrangles with the local authorities. On Thursday the right hon. Gentleman said it would be a most unjust thing to anticipate the discussion on local finance, which is to come on next year or the year after; but you must look at finance as a whole, and if you relieve local finance of the cost of these paupers, you set free a certain portain of the rates for other purposes. Local finance does not consist of watertight compartments.
  I now come to the crucial point of the whole of this question of future social reform, which is involved in the Budget. It really turns on the question of naval expenditure, and the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Cham-

  1373
  berlain) rightly wound up his speech by dealing with this subject. This naval expenditure hangs like a foul shadow over the whole subject of social reform, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us that next year he hopes to bring forward a scheme for insuring against unemployment and a scheme for insuring against invalidity—two measures which will be the greatest blessings that could possibly be enacted by this House for the working classes of this country—I say that if something is not done, and done drastically, to check naval expenditure you will not be able to achieve those objects. What has happened within the year? The sum of £5,500,000 has gone on increased naval expenditure as the result of a scare, and the statements which led to that scare have been disproved in every particular. Last year we were told by Members of both Front Benches that Germany was going to have so many "Dreadnoughts," but there is not a single statement made on either Front Bench up to now which has not been disproved. Every one of those statements which were calculated to anger the German people and greatly increase the power of the Navy League in that country, while the people of this country were lashed into a state of absolute panic, insane panic, has been disproved. There never was any ground for them, except in the imagination of English Ministers. The right hon. Gentleman said that Austria had laid down four "Dreadnoughts," and the Noble Lord (Lord Charles Beresford), who has again graced us with his presence, and who is an advocate of a big Navy, must have felt humiliated when the British Navy was threatened by Austria. What do we hear to-day on that point? The hon. Member for Mid-Armagh, supported by one of the Members on the Front Opposition Bench, asked about the Austrian "Dreadnoughts," and it appears they have "vanished into thin air"; nobody knows anything about them; the keels have not been laid. But they served their turn, and they and the imaginary increase of the German Navy together have cost this country £6,000,000 one year and may cost us another £3,000,000 in the next year. The result will be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in spite of all his efforts and all the triumph of his Budget, will find himself next year with a large deficit and unable to deal with insurance, either for unemployment or invalidity, nor is he able to deal, as he would wish, with the relief of pauper disqualification without
  1374
  taking from the ratepayers all the money they have contributed towards the maintenance of paupers. And all this because his millions have been swept away for this gigantic naval construction. That is the position of affairs, and I deeply regret it. This Budget, as a whole, as I have said before in this House and on many an Irish platform, properly judged, with all its social reforms which are part and parcel of the policy which is embedded in it, and of which it is a foundation, is a great and good measure, and especially great and good for Ireland, except in respect of certain details to which we object, which we propose to fight, and which are in no way essential to the measure. The only thing that disheartens me and makes me sympathise deeply with the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that, having achieved, against many difficulties, this great triumph, and placed the finances of this country on such a solid basis, while Continental Governments are simply going from loan to loan and deficit to deficit, the right hon. Gentleman should be robbed by a bogus scare that has taken away the millions to which he looked for relief of the grievances of the working classes.
  Sir THOMAS WHITTAKER: The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Dillon), in regard to the Spirit Duty, criticised the Chancellor of the Exchequer because his estimates of the yield from that duty had proved somewhat incorrect. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer may claim that, however bad his estimate has been, others have been much worse. I confess that I was one of those who believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer's estimate to be a bad one, and I thought the duty would produce a great deal more. I believe that was the general view of the trade in the country. The estimates have proved to be wrong, but it is the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's estimate has proved to be nearer than that of anyone else. When there has been that general discomfiture, the man nearest the mark is entitled to some credit. The contention is, first, that no revenue has been produced, and, secondly, that you are not entitled to maintain these duties on moral grounds. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is said, is only entitled to look to financial grounds. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman told us that this Spirit Duty has produced £500,000 more than would have been produced by the old duty. As the hon.

  1375
  Member has challenged these figures, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given me the estimates on which his figure is based. Of course, it is very difficult to make this estimate accurately, because we have to remember that the receipts for the year 1908–9 from the Whisky Duty were abnormal owing to the enormous forestalments and the consequent extra payment of duty in that year. The forestalments enormously reduced the amount of duty that was collected last year, because the whisky which was taken out of bond previously was used in the following year. That complicates the matter very much indeed. The estimate of the Inland Revenue authorities is this. The receipts in 1908–9 were £21,417,000. Of that it is estimated, based on the figures of previous years, that the forestalments represented a duty of £695,000. That brought the duty, the real duty for the consumption of that year, to £20,722,000. We have had a steady diminution from year to year in the consumption of whisky. It has fallen year by year, and there is no reason in the world to believe that the fall would not have continued last year and this year if there had been no change in the duty. The diminution has been an average of 3 per cent., and, taking 3 per cent, for last year and 3 per cent, for this year, that brings down the estimate, at 11s., to £19,498,000, whilst the Chancellor of the Exchequer has estimated—and he believes it to be a moderate estimate—that with the duty at 14s. 9d. he will get £20,000,000, and that it is really £500,000 increase. These are the figures on which it is estimated that this extra duty will bring an increase of £500,000, and therefore it is not correct that it is a loss—it is an increase of revenue. It is said, "You have no right to levy a duty on purely moral grounds." The taxes on whisky have been largely placed on that article upon moral grounds. No one would suggest that on purely fiscal grounds, and as a matter of fiscal equity, we should put a tax of 11s. a gallon on spirits. That high duty was justified alone on moral grounds. It has always been the practice of this House to levy this duty on moral grounds, and the only limit, to use the expression of the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) was "the smuggling limit." This tax has been raised to 14s. 9d. without reaching the "smuggling limit." It is very difficult to understand what really is the cause of grievance on the part of those
  1376
  who are opposed to this duty—they take so many different grounds. First of all they tell us it has not promoted temperance. That means it has not caused a reduction in the consumption, and if it has not caused a reduction in consumption where is the distillers' grievance? Again, they say that the reduction in consumption is due to the temperance movement. If that is so, it is not due to the duty, and, therefore, they have no grievance. On the other hand, they tell us it is due to the duty. When they say that we say that it produces a great moral effect on the country and that its justification is its moral effect. The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. G. Younger) told us, and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) told us the same thing, namely, that it has led to the consumption of crude, immature raw whisky, maddening stuff, that causes drunkenness. But the ugly fact that they have got to get over is that there has been far less drunkenness under this consumption than there was before. Therefore their theory, their pure invention in my judgment, that it has led to the drinking of immature whisky, is not justified by the facts, and, in fact, is opposed to the facts. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) tells us that the temperance movement is the cause of the diminution of the consumption of whisky in Ireland.
  Mr. DILLON: I say contributed largely. I did not say it was the sole cause of it.
  Sir T. WHITTAKER: If the hon. Member admits that the duty has diminished the consumption, there, I say, is the justification for the continuance of the duty.
  Mr. DILLON: Of course I admit it; everybody knows it.
  Sir T. WHITTAKER: I am very glad the hon. Member admits it.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Does the hon. Member say that all consumption of whisky is intemperate consumption?
  Sir T. WHITTAKER: Certainly not. I am using the term in its general acceptance. Of course I should be glad if no one drank whisky, but taking a general point of view the duty has led to a great diminution. The figures as to drunkenness in Scotland are conclusive, and show that it has diminished what everybody will admit to be intemperate consumption. What would a reduction in

  1377
  this duty mean? On the experience of the past year it is perfectly clear that it would mean an increased consumption and increased sale. It is for that purpose it is desired; it is for the benefit of the whisky trade in order to increase sale and consumption, and in that way it would increase the drunkenness, and not only increase drunkenness but a good deal of other misery, poverty, bad health, and brutalities which result from drunkenness, and are not all represented in the police returns. Diminished drunkenness means an enormous boon to the people of this country. When we have got an increase in revenue and a great moral reform I consider that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is justified in adhering to this duty, and personally I wish to thank him very warmly indeed for adhering to it. It is true that that is not the effect that was anticipated and that it was a surprise, but when it has happened so let us have the sense to learn the lesson and adhere to it.
  As to the question of the readjustment of local taxation, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has undertaken to deal with that matter. I do hope when he comes to deal with it that we shall find that the Land Taxes go largely to the localities. With regard to the removal of the pauper disqualification, it seems to me quite reasonable that he should ask the localities to contribute towards that cost as much as they are paying at the present time. With regard to dealing with the question of unemployment, and the bearing that naval expenditure has on that, we shall all agree in deploring the enormous naval expenditure if we may not be all agreed as to the possibility of avoiding it. We do deplore it, and shall be glad to see it cease, but I hope that this question of dealing with unemployment will not depend on our being able to diminish our naval expenditure. Somebody bears that burden now; it is borne by the poor fellows themselves and their families; and if the nation as a whole bears it, it is not an extra cost to the nation, it is merely spreading over the whole community the burden which is now borne by those least able to bear it. In connection with the Chancellor's estimate for a great increase in revenue during the present year, you must bear in mind that that does not arise entirely from anticipation of improved trade, but only a certain proportion of it. A great deal arises from the fact that this year, for the first time,
  1378
  we shall get the full effect of some of the new taxes; we shall get the full benefit of the Whisky Tax, because last year the revenue was deprived of a. large amount owing to the forestalments of the year before. There is also the curious fact that in the last financial year there were two Easters, while in this financial year there is not one, and that means a considerable difference in the revenue for the year. We have also the ordinary increase in the population and the growth of wealth. It is estimated that the ordinary average increase in the income and wealth of the country is something like 2 per cent. That must be taken into account. We would also do well to remember that when we are looking at, or getting alarmed at, the increased expenditure of the country, there are some items in our account which do not represent taxation of the people. I have been looking back into our expenditure for the past thirty years, and I find that that in the Post Office has grown from five millions to nineteen millions. That is not a tax on the people of the country, but is a profitable expenditure bringing in an ample return. That item appears as if our expenditure had gone up by the difference, while that is not so.
  Another interesting figure I came across was that, as compared with thirty years ago, we are paying £5,000,000 per year less in connection with our National Debt. Our civil expenditure has risen from £17,000,000 to £42,000,000, our expenditure on the Army and Navy has risen from £25,000,000 to £68,000,000, and on the Navy alone from £10,000,000 to £40,000,000. That is a very serious burden indeed. When we come to look at the way in which the money is raised, it is very interesting to note the trend of taxation. During those thirty years our income from Excise and Customs which is pretty well spread equally over all classes of the community, has increased by 50 per cent., but our income from Income Tax, Death Duties, Land Taxes, House Duty, and stamps, representing taxes on property and income above the working-class level—those have during the thirty years increased by 225 per cent. That is an enormous increase in the amount of revenue that has been taken from the middle and well-to-do classes of society. I am not now criticising it or saying that this is unfair, but I think it is well that we should realise that during the last thirty years we have enormously altered the incidence

  1379
  of taxation in this country. That represents a larger proportion than the increase in the incomes of the country, as indicated by the Income Tax returns. That increase of incomes amounts to 64 per cent., while further taxation upon that class has increased by 225 per cent. Thus it will be seen that the middle and well-to-do classes are bearing a very large share of the increased expenditure. I am very sorry that the hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) is not in his place. He is continually referring, as did the hon. Member for South St. Pancras (Captain Jessel) the other day, to the fall that has taken place in the price of Consols during the time the Liberal Government has been in power. It is their habit continually to attribute to the Liberal Government in power the blame for the fall in Consols during the time they are in power, and when they are reminded that during the time the Conservatives were in power Consols fell very much more, then they set to work to find all sorts of excuses. They never think of the explanation as regards the Liberal Government, and the mere fact of the fall is sufficient, they think, to justify them in blaming the Government. During the time the Conservative Government were in power British Consols fell 22 per cent., and enormously more than the securities of other Governments. What are the reasons?
  Captain JESSEL: In stating 22 per cent, does the hon. Member bear in mind that Consols are now 2½ per cent., and that they were then 3 per cent.?
  Sir T. WHITTAKER: Just so; they always begin to give the reason. When the Liberal Government is in power they are responsible, but when the Tory Government is in power there are all kinds of explanations, and that is one of them. I was going to point out what are the real reasons for the fall in the price of Consols. The first of all is that the rate of interest is lower. The second is that there was an enormous increase in the amount of the National Debt owing to the South African war. The next is the great extension of the area of trustee investments. By opening Colonial securities trustee investors obtained a great supply of securities in the market.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: Will the hon. Member tell us how many of those causes have been operative since 1905?
  Sir T. WHITTAKER: They are operative to-day. In addition to that there is the creation of Irish Land Stock. There are £47,000,000 of Irish Land Stock on the market to-day. We have the guaranteed Transvaal Loan of £40,000,000 more at 3 per cent., which is practically Government Stock guaranteed by the British Government. In addition to that we have had the very large increase in the borrowing of municipal corporations recently, and for some years past, at the rate of 4 per cent. Very fine securities they are, and they compete with Consols. There has been as well a great addition to the supply of gilt-edged securities in the market. During the last year we have had exceptional borrowings in the Money Market by the Government to meet the financial necessities of the day. The last reason of all, and a very important one, has been the great improvement in recent years in the financial status of many countries in South America and elsewhere which made the British public more willing to invest in those securities than they had been because they had very much improved. Of those causes how many of them are due to the present Government? Who reduced the rate of interest? The Tory Government. Who increased the debt for the South African War? The Tory Government. Who extended the area of trustee investments to Colonial securities? The Tory Government. I am not complaining; but these are some of the reasons, therefore do not blame us. Who established the Irish Land Stock, and rendered it necessary? The Tory Government. Who rendered it necessary to guarantee the Transvaal loan? The Tory Government. Who rendered necessary the borrowing this year to carry on the finances of the country? The House of Lords, against the Liberal Government.
  There are only two reasons left, one is the increase of municipal borrowing. Neither party is responsible for that; you cannot blame the Government of the day for it. The other is the improved status of many foreign Powers. We are not responsible for that, but we are very glad it is so. Where in these reasons is there ground for complaining of the Government of the day? There is none. The reasons, so far as they can be put down to either side, are attributable to the Tory party. I am not saying that they were not justified in doing what they did. An hon. Member asked what these reasons have to do with the present price of Consols. They are having their influence

  1381
  to-day. The wide extension of the field of investment has seriously affected the price of Consols, and continues to do so. The continued fall in price brought about by each of these causes has shaken people's confidence. They wonder how much farther Consols are going, and they refuse to invest in them. I suggest, therefore, that the charge against the Government breaks down entirely, and, like many other arguments used by hon. Members opposite, is very shallow and superficial.
  I think we may congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his Budget, and on the prospects which he holds out for the future. The dark spot ahead is, as the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has said, the enormous expenditure on the Army and the Navy. One hopes, however, that common-sense will dawn some day. We have also to remember that we are in better times. Whether or not the forecasts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are too sanguine, I do not know; but any man who has any acquaintance with the commerce and industry of the country knows that trade is improving, and that there is a far more hopeful spirit than there has been for some time; and that also will improve the revenue.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: There have been so many remarks made, both by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by other speakers, as to "scare," "panic," and "invasion," that it is time to ask how the so-called scare—I prefer to use the term "grave anxiety in the country"—was brought about. It entirely rests with the Treasury Bench. Ministers on that Bench, in March, 1909, made certain speeches of a very grave character. The gravest speech of all was one made by the "Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. It was as grave a speech as could be made, not only by a Minister, but by the man who must know more than anybody else in the country, because he has charge of the Foreign Department. Those speeches were justified by the Government adding to the Navy Estimates not £5,000,000, as you must take into account Supplementary Estimates, but £6,000,000. They then brought in last year Navy Estimates of £3,000,000 over the preceding year, and there is another £5,500,000 this year. Their own party, with the exception of three, opposed them. We supported them, because we believed that the Ministers were right, and knew that they were right, in their statements of March, 1909. Then we are charged with causing a scare, and
  1382
  with being party on the question of the Navy, when we simply supported the Ministers of the day, who proved their own statements to be correct by bringing in increased Navy Estimates. I think we should be fair, no matter to what party we may belong. The Ministers of the day must know more than we know. We can only be critics in Opposition, and when Ministers make such speeches and justify them by bringing in immense Navy Estimates, it is not fair to say when we support them in the House that we have made the Navy a party question in the country.
  We have been rather abused also for speaking about invasion. Who ever heard of invasion until the Secretary of State for War said that we must rebuild the whole of our Fleet unless we wanted to become the conscript appendage for a foreign Power? How could that happen unless there was an invasion? The War Minister is responsible for what has been called the invasion scare. I object to the word "scare" and to the word "panic." It is not British, and it never does any good. If you have a panic you have to pay the highest price for the worst article, and as my countrymen would say, you do not get it then. You ought to have a common-sense policy, to make out what your requirements are, and why you want them. You should make out a big programme. As sure as you are going on as you are now, with Germany neck-and-neck, you will come to a panic and to war sooner or later. You want a bigger, better, and quicker programme than a neighbouring nation—which has a perfect right to build a hundred "Dreadnoughts" without our saying anything offensive to her—and this insane competition of armaments will stop, and we can think something about reducing them. But we have got to live, and there is no Member on the other side who will deny that we have to live by keeping control of the sea. Where, then, is the difference of argument? The point of argument is about what is necessary to keep the control of the sea. The Government have brought forward these enormous estimates and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is perfectly right when he says we shall have a further increase next year. We shall have an enormous increase next year. Where is the fault? Knowing what they knew, the Government delayed their shipbuilding for economy's sake. Hon. Members opposite are quite right in fighting for economy. We all want economy. But you cannot, for the sake of economy, sacrifice the safety of the Empire. The Govern-

  1383
  ment delayed their shipbuilding, and when they laid down ships they retarded them or put them back. They are now a long way behind where they ought to be. They ought to have had their four contingent ships last year instead of this, and their five other ships this year instead of next. If they go on like that their expenditure will go on, the insane competition in armaments will continue, and next year the Chancellor of the Exchequer will come down with a largely increased estimate.
  I listened to the right hon. Gentleman's Budget speech very attentively; he seemed to have tears in his voice, and to speak as though he had to produce this money for unnecessary ships. The right hon. Gentleman is in the Cabinet; he knows perfectly well that these ships are necessary, and that more ships will be necessary next year. It is his Cabinet that is to blame for that state of affairs. If the Government had kept up the normal rate of building instead of reducing it, I venture to say that a neighbouring Power would not have accelerated their programme, because they would have seen it was useless. It was those reductions that caused them to accelerate their building, and when the Government produced their big Navy Estimates there was nothing new—nothing they had not known for four years—going on on the Continent. They suddenly found themselves in a fix because they had made false economies, and they came down on the public, who, consequently, had to pay a great deal more than they would have had to pay if the Government had kept up the normal shipbuilding programme. That is my opinion on that question, and I think it is well founded.
  There is another reason why I blame the Government. It may be asked how this state of affairs has arisen. I have said before, and it cannot be too often repeated, that it was in consequence of the arrogant pretentions and assertions made with regard to what the "Dreadnought "would do with other fleets.
  The CHAIRMAN: How does the Noble Lord connect this with the question before the Committee?
  Lord C. BERESFORD: It is very difficult to say. I may, however, refer to this point. I have a doubt as to the Estimates next year, because the party opposite is entirely under the orders of my countrymen. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has ever read a
  1384
  Chinese edict. The orders are very drastic, and they always end with the words, "and tremblingly obey." The Cabinet have been tremblingly obeying for some time. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has now put his foot down about the Whisky Tax, and I think it will be a matter of some considerable excitement later on to see whether the trembling will be on the benches opposite, or on the benches below the Gangway on this side. However, there is no question that the Irish hold the field. I am an Irishman, I dislike my countrymen's politics immensely; I am an anti-Home-ruler; but I cannot help being amused, I will not say satisfied, by seeing my countrymen at this moment absolutely ruling the roast in the British Empire. How long the Anglo-Saxon race will stand what I may call the benevolent autocracy of the Member for Waterford, I do not know. I expect we shall see some curious things next November or a little later. I seriously believe that what is coming in this country, owing to the extraordinary mismanagement of naval affairs by the Government, is the question of sea-power versus Socialism. The party opposite are asking for an enormous amount of money for social reform. Everybody on this side wants social reform. But no matter how necessary social reform may be, or how certain it is that it will have to be carried sooner or later, is it secure unless you have your defence secure? The hon. Member for East Mayo said very wisely that this competition in armaments is a tremendous drag on the country. I say that drag would have been stopped if you had kept up your normal expenditure, and not come with a rush. But that drag, owing to the increase of foreign Powers will have to go on because you have got to keep control of the seas. I believe, myself, that signs are not now wanting that a serious attempt will be made to sacrifice the maintenance of sea-power to the demands for a social programme. I am not at all trying to make out that these social reforms are not necessary. We know they are necessary. I think a great deal of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done in the way of relieving the poor was right, necessary, and ought to have been done long ago. But may I ask where the poor will be unless you can keep control of the seas? I am perfectly willing to see the Navy reduced, the Constitution smashed, and the Empire broken up if that is the will of the people. Naturally! But I want to know that it is the will of the people. The

  1385
  basis of the whole thing is in this House. You talk about reform of the House of Lords. It is this House that wants reforming—
  The CHAIRMAN: May I remind the Noble Lord that we are dealing with finance.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Well, Mr. Emmott, it is very difficult to get round this question. The supply of the year is passed by the House of Commons, and that is what I was coming to. The House of Commons is elected by the people, but when 33,000 electors send one man to the House, and 1,700 electors send another man to the House—
  The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord is going quite too far.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: I am very sorry Mr. Emmott, that I turned my remarks in the wrong way. This question of sea-power is a predominant one. If you have not got your Empire properly defended, and you do not keep command of the sea, all these social reforms which we all want—I do not say we can carry them in the way that hon. Members opposite desire—can never be carried, and can never be secured if they are carried.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: The Noble Lord who has just sat down is the representative of sea-power.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Hear, hear.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I rise to speak as representing Socialism. It is perfectly true that the issue raised by the financial proposals now before this Committee are as stated by the Noble Lord. That is whether the available resources of the country are to be used for the purpose of increasing the power of the Navy or are to be devoted to financing schemes of social reform. The exceptional circumstances under which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced his Budget this year forbids anything in the nature of ungenerous or captious criticism. I hope, therefore, that in any adverse remarks I offer the right hon. Gentleman will believe that I speak more in sympathy than in anger. Although the Budget has been described as of a humdrum character, the total figures of that Budget, I think, can hardly be described as humdrum. The Chancellor of the Exchequer last year introduced and eventually passed into law an epoch-making and revolu-
  1386
  tionary Budget. He has this year established another record. He is imposing upon the taxpayers of this country a larger burden than has ever been laid upon them in any previous year. I am not an economist in the old Radical sense of the term. I am not appalled by the total figures of the right hon. Gentleman. I hope to live to see the time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer will stand at that Table and propose a Budget of £300,000,000 or £400,000,000. A Budget must be judged, not by the taxation which it imposes, but by the purposes for which that taxation is imposed, and by the methods which are adopted in order to raise that financial revenue. The only thing I can say by way of congratulation at the total figures of the Budget is that there is included in that taxation a larger sum for the purposes of social reform than perhaps had been included in any former Budget. But I think that considerably more than half of the £170,000,000 which is to be raised this year is for purposes which we all deplore, however necessary they may be. Something like £70,000,000 of that total is required for fighting purposes. Including the interest and redemption on the National Debt nearly £100,000,000 of this revenue will be needed for preparations for war, for war, and for past wars. That Budget of the future, which I am looking forward to, will provide additional millions for the purpose, not of fighting, not of the destruction of life and property, but for the increase and for the protection of both. "There is that scattereth, and yet increaseth; and there is that withholdeth more than is meet, but it tendeth to poverty." The wise man of Israel said that. I think it might be a text for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It might be a policy for this House.
  I began by taking up the remarks of the Noble Lord opposite that the immediate issue raised by this Budget was whether the increased taxation was to be devoted to increasing the Navy or whether it was to be used for the purposes of social reform. When I was speaking a few weeks ago upon the increased Naval Vote I ventured to say that we who sit on these benches would not be content to see "Dreadnoughts" take the place of schemes of social reform. That statement of mine was applauded from the Government benches. I repeat that here this afternoon. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has postponed the eighteen-

  1387
  months'-old Government pledge to deal with the question of the insurance of unemployment and infirmity until next year. The redemption of that promise depends upon the expenditure upon the Navy next year resuming its normal condition. [An HON. MEMBER: "There will be a great increase."] The Noble Lord said that next year there will be an appalling and alarming increase in the expenditure upon the Navy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer just now did not contradict that statement made by the Noble Lord. Therefore I think we are justified in assuming that next year the position will not be better than to-day. If there be no money for the purpose of carrying out these schemes of social reform this year, then there cannot be money for that purpose next year. In that connection I want to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to words he uttered last year—words which have a very pertinent bearing upon the matter which I am bringing before the attention of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "Can the whole subject of further social reform be postponed until the increasing demands upon the National Exchequer by the growth of armaments has ceased? Not merely can it be postponed, but ought it to be postponed? Is there the slightest hope that if we deferred the consideration of this matter we are likely within a generation to find any more favourable moment for attending to it?"
  That is what I say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer now. He is postponing until next year the fulfilment of the Government pledge to deal with what I believe to be the gravest of social problems, namely, the problem of unemployment, of infirmity, and of invalidity. I ask him—and I ask him to reply to this—is there any reasonable hope that next year he will be in a better position than he is to-day to redeem that pledge? He cannot redeem it next year except by imposing additional taxation. The Chancellor is probably anticipating a surplus—that is a digression that I cannot enter into just now—though I do not think he is justified in anticipating it, for I do not think he will have a sufficient surplus to meet even the increase in the naval expenditure. He cannot, I say, redeem the pledge next year in regard to the three matters I have named without the imposition of new taxes. Why, therefore, cannot he do it this year? There is no reason why he cannot. The cost of this insurance is £1,250,000. A halfpenny on the Income Tax would do it. Surely it is far better, from the point of view of the welfare of the
  1388
  community, that 5,000,000 of men should be supported in their privations, extremity, and misery than that a halfpenny in the pound should still remain in the pockets of those who have already far more than they can use, either with benefit to themselves or with benefit to the community!
  I want to say a word or two upon one or two other matters. The Chancellor of the Exchequer interrupted me just now with a query as to how I believe it will be necessary next year to impose additional taxation for social reform. The right hon. Gentleman is probably anticipating a surplus next year from this great trade boom of which he has spoken. I do not deny that trade has improved. I think, in spite of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon, that trade has very generally improved. If we have not already entered upon that improvement, at any rate we have in front of us a period of exceptionally good trade. The point I want to bring to the attention of the Committee is this: that the condition of a great mass of the people of this country remains practically untouched by the improvement in trade. The only section of the working classses which benefits from any improvement in trade, whose condition is better in booming times than in times of trade depression, is that margin who are thrown upon the unemployed market during the period of bad trade. I might put it that 90 to 95 per cent, of the working classes of this country are not better off during a period of good trade than in a period of trade depression. As a matter of fact, if I wanted to make a point, I could prove they were worse off, because during a period of good trade there is always a considerable increase in the cost of living, and the wages of the working people do not increase during the period of trade prosperity, with the exception of one or two large industries. I should like to bring to the attention of the Committee one or two interesting figures bearing upon that point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget statement, said that probably this year the total of our foreign trade will be the largest on record, and he spoke of the general prosperity of the country as a consequence of that. Does the condition of the working people of this country depend upon the extension of our foreign trade? I am quite prepared to concede if you have a large foreign trade, you have at the same time a large boom. I find that in 1901 the

  1389
  total of our foreign trade—I am not now including re-exports, but imports and exports—amounted to £801,000,000. The unemployment at that time, according to the Returns was 2.5. In the year 1905 our foreign trade had risen to £894,000,000; the unemployment was double in percentage; and although in these four years (1901 to 1905) the foreign trade had risen by nearly £100,000,000, according to the Board of Trade Returns; wages in these five years had gone down by £13,000,000. You had an increase of £100,000,000 in the amount of our foreign trade, a doubling in the percentage of unemployment, and a decline of £13,000,000 in wages.
  Let us now turn to the Income Tax returns. In 1901 the gross amount assessed for Income Tax was £833,000,000. In 1905 it had risen to £912,000,000. The amount assessed for Income Tax had gone up by nearly £100,000,000; the numbers of unemployment doubled and the wages had gone down by £13,000,000 a year. In 1906 foreign trade had risen to £983,000,000; unemployment was down. The Income Tax assessment had risen to £935,000,000. In 1907 the foreign trade record was £1,072,000,000; unemployment was slightly higher than in the previous year, when the volume of trade was lower. In 1908 foreign trade was down, and a decrease of £3,225,000 in wages. In the following year, 1909, foreign trade had gone up to £1,003,000,000, unemployment was practically a record, and wages during these two years were down by nearly £7,000,000. What do the Income Tax returns show? Bad trade or good trade it is ever swelling bigger and bigger. Between the years 1901 and 1909 the assessment of Income Tax has risen to £1,040,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman in his Budget speech the other day did not give us the gross assessment of Income Tax last year. I venture to say that I should not be far wrong if I say that the current amount upon which Income Tax will be assessed during the coming year will not be far short of £1,100,000,000. What does that prove? The boom in trade is upon us, let us see how are wages. The Board of Trade Returns for the five completed months of this year show that there has been an increase in wages of £8,139 a week, and a decrease of £5,587. That shows and proves the statement I make that the working people are not going to share in this prosperity, and that it will go as the result of all former prosperity has gone, to increase the wealth of a small
  1390
  class of the community who are already enormously rich.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for the Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker) demolished, I think, very effectively, the statement made from the other side in regard to the reason for the fall in Consols. I do not really know much about them, but I know quite sufficient to be able to say that there are many ways in which the price can be manipulated. There are other indications of the wealth of the country besides the rise in Consuls, and you have them here in these figures—in regard to Income Tax. I mention these things because I want to show that these urgent schemes of social reform, these long-promised schemes, need not wait, they can be begun now if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be only as brave and courageous as he was last year. I hope he is not going to weary in well doing. Those of us who supported the Budget last year did so not because it was the end of all things, but because it was the beginning of something. I have never hidden the reason of my support of the Budget, and I heartily agree with the statement made by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) in which he suggested the possibility of taxing incomes of over a certain amount at the rate of 50 per cent. I suggested that many years ago, and I did it not only for the purpose of bringing about a rise in the revenue, but to effect very desirable social reform.
  Perhaps I may say in passing that if we as Socialists had complete control of the matter of formulating the legislation submitted to this House, that we should endeavour to secure revenue not by increment upon land or taxing land values or monopoly value of licensed premises, but in a much more effective way, and in a way that would not inflict as much hardship upon the individual as is attempted by means of taxation. I would give the present landowners every penny of the present value of their land. The State would then resume the ownership, and you would have settled for all time the question of future increment. It would all accrue to the community, not 20 per cent, of it, but 100 per cent, of it. I would treat the liquor traffic in the same way. I would not tax them out of existence; I would buy them out of existence; and it would be the best bargain the State ever made for millions of people. That is not new. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where would you get the money?"] That is a question very often put by an ignorant

  1391
  man who attends your meeting. It is most frequently addressed to us from the back of the crowd. Where would I get the money? If you tried to float the public-houses of this country as a trust to-morrow, with the assurance that they were to be free from increased taxation, you would not have the slightest difficulty in raising all the money you want. It would be subscribed ten times over.
  Mr. PETO: Would the hon. Member guarantee steady consumption of liquor?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: If it cost the community £1,000,000,000 to buy them, and the State were able to abolish them, the advantage that would come to the community in the saving of the money now wasted in the consumption of alcohol and in other directions following from it would be far more than a recompense for this immense expenditure. But that is a digression. I was pointing out that the Chancellor need not wait until next year to find the money to finance his promised schemes of social reform, and I do not think he is justified in waiting. He has no reason whatever to show that next year he will be in any better position to do so than he is to-day. In all friendliness, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are not going to take as a substitute for unemployment something that is like offering to starving men a smell of a beefsteak in order to satisfy the appetite. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned with approval that twenty-five years ago a Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer resigned office rather than submit to a £13,000,000 Navy Vote, and I gathered from another remark of the right hon. Gentleman that he believed that there is a good deal of insanity in the present naval expenditure. If that be so, let me repeat the appeal made to him—and I do not often find myself associated in an appeal coming from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester (Mr. Austen Chamberlain)—that if he believes there is insanity in the present naval expenditure, if he believes it to be unnecessary, if, as he stated upon a former occasion, that it is building against nightmare, why does he not have the courage and the consistency of a former Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer and resign? The right hon. Gentleman made himself immensely popular in the country last year, by his Budget, and if he were to do that he would raise himself on a pedestal of popularity higher than he ever dreamed of.
  1392
  I want to enter my protest, which I have entered year after year since I came to this House, against the unfair and oppressive burden of taxation which is thrown upon the working people of this country. In this Budget something like £67,000,000 is to be raised in indirect taxation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Spen Valley pointed out the proportion in recent years between indirect and direct taxation. What are the actual figures? £67,000,000 is this year the amount of revenue to be raised by indirect taxation. The figure was raised by the late Tory Government, so that this year it is something like £3,500,000 less than it was five years ago, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessor upon that fact. But still it is far too high. Of course, I am excluding stamps from my calculation, because stamps are something like Mahomet's coffin; they stand midway between direct and indirect taxation, and economists do not know whether they should be placed in the one category or the other. The amount of direct taxation is £70,000,000, and indirect taxation £67,000,000, so that the proportions are most unfair. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley that all sections of the community contribute in a fair proportion to indirect taxation. There are many indirect taxes, of course, on which the working classes pay more than people in better circumstances. They depend more certainly upon tea, and probably upon sugar. We have had in the last four years a great deal of sympathy in regard to the present burdens occasioned by the sugar and the tea taxes from hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am looking forward to the time when hon. Members opposite will bring in their Budget, and I shall be anxious to know whether we will then have the same sympathy and whether they will show the same desire to have these taxes repealed which they now manifest when they have not the power to do it.
  7.0 P.M.
  The sum of £10,000,000 is going to be raised this year upon food taxes. There are few things—I have this conviction because of my experience—that help Tariff Reformers so much as the fact that taxes are already imposed upon articles of food. It is very difficult on a public platform to denounce the taxes on food when at the present time something like £10,000,000 are being raised by taxes on food. Revolutionary as I am, I do not ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to repeal all the food taxes this

  1393
  year, but let him make a beginning by repealing all the small food taxes that do not bring in very much revenue and yet are very effective for the purposes of our political opponents. I daresay all the Members of the House had sent to them, as I had sent to me, this morning this placard. [The hon. Member exhibited a placard headed "Exposed."] I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because of my interest in Free Trade, to make a placard like that impossible. It is a most effective placard. I am quite sure that that used in a by-election must mean hundreds of votes. Of course, it is not true; it is lies; but lies help to win elections. It is quite, evident hon. Members opposite know that from their own experience. I will compliment the Tariff Reform League by saying I think this is the most effective placard I have ever seen issued by that organisation. There is accompanying it a smaller placard also dealing with the same question, and it is equally as effective. The last sentence is especially effective. After pointing out that the cocoa trade is highly protected, it finishes up with the appeal that—
  "If a protective tariff enables cocoa and chocolate manufacturers to build garden cities, why should not other industries equally benefit?"
  Could you imagine—I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—anything more attractive to working men than the promise of a garden city by promoting Tariff Reform? The right hon. Gentleman can stop all that, and he can stop it at the cost of something like the paltry sum of £300,000 a year. If he would repeal the Cocoa Duty he would take away the Protectionist argument, and he would do something to redeem the long standing Radical promise to abolish taxes on food. He might also do something to lessen the Tea Duty, to take away the reproach that the Budget is a Budget to promote the stewing of tea. I would also like him to sweep away altogether the remaining tax upon sugar. Putting it on the very lowest plane, the party advantage in that would be incalculable.
  Dr. HILLIER: On a point of Order. The hon. Member has denounced this placard as a lie. Will he demonstrate the inaccuracy?
  The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to redeem the pledge to put the paupers on the old age pension
  1394
  list at the beginning of next year by calling on the local authorities to contribute part of the cost. I am opposed to that altogether for several reasons. First of all, when we succeeded in Committee in obtaining that Amendment to the Bill from the right hon. Gentleman, he never suggested, and no Member of the Committee ever suggested, that when the time came for the redemption of that pledge it should be redeemed by putting part of the cost on the local authorities. I know the right hon. Gentleman last year made the suggestion, but I think most Members will agree with me that was the first we had heard of such a proposal. The cost of supporting the aged poor should be a national and not a local charge. Most of the services, or, at any rate, a good many of the services which are now paid for out of local rates, have during the last fifty or a hundred years become national in their character. I believe the present system of local rating is the same as that which existed in the time of Queen Elizabeth. In the old days it was quite a proper, quite a right, and quite a just thing that the cost of maintaining the aged poor and the cost of education should be placed upon the parish, but in those days children were educated, not for the State, as they are to-day, but for the parish. Today children do not remain in that district afterwards, and therefore the cost ought to be charged on the National Exchequer.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer says he cannot deal with the question of the relations between national and local taxation piecemeal. When did he become of that opinion? He was not of that opinion last year. If so, why did he hand over half the proceeds of the Increment Tax to the local authorities? If he was of that opinion, why did he put upon the National Exchequer such a considerable part of the cost of maintaining or of improving or of making new roads in the country? The circumstances are the same this year. If it was right twelve months ago to relieve in part the pressure of local expenditure, it is equally right to-day. The Chancellor of the Exchequer about two years ago had a deputation wait upon him representing the education authorities, and he made a statement to them which impressed me very much. I was surprised the right hon. Gentleman should make such a statement. He said the local ratepayer and the national taxpayer was one and the same person. That is not so. I will illustrate

  1395
  that by taking this proposal with regard to old age pensions. Suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer succeeds in his proposals, he is going to leave the burden of maintaining the aged poor to that extent upon the poor localities in the country. The rich parishes in the country have practically no outdoor poor to support, and therefore this system of local rating for national purposes imposes an excessive and undue burden upon the poorest part of our population and exempts those who are better able to bear it, whereas national taxation is spread evenly over the whole country and imposes an equal burden upon all who contribute to it.
  I have ventured to submit these desultory remarks for, I hope, the edification of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I trust I have been sufficiently forceful to induce him to reconsider certain proposals of his Budget, and at any rate to make provision during the current financial year for the carrying into effect of the promised scheme of insurance against unemployment and invalidity. We who sit upon these benches are not the least earnest and least active of the supporters of Free Trade, but there is a difficulty, I admit, in supporting Free Trade when it is so easy for those opposed to Free Trade to point to existing social evils. The only way to permanently maintain our Free Trade policy is to remove those evils upon which the Tariff Reform movement lives. That can be done, and, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would at the earliest possible moment redeem that promise with regard to unemployment and invalidity, he would do a great deal more to kill Tariff Reform than he did by the proposals of the Budget last year. I hope therefore this appeal will not be in vain. I am deeply earnest upon this matter. I feel strongly upon it, and every Member of the party with which I am associated feels strongly upon it. There is another reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should do it. We are told the election is going to be very soon, and he may not have the chance next year. Suppose the Tories came into office next February—a consummation devoutly not to be wished—they would not repeal that Act. They would have to find the money for it, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would get the credit for it. If he would do it this year it would not; cost him £1,250,000. I hope therefore he will do
  1396
  it. Will he do it as some payment for the support the Members of my party rendered him last year—the enthusiastic support we gave him in all the stages of the Budget? We are Free Traders, and we look upon this Budget, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer looks upon it, as a triumph of Free Trade principles; but we have yet got to see whether we can solve all our social industrial problems within the limits of Free Trade finance.
  MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE: I have no intention of following the hon. Member for Blackburn in the speech he-has just delivered, but I may observe that I have never done the Chancellor of the Exchequer the honour before of saying I am glad he held that position until I heard the proposals of the hon. Member for Blackburn, and learned what Budget he would have brought in had he held the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am very anxious this afternoon to call the attention of hon. Members to one aspect of the Budget, and that is the tax upon a Scottish and Irish industry, namely, afforestation and timber. I want to show how very much those industries were affected by the Death Duties in the last Budget, and how I presume they will be affected by the duties of the next Budget. Hon. Members opposite have been in the habit of speaking as if there were only one industry in Scotland and Ireland. Even though some are teetotalers they seem always to be blinded by whisky; we never hear of anything from them except about the Whisky Tax, and one would think it was our only industry. It will be in the memory of hon. Members that at the election before last every Liberal candidate upon Radical platforms—dukes were not invented then—when in doubt as to what political card to play, stated what he would do for afforestation and the employment which it would give. But after the election we never heard another word about it. People thought that if the present Government were returned in a very few years they would see all the hills of Scotland and the deer forests, growing wood and timber, with the result that there would be general employment all round. I want hon. Members to know that I am not complaining of the Death Duties on ornamental timber or pheasant coverts, what I complain of is the effect that these Death Duties will have on timber-growing generally for commercial purposes—timber that does provide employment, and that will do a great deal

  1397
  to help us to get a proper system of small holdings in the poorer districts of Scotland, it must be remembered that on large estates only can big plantations best be made, and it is on the large estates that timber is subject to the biggest taxation in respect of the Death Duties. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has offered us a certain amount of pity, and to follow the simile of the hon. Member for Blackburn—pity without relief is like mustard without the beef, and after all we are getting a great deal of mustard with but very little meat. It is intolerable that hon. Members opposite should go about my country talking about afforestation, and what they are going to do for it if they are elected, and then they should come here and vote for a clause in the Budget which will make afforestation perfectly impossible. The other day, when I spoke on the question of whisky, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that I was exaggerating in what I said as to the effect of the Budget on barley growing. I can only tell him that on that occasion I took my statistics from the principal Radical paper in Scotland, and if they were wrong I have nothing more to say, but now I am going to talk about a business of which I know personally a good deal, as I come from one of the principal timber districts in Scotland, and I can only say that in a very few generations, if this system of Death Duties is continued by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, it will do more towards depopulating Scotland than anything done by any previous Chancellor of the Exchequer. Hon. Members sometimes forget that to plant timber in Scotland a man has to be, to a certain extent, a patriot, because he will never see a money result; the cash has to be invested for something like eighty years, and his descendants get the benefit, I think, therefore, it is only right that he should be very leniently treated by the State when he prosecutes this industry. Hon. Members opposite quite forget to mention that among the risks attending afforestation in Scotland are the weather risks; we are subject to gales which few other countries suffer from; microbes, too, are very prevalent. Therefore, it is a very risky operation, and a man who undertakes it deserves a good deal of encouragement. I am going to show, as shortly as I can, how very badly affected we are by this present Budget. My right hon. Friend the Member for the Leith Burghs, than whom nobody has done
  1398
  more to stimulate interest in this question, stated on 19th April that woodlands were practically excluded from the Death Duties under the Budget. I could not understand how he justified that statement, because in my opinion they are affected very much more than they were before. I, therefore, asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, under the Budget of 1909–10, timber was to be valued for the purposes of Death Duties separately from the estate; whether it was subject to a higher scale of Death Duties; and whether the rate of Death Duty on the timber increased in proportion to the rest of the estate, the timber being aggregated to cause that increase, and whether, in consequence, not only timber would be valued at a higher rate, but also the land upon which it stood and also that agricultural land on an estate which was not under timber. The right hon. Gentleman answered all those questions in the affirmative, and a little while afterwards he said that agricultural land was not prejudiced under the Budget. Let me explain. In the old days land and timber in Scotland were valued together on their grazing, rental, and the timber was only valued as such if it were necessary to include it to bring an estate up to the value of twenty-five years' purchase. Now under the present Budget this is all abolished. First of all, in order to get as many values as possible out of the land it is separated from the timber and treated as if there were no timber on it, and valued as such; the land itself is assessed at its capital value, and then the timber is taken at its capital value. Then the next process of this act of Shylockism is to lump them together again in order to get a higher value on which to charge Death Duty. May I show how this works? Under the old system the duty would be paid on about £6 10s., whereas now not only will it be assessed on the £6 10s., but perhaps £100 per acre will be added to the assessment as the capital value of the timber standing on it. Therefore, in this case, per acre, timber is at least £100 worse off than it was before.
  I want to point out how very adversely we are affected by aggregating the timber with the rest of the estate which we have not done formerly. If you have an estate with timber worth £100,000 and assume that the timber itself is worth £50,000, under the old system of valuation it would have had to pay 6 per cent, over all. Now

  1399
  first it will have to pay the increased scale proposed by the Budget, namely, 9 per cent, instead of 6 per cent., and then the value of the timber will have to be aggregated, and that will bring it up to over 10 per cent, on the whole property. I will give another example to show how agricultural land is affected. Take two perfectly similar estates, similar in every respect, each having the same amount of farm land, and of moorland. The owner of one plays the game and makes small holdings. He plants his moorland at considerable expense, and in consequence he will foe assessed at a far higher value than the owner of the other estate, who, instead of planting the moorland, clears it and devotes it to sport. The estate of the latter landowner, having no timber on it, may be valued at a low percentage, and Death Duties are paid on the farms at 6 or 7 per cent., whereas the duty on the farms on the other estate, with timber growing, is assessed at something like 10 per cent. I want to be perfectly clear, I am conscious that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did make one concession—and a very big one—which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leith Burghs claimed to be a fair concession—namely, that the duty would not have to be paid until the timber is cut and if cut. I think that was only fair. It would be perfectly absurd to charge Death Duties on this huge scale on timber of which a man was never going to reap the benefit. It was also suggested that the labour spent on the trees after the death of the deceased might be deducted from the Death Duties; but what labour is there in ripe timber to which that would apply? If the right hon. Gentleman wanted to give some concession he might have given it in regard to the labour expended in growing the trees before the death of the deceased. As it is, the concession is of practically no value. In any case I do think it would be very unfair, even in the timber you do get the benefit of, you should have to pay a rate of death duty that is made up by the value of the timber which you do not cut and which you can never enjoy. When the death Duties are placed on an estate, the value of the timber is added, and it runs it up to about 10 per cent. In nine-tenths of the cases the owner only gets the return from a very small portion of the timber, namely, that bit which he cuts, but he has to pay a rate of Death Duty made up Toy that portion which he does not cut and never enjoys, not only on his timber but
  1400
  on his whole estate. I have raised this subject, which is a very technical one, not because I supposed the discussion would be persisted in, but simply in order to appeal to hon. Members opposite to do what they can for afforestation, and not to block it. I also want to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do what he can for an industry which is tottering at present. You may go up to Scotland and see woods and forests being cut down, but hardly any planting going on, simply because it is not going to pay. Unless you can make timber planting pay, it is no use whatever to say you are going to assist afforestation. We do want to know, however, whether we are going to be penalised in this way or not. If we are, I do not object, but we will put our money into some very much better paying concern for ourselves, but not for the nation at large.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The Noble Lord who has just sat down will excuse me if I do not follow him through all the details which he has given to the Committee, because I confess he has taken me by surprise, and I do not profess to be master of the subject in the same way that he is. I do think, however, that the subject which he has raised is of universal interest, and whatever may be my feelings as an official of the Treasury, I can assure him he has my sympathy and support. Before I pass to deal with the criticisms which have been put before the Committee by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) I should like to say a word or two on the speech which was delivered by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden). He said in the course of his speech that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had this year imposed upon the taxpayer a larger burden than any other Chancellor of the Exchequer before him had laid upon that long-suffering person. That is quite true, but I think the Committee ought to recollect, and I am sure the country will recollect, that it is the relative burden, and not the absolute burden, that matters to the taxpayer and to any bearer of fiscal burdens; and when you deal with the relative capacity of the taxpayer to meet taxation to-day and his capacity even twenty years back, I think that figures can be produced in support of his ability to pay which are nothing short of miraculous. I should not be in the least frightened at

  1401
  the imposition of a Budget of £300,000,000 or £400,000,000 sterling a year if the wealth of the country were in proportion to the burden laid upon it. In the first year that I came into the House the Budget was something like £80,000,000 or £90,000,000, and it was said then to be an almost impossible burden to bear, but the wealth of the country and the wealth of the individual has grown so enormously since then that a Budget which was thought then to be impossible would be welcome now as a measure of relief to the taxpayer. So it may well be that three or four years hence a Budget of £300,000,000 or £400,000,000 will be borne with no greater effort and sacrifice on the part of the taxpayer than the Budget of £200,000,000 is borne to-day. Let us see what ten years ago—not twenty years ago, but ten years ago—the tax revenue of the country was, and what it is to-day, also what the income was ten years ago and what it is to-day; because, after all, it is the relative burden which has to be taken into account. Ten years ago, I find, the tax revenue of this country was as nearly as possible £95,000,000, and the amount of income which was assessed to the Income Tax was in those days £760,000,000. To-day the tax revenue of the country is something like £120,000,000, but, as the hon. Member for Blackburn pointed out, the income assessable—the gross income assessable to Income Tax—had gone up to over £1,000,000,000.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is speaking of the gross sum on which taxation is assessed, whereas, as he knows, a very large proportion of that is really tax free. Can he give us the net amount?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: These figures are produced on the spur of the moment to meet and explain the argument of the hon. Member for Blackburn, but if I can trust my memory I think in regard to each of these cases about two-thirds is net assessable income. Quite apart from the hon. Member for Blackburn, I think there is this further argument to be considered, which is of vital importance in dealing with the taxation. You cannot withdraw money primarily from industrial work for the purpose of taxation without doing some considerable harm to the general industry and commerce of the country. You have to meet the pressure from this House, and hon. Gentlemen who are Members of this House have pressure put upon
  1402
  them by their constituents and by public opinion, and we have to meet the requirements for social reform and for all sorts of matters of domestic and; public concern. You have to meet expenditure upon these points by the taxation of various interests and persons in the country; and unquestionably the amount which you do withdraw from them for the purpose of meeting this taxation is money which is unproductive in a national sense, and it must be some detriment—how much it is impossible to-say—to the commerce and industry of this country. There was one further point in the argument of the hon. Member for Blackburn, as to which I should like to say one word. He drew a comparison between the trade of this country when it was £801,000,000 and when it was £890,000,000, and he pointed out that wages had gone down in the latter period as compared with the former; but you have to test the expansion of foreign trade not only by the value which you put against it in statistical statements, but you also have to test it by the volume of trade itself. It is quite possible that there may be a smaller trade with a higher apparent value attaching to it in one year and a larger volume of trade with a smaller money value attaching to it in another year, and such considerations as those would vitiate the comparison on which the hon. Gentleman started.
  I come now to deal with the criticisms of the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire. He began by criticising my right hon. Friend for the arrangements which he had made in connection with the Sinking Fund, and he complained of the stereotyping of the charge for the reduction of the debt which he said had been sprung upon the Committee for the first time. That is not so. If the right hon. Gentleman will turn to the original Finance Bill as it went up to the House of Lords he will see—I think it is in Clause 92 of that Bill—that the amount was then fixed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at £24,500,000, and my right hon. Friend still adheres to that figure; therefore there is no new proposal on his part this year to stereotype permanently the amount of the debt charge. The actual words were to the effect that £24,500,000 should be applied in the current and every subsequent year. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten what was in the mind of my right hon. Friend as to what was the proper amount to be devoted

  1403
  to the Sinking Fund. I should like the Committee to remember this point, that both this year and last year we devoted an unparalleled amount to the redemption of debt. Last year we devoted a sum of no less than £14,000,000, and this year we propose to devote a sum of no less than £10,000,000 also in redemption of the deadweight gross debt of the country, so that in two years, making every allowance for the sums which we propose to borrow, following the example of the late Government, for telephone and telegraph purposes—a very small sum indeed—making every allowance for that, we shall have devoted no less a sum than £24,000,000 in the reduction of the liabilities of this country. I say, in view of the financial difficulties of the Government last year and the circumstances of the country last autumn, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, that that is a most creditable sum to set aside for the redemption of the liabilities of this country, and, as far as I know, such a step has not been attempted, and certainly not accomplished, by any other country in the whole of the universe. There is no country, with the possible exception of Japan, which year by year devotes a regular sum to the reduction of its liabilities, and we, in spite of our troubles, have devoted this large sum to that purpose. Another point which was made by the right hon. Gentleman was in connection with tobacco. He said the figures which he had in his hand showed that there had been a decrease of something like 6,000,000 lb. in the consumption of tobacco. That is true, but only to a certain extent. Of that 6,000,000 lb. 3,000,000 lb. at least must be ascribed to forestalments in March and April of the previous year and the holding back of withdrawals up to the end of the last financial year in the hope that the duty would be reduced. Putting these two causes together, 3,000,000 lbs. may be attributed to that, and it is upon the amount so reduced that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has based his estimate of an increase of 1½ per cent, for the current year. The normal increase is approximately 1.5 per cent., and my right hon. Friend must take the same amount of increase as being probable in the forthcoming year, but that increase has been based not on what might have happened had this tax been imposed, but he has taken it on the annual consumption of last year, and that amount "will give him the increase of revenue which he budgeted for.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: What in millions of pounds weight is worth 1.5 per cent, of consumption?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The consumption in the year 1908–9 was 90,000,000 lbs. The reduced consumption of this last year will be—I speak again from memory—about 87,000,000 lbs., and it is upon that that the 1.5 per cent, has been calculated. It may be satisfactory to the Committee to know that up to the present the revenue from tobacco has been quite up to our expectation, and perhaps a little above it, and there is ample justification for my right hon. friend's calculations. The right hon. Gentleman expressed regret at the gradual extinction of the small firms and the substitution for them of combines. He dwelt upon the hardships, the deprivations, and the distress that came upon the persons engaged in a small way of business when they were squeezed out by a great combine, and he very justly said that the combine had been greatly assisted by the imposition of the extra duty. If that be so I am tempted to ask what would be the effect on these small businesses if heavy duties were imposed upon them by a general system of tariffs?
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not suppose that a duty of 800 per cent, would be put on.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: These duties begin in a small way, and, as other countries have experienced, they grow out of all proportion to the original ideas of their authors. I am quite certain that if the right hon. Gentleman ever establishes a system of general tariffs he will find that the small trader will be in a state of distress and extinction owing to the creation of a great number of combines. I hope then that he will get relief and some practical sympathy from the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been exceptionally lucky in the matter of Death Duties, but that in spite of his luck he budgets for an increase of £4,250,000 on his estimate, and £2,500,000 on his actual receipts last year. He has, however, forgotten one or two very important points. One is that there is a great difference between Income Tax and Death Duties in this respect. Income Tax is calculated on an average of three years, while Death Duties are not calculated on an average but on the actual value of the property passing at the time of death. The

  1405
  consequence is that the moment there is an improvement in trade, that is in the value of industrial concerns, or in the price of stocks, Death Duties at once reap the benefit, and it makes it much more probable that there will be an increase in the yield from Death Duties. The second point which the right hon. Gentleman forgot is one that the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to in his Budget speech, that is the Legacy and Succession Duties coming into operation. They are calculated to yield a sum of something like £1,150,000, which, of course, is a very large proportion of the £2,500,000 increase. The third reason which justifies the Chancellor of the Exchequer in calculating on a large increase on Death Duties is the increase in value all round following upon good trade. The right hon. Gentleman rather questioned that point of view, but I think he forgot this, that it is not merely that stocks and shares go up in times of good trade, but the whole value of industrial and commercial concerns rises very quickly in times of good trade, when credit is ample and business is brisk. It may quite possibly be that for the moment Government securities may go down as people sell and transfer their interest to industrial and commercial concerns, but the shares of industrial and commercial concerns rise in a far greater proportion than Government securities, and you have to add to that the values of all these business and trade concerns which are not represented by securities at all, and which come under the review of the Inland Revenue at the time of death, and which rise out of all proportion to one's expectations at times of booming trade.
  There was one other allegation which the right hon. Gentleman made against the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He repeated that my right hon. Friend was engaged in speculative finance. I do not think he was justified in that. There has been an unprecedented increase in both the import and export trades, and there has been an extraordinary decrease in the amount of unemployment, and there is every sign that we are going to get a state of trade which is quite unprecedented. If the right hon. Gentleman would only look at the Returns for May and at the Returns for the year up to the end of May, he will see figures which will be at once startling and satisfactory to him. The Returns for May are £55,000,000 imports and £33,000,000 British exports, as against £44,000,000 imports and £29,000,000 of British exports in
  1406
  1909, and £44,000,000 of imports and £31,000,000 of British exports in 1908. Taking the whole year up to the end of May, whereas the trade in 1908 was £194,000,000 and in 1909 £185,000,000, this year it is up to £216,000,000. When trade has gone up by something like £30,000,000, imports and exports, before half the year is out, can it be called speculative finance that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should base his calculations upon that great revival in both home and foreign trade? The right hon. Gentleman, in conclusion, asked, "Is it right to set social reform against national defence?" as if in order to promote one you must abandon the other. I cannot conceive, and certainly experience does not show, that these two things are mutually exclusive. We have provided, during the five years in which this Government has been in office, an average sum of £.34,000,000 a year for the defence by sea of this country, and for the protection of its commerce. That is a larger sum than was set aside in the last year of the right hon. Gentleman's tenure of the Chancellorship of the Exchequer, and during that time every year there have been one or two great measures of social reform passed—in 1906 the Workmen's Compensation Act, in 1907 the Small Holdings Act, in 1908 the Old Age Pensions Act, and last year the Town Planning Act. It is not fair to suggest that the carrying out of social reforms prevents the Government from also maintaining its obligations to protect the trade of this country and to maintain its shores inviolate. Both of these things have been carried simultaneously by the Government, and without making any controversial or, I hope, too party claim for the Government of which I am a Member, I say it has discharged its duties to the public which it represents, and that the finance of my right hon. Friend in his Budget of last year will be amply justified by the results.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: This Budget has been called a humdrum Budget, and I quite agree that in one sense it is, because it does not alter the taxation of, the country. But in another sense it is not a humdrum Budget because it charges £172,000,000, which is quite unprecedented in recent years. When the late Government came into power in 1906 their charge against our party was that we had been extravagant and that we had sent expenditure up by leaps and bounds. What was

  1407
  it in that year? £141,000,000 or £142,000,000, and the present Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he introduced his first Budget, after quoting the figures I have named and showing that there had been an increase in the last ten years of 39 per cent., made this remark:—
  "These figures appear to me to call for no comment. They speak with an eloquence which needs no rhetorical embroidery. In my opinion they make a return to more thrifty and economical administration, the first and paramount duty of the Government."
  That is to say, a return from £142,000,000 to what they were ten years before, £101,000,000. While the Chancellor has to impose this immense sum in taxation he has the whole of his taxes up to the hilt. The Income Tax is at war pitch, and his indirect taxes cannot be extended any further. The Spirit Duty failed him this time, and the Tobacco Tax very nearly failed him. Supposing in this Budget he had required to put on more taxation, where would he have got it from? Where is the margin of productivity which he could rely upon? Was he going to rely on a higher Income Tax, higher Death Duty, higher Tea Duties, Spirit Duties, or Tobacco Taxes? All these taxes are already up to the hilt, and the limit of productivity has been reached. While this is the state of things, the Chancellor of the Exchequer boasts of this large expenditure, and congratulates the country on being able to raise the money.
  8.0 P.M.
  Then he goes on to say, "What country in the world can show such a record?" I do not think he has studied very well the finances of our great competitors if that is his opinion. What is the position of the United States of America.—a country most prosperous in every way? How do they raise their money? Last year in the Budget of the United States the total revenue raised was 604,000,000 dollars, and out of that about half was raised by Customs duties alone, and the other taxation was raised by what is called internal revenue—charges on liquor, tobacco, and things of that kind. They have not a penny or Income Tax, and they have no Death Duties. Almost the whole of their revenue comes from indirect taxation. And yet the Chancellor asks what country id the world can show such a record as ours! Where would the United States be in case they wanted money for war or other emergency? They have the whole of the
  1408
  Income Tax to go to and also the Death Duties. Surely there is a great financial reserve in the United States of which we cannot boast? Then take Germany. We heard a good deal during the Debates last year about the German Income Tax, but I think we showed pretty conclusively that the German Income Tax is nothing compared with ours. It is a graduated tax in each of the States of Germany, but it includes almost all the rates, whilst in Prussia, the largest of the German States, it is almost the only tax which the Prussian people have to pay. Five-sixths of the revenue of Prussia is raised from assets owned by the State—mines, forests, railways, iron works, slate works. Therefore, you have in Prussia, a graduated low Income Tax, which includes all the local rates, and is about the only tax the people have to pay. There is hardly any Death Duty at all. They have what is called an Inheritance Duty, not chargeable on the direct succession, but on strangers and indirect succession, and it only 'brings in about £2,000,000 a year. My contention is that both Germany and the United States could stand a financial strain much better than we could, because they have the whole or nearly the whole of their direct taxation untouched.
  I should like to remind the Committee that by their Customs Duties they are making the foreigner pay his share for the use of their markets. Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but it is the opinion of modern economists that an exporter to those countries has to contribute, by lowering his price, his profit, and his wages, towards the import duties which his goods pay, so that here in this Free Trade country our manufacturers and our workpeople are contributing in that way their share towards the expenses of our competitors. As I say, you have these two great countries more able to bear a financial strain than we are. France is in the same position, although it is not quite up to the standard of Germany and the United States—for one reason because the public debt of France is the largest of any in the world. It amounts at the present time to £1,231,000,000. That is one handicap that France has to bear; but, with all that, the greater part of taxation in France is indirect taxation. It is in the proportion of one to four. There are Death Duties, but they are moderate, amounting to one-third of the indirect succession. There are some countries which have no-Income Tax at all. Russia, Hungary, Bel-

  1409
  gium, and Portugal have no Income Tax. Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands have a very moderate Income Tax. The result of the financial operations of the present Government has been to turn the balance of our taxation from an equality between direct and indirect taxation, as it was in the year 1904–5, to a balance of direct taxation in the proportion of about fifty-seven to forty-two. It is a state of things which one of the Chancellor's predecessors, the late Mr. Gladstone, would not have approved. He used very strong language in regard to Income Tax. He called it "a most dangerous tax, vexatious to trade and industry," and he reduced it as far as he possibly could. I think he got it down to 2d. in 1873, and he promised the country if they returned him to power again that it would be abolished altogether.
  You have the authority of John Stuart Mill, who said:—
  "Direct taxation of income should be reserved for great national emergency. A tax on profits is, in a State of capital and accumulation like England, extremely detrimental to the national wealth."
  Then the late Mr. Lecky said:—
  "No principle in political economy is more certain than that heavy taxation of capital which starves industry and employment will fall most heavily on the poor."
  I believe that is also the opinion of the present Prime Minister, because he said, in a Budget speech, that he could not approve of a uniform rate of 1s. in the £ Income Tax, because it was a charge and a tax on industry and wages. Our present rate is 1s. 2d. in the £, which was the average rate in the times of the Crimean War and the Boer War. It has only twice been higher. It went up to 1s. 4d. in 1853, the second year of the Crimean War, and to Is. 3d. in 1902, the third year of the Boer War; but what was the state of things when the Income Tax was increased in the time of those wars? It was increased from a low rate of 7d. and 8d. respectively to 1s. 4d. and 1s. 3d. But it would be a very different thing in case of war now if we had to double the Income Tax of 1s. 2d., and the Chancellor is running a danger in using this great financial reserve, which Mr. Gladstone insisted was so important to the country. He said, in his famous Budget speech of 1853, "Much as may be said of the importance of an Army Reserve or a Navy Reserve, and of having your armouries and your arsenals well stored, I say that a fiscal reserve is no less important, for, if it be used aright, it is an engine to which you may resort, and with
  1410
  which, judiciously employed, if, unhappily, necessity arise—though may God, in His Mercy, avert it—you may defy the world." That is our first great reserve in case of necessity. What is our second? It is the Sinking Fund; and I very much regret the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not seen his way to keep the fixed charge at £28,000,000, the sum fixed by Sir Stafford Northcote in 1875. He fixed it at that for this reason: He showed that before 1860 there had never been a less sum paid than £28,000,000, and he argued that if that were so, the country, which in 1860 could afford a fixed charge of £28,000,000 to pay interest and capital repayment, could afford to pay more in 1875, because it was richer and had a greater National Debt. I should like to argue on that ground now, for if the country could afford it in 1875, it ought to afford it at the present time. We know that the dead-weight debt is about £700,000,000. It is put down on the Departmental Papers at £713,000,000, but we are aware that it has been raised temporarily during the present year, because of the borrowings of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Before the Boer War the deadweight was £635,000,000, and if you deduct the one from the other you will see that there is still about £67,000,000 borrowed for the Boer War to be repaid. My argument is that until that money is repaid the fixed charge ought to be kept up to £28,000,000. That would leave the Chancellor of the Exchequer about £10,000,000 a year towards the repayment of debt. But he is only going to keep it up to £24,500,000, and at that rate he will only have about £6,500,000 a year to devote to the repayment. He will have to wait a very long time at that rate before the debt is reduced to what it was before the Boer War. Until it is brought down to what it was then the fixed charge ought to be kept up to at least £28,000,000. I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to this fact. I have spoken of the National Debt of France. We come second, but the debt of our great competitors, the United States and Germany, is very much smaller indeed In the United States it amounts to only £2 per head of the population, and in Germany to £3.
  And it being a Quarter past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  PORT OF LONDON (PORT RATES ON GOODS) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Mr. GEORGE THORNE: I beg to move: "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on Port of London (Port Rates on Goods) Provisional Order Bill, that they have power to consider whether exemption from port rates should be granted in respect of goods imported coastwise for transhipment only, and to report accordingly."
  In submitting this Motion it is necessary for me to repeat in very few words something of what I endeavoured to say when the Second Reading of the Bill was before the House a fortnight ago. The whole difficulty we have got to face on behalf of the interests I am representing here to-night is in connection with the discrimination shown by the Bill as between goods coming from the coast and goods coming from inland places to the Port of London for export. It has only been discovered within the last two or three weeks how midland and inland manufacturers are seriously handicapped by the provisions of this measure. I do not know who is to blame, or why the matter has not been more fully discussed in their interests before, but so far as I am able to learn persons like the manufacturers in the Midlands have been entirely outside the whole of the negotiations before the Committee in 1908, and before Lord St. Aldwyn's Committee a few weeks ago, and the consequence is that when this Provisional Order was presented to the House a fortnight ago the discrimination between the coastwise traders and the inland traders was found to be of such a serious character that it has given rise to distinct opposition to the Bill so far as these interests are concerned. The inland trader is, in the first instance, most seriously handicapped. He sends his goods to London for export in competition with goods which are sent from various seaboard places to the port for export. The inland trader is handicapped first of all by the fact that he sends his goods to the port by railway or canal, while the seaboard trader sends his goods by ship. The consequent difference in the freightage is exceedingly great. The inland trader pays a larger freight by railway or canal than the seaboard trader who sends by ship, and the result is that at the Port of London he is most seriously handicapped as against his competitor on the coast. It seems to me in the circumstances that if
  1412
  Parliament were to intervene at all it ought to intervene in the direction of lessening the handicap rather than of making it more severe; but, as a matter of fact, by the terms of this Bill the result is that those who come from the coast, already having an advantage over those who come from inland, are to be freed from rates altogether in their transhipments, while goods coming from the midlands by railway or canal are to pay rates in addition, and the consequence is that the existing handicap is intensified by what I may call the Parliamentary handicap, and the double result is a very serious one indeed for the midland trade.
  It does not end there, for this not only applies to the goods sent from midland and inland manufacturers to the Port of London, but it also relates to the raw materials which are brought in through the port for midland manufacturers. They have to pay rates on the incoming as well as the outgoing materials, whereas the coastwise traders are relieved from rates in each direction. It is manifest to anyone who knows how competition goes forth between manufacturers that any additional charge of this kind burdens them to such an extent as to make business almost impossible. The existing freight has been such as to cause a serious handicap to the trade of the midlands. I instanced two cases in which large manufacturers in Wolverhampton, who suffered from a handicap of a similar kind, have left our town and gone to the coast simply because they could not stand the extra burden of sending their goods by railway or canal. Having done that, and having deprived the midlands of the advantage of these large manufactures in our midst, of the population who would have been employed in them, and of the general business resulting, Parliament, which has already done so much for their benefit, practically says, "We will do more," thereby giving an incentive to other manufacturers, who so far have withstood the difficulty, to follow suit, so that they may get the benefit of the discrimination at the Port of London. It seems to me, therefore, that the injustice of this discrimination between the two opposing sets of manufacturers is so great that Parliament should never have assented to it at all. If we were approaching the matter for the first time I do not think I should have much difficulty in convincing the House of this injustice and asking them to put the matter on absolutely fair and just lines

  1413
  between the competing manufacturers, so that no discrimination should be allowed. The point I am putting at the present is not that the midland manufacturers should be relieved from the rates that have to be paid. They understand that the Port of London must have revenue, and none of them are desirous of refusing the needful revenue in that behalf. What they object to is that while they have to pay, their competitors, already having an advantage as compared with themselves, do not have to pay. It is not their desire to be relieved of rates; it is their desire to prevent this discrimination whereby one competitor is to have this advantage over another.
  It seems to me that if this matter came before the House to-night for the first time, that would be evident to anyone, but it does not come before the House for the first time. It is covered by the Act of 1908, and by the arbitration before Lord St. Aldwyn. I have learned with surprise that the midland manufacturers, who are so keenly affected by this discrimination, knew nothing whatever of the way their trade was being jeopardised. I do not know how the discrimination was originally made. It appears to me that the Bill under which it took place must have passed through this House on "domes of silence," otherwise the manufacturers would have heard of it. They only learned two or three weeks ago of the great injustice to which they were being exposed, and they immediately wrote to their representatives in Parliament to bring the matter before the House. We did so on the very first opportunity a fortnight ago, and having stated the case as clearly as I could in the few minutes I occupied the attention of the House, I said that if we could secure from the President of the Board of Trade a statement that the matter would be fairly considered on its merits before the Committee, none of us desired to hurt the Port of London, or in the slightest degree interfere with its activities. All we wanted was that this discrimination should be removed. The President of the Board of Trade, with his usual courtsey, promised that every point raised in the Debate should receive the full consideration of the Committee.
  I am absolutely satisfied that it was the sincere desire of the President of the Board of Trade that this matter should be discussed by the Committee fully and fairly on the merits, but, having gone into the matter, I believe he has discovered,
  1414
  and doubtless he will tell the House tonight that there are technical difficulties in the way preventing that clear discussion of the matter before the Select Committee upstairs, that I think he, with us, would sincerely desire. Consequently I had an opportunity with a number of my Friends of discussing the matter with him on various occasions, and I wish here to testify that the President of the Board of Trade, in the special circumstances which existed, has shown every possible endeavour to meet us as fairly as he can. He will speak in a moment, and will explain what his position actually is, but I am now going to indicate what he has told me and told my Friends he is prepared to do. He is not prepared, I understand, to accept the instruction that I am submitting to the House. I wish he could. But I understand that he cannot go so far as that. As I understand, what he desires is that, so far as it is in any way practically possible, the case that I am submitting to the House to-night shall be fairly submitted to the Committee upstairs, that there shall not be the bar placed against the midland manufacturers of presenting petitions or of their being entirely excluded by the technical terms of the Act of 1908, but that on the merits the matter may be fairly discussed. I understand that the President does not commit himself in the slightest degree to any opinion one way or another upon the merits. He does not want to prejudice, the case before the Committee, which he fully understands we do not ask him to do. I understand that he will take steps to-night so far as is practicable that the Committee upstairs may not enforce this special bar against the consideration of the matter submitted, and that they may on the merits consider what is best to do.
  With your permission I propose to read a short memorandum in which the President of the Board of Trade has been good enough to express his views in accordance with which I trust we may carry out what is laid down. I do not know whether I am sufficiently well acquainted with Parliamentary ways to know how this will operate. I understand that the President desires me on his statement to withdraw my Motion to-night which I shall do as I would rather get a little than lose everything. But in what he is going to express I understand that there will be something in the nature of a Parliamentary understanding whereby the Committee upstairs will learn the views expressed by the

  1415
  President of the Board of Trade here and will take them into consideration so that the matter shall be fairly considered on its merits in the Committee. If that course be adopted the chief object we have in view will be achieved. What is supposed to be intimated simply is that it be left to the Committee to decide what goods in the circumstances shall come within the category of transhipment goods. The port authority agree that their counsel will not raise the technical point against the petitioners being heard, and on that basis I understand that the President of the Board of Trade will accept the instructions standing in the name of my hon. Friend opposite in regard to the presentation of petitions.
  I have only to remind the House of what I said just now that the position in which Midland traders find themselves is entirely new, and being new they had no previous opportunity of presenting the petitions before the Committee; and I ask now that they may present petitions and that this matter may be discussed before the Committee in proper course. My position is somewhat difficult for if I withdrew the motion I do not know what the position may be exactly, but I do it in the absolute good faith and on the understanding that the Select Committee will take into consideration what takes place in this House and the statement of the President of the Board of Trade so that the interest of those on behalf of whom I speak tonight may be fairly considered in the Committee. If on technical grounds that was still refused of course there would be nothing for us but when the Bill comes back to this House to ask to recommit the Bill in order that the matter might be fully considered. But I sincerely hope that this will be avoided altogether, and the matter may be considered on its merits on the Petitions being presented before the Select Committee upstairs. I beg, therefore, to move the Instruction that stands in my name, doing it at this moment formally in the hope that by the statement which will be made in a moment by the President of the Board of Trade I may be relieved from pressing it, and that the matter may be discussed before the Committee in the way which I have indicated.
  Mr. BIRD: I beg to second the Motion, and have only to say that I regard this as something more than a mere understanding. I take it to all intents and purposes practically as an undertaking that by
  1416
  some means the grievances of our traders from the midlands shall be remedied.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): Not at all. What I have endeavoured to do is to give the traders an opportunity of petitioning so as to be able to state their case to the Committee. It is not my business to say whether the Committee will remedy anything. I could neither give a pledge about it nor would it be my duty to do so. My hon. Friend (Mr. George Thorne) has exactly described the position.
  Mr. BIRD: I am afraid that I did not express my meaning quite clearly. What I meant by something more than a mere understanding was that the right hon. Gentleman would do his utmost. I accept his explanation, and am sure that all of us who have had these negotiations in hand recognise that he is most anxious to remedy what is an undoubted grievance.
  Mr. BUXTON: I do not propose to go into the merits of this particular case, and anything I say must not be held to imply that when this question comes before the two Parliamentary Committees I am in any way bound to support this proposal. What I am anxious to do and what my hon. Friend behind has very clearly explained is this: I understand that the position of these particular traders is that when this question of the rates to be charged by the Port of London came before Lord St. Aldwyn's Committee the other day, Lord St. Aldwyn being appointed by the Board of Trade to inquire into and report, with regard to the Provisional Order proposed by the Port Authority, owing to some misunderstanding or because of the want of publicity—though as regards London there was plenty of publicity—these particular persons representing these particular interests did not have an opportunity of stating their case before Lord St. Aldwyn. I may point out that a more or less similar case, that of the railway companies, was stated, and stated very fully, before Lord St. Aldwyn. But I entirely accept the position stated by my hon. Friend that these particular interests were unaware of this inquiry or, at all events, unaware of how it might affect them, and, therefore, were1 not in a position at that time to state their case before them. When that was drawn to my attention it appeared to me to be a hard case. I think in these matters that every interest involved ought to have a good opportunity of stating its case

  1417
  either in the House of Commons or subsequently to a Parliamentary Committee, which sits in reference to these matters; and when a proposal was brought under my attention in this House, and subsequently by hon. Members, that I should endeavour, as far as possible, to obtain for them a hearing before the Parliamentary Committee, and a hearing which would not be estopped, as it were, by the raising of any technical question in reference to the lateness of Petitions or in reference to any other matter. First, in regard to the second Instruction on the Paper with reference to Petitions, there again I have been anxious that every industry should have an opportunity of petitioning in regard to this matter lest some of them might not be aware that the period for petition would be closed as early as it was, and I know in accepting that, with the reservation I mentioned, it gives those interests an opportunity of being heard by petition before the Committee. A more important point than that in connection with this matter was raised by my hon. Friend. As far as the Board of Trade are concerned, we do not think that these traders would be prevented by a technical objection from stating their case before this Committee. But we were advised, and my hon. Friend was advised from other quarters, that there was a possibility, and very likely a probability, that technical objection might be taken, and they would not be able to state their case to the Committee. My hon. Friend, however, has put down an Instruction to which I cannot agree, because it opens out a much larger question, involving an alteration of the original Act of two years ago. To that, of course, we could not assent; but I was anxious, as my hon. Friend has already said, that these interests should have an opportunity of being heard, and I therefore had conversations with the Port Authority to see how far they would be willing to waive their undoubted power to raise a technical objection to those interests being heard at all. I have been able to persuade the Port Authorities to waive any technical objections in this matter to those interests being heard before the Committee. I would like to repeat, therefore—because in these matters there should be no misunderstanding—that which I suggested to my hon. Friend, and which he accepted—"I desire that the question of these rates should be left to the Committee to decide what goods in the circumstances should
  1418
  come within the category of transhipment goods." The Port Authorities, I am glad to say, have agreed that the council will not raise the technical point against the petitioners being heard. The House, of course, will understand that there are two Committees, the Committee of this House and the Committee of the Lords, who must also consider the Bill. There is really a double opportunity of this question being raised, and in what I have done I want to make it quite clear—because this is my objection to the Instruction—that I must not of course be held to imply in any way the support of the Board of Trade, who are responsible with the Port Authority for the Provisional Order as now introduced. Whatever goods are finally included within the definition of transhipment goods must, of course, under the terms of the Act of 1908, be free from port rates. My hon. Friend wanted to know exactly what our position is in regard to this Committee. I am advised by the best authorities that an arrangement of this sort is recognised by Committees of the House. If the Port Authority had raised this technical objection, what I have said and what my hon. Friend has said would weigh with the Committee, and unquestionably, as I am advised, they would take it as an indication of the desire of the House that in this matter each particular interest should have a full and fair hearing. Under these circumstances I appeal to my hon. Friend not to press the Instruction, which I am afraid I cannot accept, but after his speech, and after what I have said, to agree to my suggestion, which I think will give the interests concerned an opportunity of stating their case in Committee without being barred by any technical objecton.
  Sir HOWELL DAVIES: So far as I have been able to follow the President of the Board of Trade I think he has not thrown the weight of his office into the scale against the dockowners of the country. The question which is raised by my hon. Friend (Mr. G. R. Thorne) is one which might very easily be made applicable to all the rest of the ocean docks. During the last twenty years there is no class of investment which has yielded so small a return as the immense sums spent in the improvement of our great docks. The source of revenue of the Dock Committee is largely from coastwise traffic, and I maintain that inland towns and great manufacturers using our ocean docks should be

  1419
  willing to pay a reasonable sum for the coastwise traffic that they bring to those ports. Manufacturers, so far as the Port of London is concerned had certain privileges before the passing of this Act, and those they wish still to enjoy; but it seems to me and to those who know the run of the business that, in view of the wonderful improvements that have taken place in our ocean docks, these manufacturers are benefiting very considerably. It has been made possible for very much larger ships to use the docks and in consequence they are getting a lower rate. The inland interests should therefore be prepared to pay some reasonable sum in view of these facts. My hon. Friend said that this Bill differentiates between Wolverhampton and other places in England—between manufacturers inland and manufacturers on the coast. I do not think there is very much in that. Assume that goods come to the Port of London and are transhipped to another port, when they have got to the other port there they are charged with foreign dues, whereas if these same goods were to pass over the canal and then be discharged at Wolverhampton, no ocean due is charged. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will secure for these gentlemen a full and adequate hearing and that it will not prejudice the docks in any sense or form, for I can assure hon. Gentlemen, as far as the docks of London are concerned, they want very badly all the revenue they can legitimately get. I do not think that the Port of London is likely to charge any coastwise or foreign vessels in excess of what they may reasonably be asked to pay considering the service that is performed.
  Mr. PICKERSGILL: This is an attempt to override the Port of London Act, 1908. The Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. G. E. Thorne) is directed against Clause 9 of the Provisional Order. Clause 9 is simply carrying out the express direction of Section 13 of the Port of London Act, 1908. Of course, I recognise that the Parliament of 1908 could not bind a future Parliament, and that it is open to Parliament, notwithstanding that provision in the Act of 1908, to alter or to omit altogether Clause 9 of the Provisional Order. But it does seem very doubtful to me, and I should be glad to have your opinion as to whether, without an expressed Instruction from this House, if it even be open to the
  1420
  Committee upstairs either to receive objections to or to alter Clause 9 of the Provisional Order.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I do not think that that matter arises until it goes to the Committee.
  Mr. J. W. WILSON: I hope the House will not run away with the idea that we traders from the Midlands are in any sense hostile to the Port of London or the new authority that is being put up. All we want is fair play, and to make it quite clear what goods for transhipment means. It is as to that difficulty that we are anxious to go before the Committee upstairs, and that we do not wish to be shut out by a technical ruling. I am quite sure it is my experience of Committees upstairs that a direct indication from this House, though it may not be quite as explicit in words as some of us would have liked, yet that it will be taken in the sense in which it is intended, namely, that our representations should not be excluded for any technical reason. We quite see that if all inland manufactures, as well as transhipment goods and coastwise goods, were to be exempted from paying rates, it would be a serious thing for the new Authority. We are not taking up such an unreasonable position, but in view of the Clauses of the original Act, we want it made perfectly clear that the Committee shall have some qualification to interpret the meaning of that Clause in that Act and to take into consideration. It is only a common-sense view we wish to lay before the House. We wish to be sure that the Committee upstairs will be able to follow what doubtless will be their own inclination as business men, guided by that common sense which distinguishes Committees in their deliberations, and that the Committee will be entitled to follow that course without being overruled by some technical objection.
  Sir OWEN PHILIPPS: When the Port of London Authority consented to this matter being thoroughly discussed and dealt with by the Committee upstairs, I wish, on behalf of the Port of London Authority to make it perfectly clear that the Authority was strongly opposed to the course recommended by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton. This is not a new question, as he would lead the House to believe. The midland manufacturers are not the simple people that some of the hon. Members addressing the House would give us to believe. They, in their wisdom,

  1421
  left their case in the hands of one of the most competent bodies of men there is in the country, and they left it in the hands of the railway companies to fight their case before Lord St. Aldwyn. Their case was submitted to Lord St. Aldwyn in the fullest possible way, and Lord St. Aldwyn, in his Report, issued on 18th April, said:—
  "The first proposal seemed to me to be an entirely unreasonable interpretation of the term transhipment. No instance could be given of the acceptance of such an interpretation in any other port."
  The Port of London Authority adopts the finding of Lord St. Aldwyn in this matter, and when this matter comes before the Committee they will oppose it, as they did before Lord St. Aldwyn, to the best of their ability. If the course was adopted which the midland manufacturers now demand, practically that would cut out from the Authority the revenue which it is actually necessary for us to have to improve the Port of London, and make it what it ought to be—that is, the finest port of the world.
  Mr. PARKES: I cannot understand the position of the hon. Member who has just spoken as to the revenue which the Port of London has to depend upon. I do not think the interests of the midland manufacturers have a sufficient representation before the Committee. The hon. Member says that their interests were referred to a great railway company—namely, the Midland Railway Company, but the interests of the midland manufacturers are not theirs. When I am speaking of the midland manufacturers I do not mean Wolverhampton and Birmingham only; I mean the whole of the midland manufacturers. I venture to say that the midland manufacturers have not been aware of the importance and of the serious character of these recommendations in this Bill. It is a habit of manufacturers not to acquaint themselves with what is going on in this House; and in this instance they have only been seised of the fact that they are to have a great discrimination put against them, and which is not put against coastwise manufacturers. We are not complaining at all of the Port of London requiring revenue. The representative of Bristol said just now the docks cost a large amount of money, and therefore they want remuneration. I am afraid the hon. Member missed the point. We quite agree that they want remuneration, but why should discrimination be made against one part of the community as against another? That is where we join issue. I must say I have not heard a single argument up
  1422
  to the present time as to why there should be this discrimination made against the midlands. If the port of London decided to do certain things in 1908 surely those are not like the law of the Medes and Persians which cannot be altered. I take it that that is not the function of the midland Members, and that the function of those midland Members is to point out the equities of the case. While the President of the Board of Trade very truly says he cannot decide what the Committee will do, at the same time we are aware from what he said that he can influence the authority of the Port of London, and that he can undertake to a certain extent that the question shall be brought before the Committee who have to discuss the matter. If his instructions are carried out, I think we shall be satisfied. He does not go so far as to say that the whole question of principle shall be conceded, but he admits that the question of transhipment as affecting certain goods should be considered. I take it that that, means that the heavy trade of the midlands which comes into competition with much heavy trade of the coast shall have due consideration in the settlement of the question. As a manufacturer in the midland district for forty years, I know that we have to contend with many difficulties of which those outside the midlands are little aware. Being in an inland position, we have railway rates and other disabilities to contend with, and if we are made subject to another disability in the shape of this unjust discrimination, it will be a heavy blow to us. I have a telegram in my hand giving an account of a meeting at Birmingham of representatives of all the towns in the immediate vicinity of that city and expressing the hope that the Instruction will be adopted. That meeting shows the importance which the midland manufacturers attach to the question. I can assure the President of the Board of Trade that this is no trifling matter. It has not had sufficient consideration up to the present, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will use all his influence to make it the subject of discussion, so that, whatever has taken place with regard to previous acts of the Authority, we shall have justice in this matter. That is all we plead for. At present a discrimination is made against us in favour of the foreigner who imports his goods into the Port of London and tranships them, and also in favour of the coastwise trade. Why that should be I cannot see. It is that injustice which we desire to see remedied. We are

  1423
  thankful to the President of the Board of Trade for undertaking that the matter shall be fully considered, and with that undertaking I think we should be satisfied.
  Mr. G. R. THORNE: In asking leave to withdraw my Motion, may I say what I understand the position to be. I listened to the statement of the Vice-President of the Port of London Authority (Sir Owen Philipps) and I quite understand that on the merits he would oppose this proposal before the Committee. I do not understand him to mean, however, that he differs from the position taken up by the President of the Board of Trade, but that he supports the right hon. Gentleman's view that the merits of the matter may be discussed, and that the petitioners should be heard. On that understanding, and recognising the sympathy shown by the President of the Board of Trade, I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: If the midland manufacturers go before the Committee and express their opinion with a view to imposing a charge upon those who send their goods to the Thames for transhipment, a very serious injustice may be done to manufacturers on the east coast. They manufacture their goods and send them to the Tees or to the Tyne, and in many cases they are then brought to London for transhipment to Japan or China, or elsewhere. These goods have paid the river dues on the Tees and on the Tyne, and in many cases they have also paid railway rates from the works.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must point out that we are not now discussing the merits of the question, but only whether certain parties should be heard.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: My point is that if the manufacturers of the Midlands are to be heard, it is essential that a similar opportunity should be given to the manufacturers on the north-east and east coasts who send their goods to the Thames for transhipment. These manufacturers are in competition with the midland manufacturers, especially in the matter of corrugated sheets and other materials of that nature. They have to pay both railway rates and river dues, and if a charge is placed upon their goods when they come to the Thames for transhipment, a large number of their ships will
  1424
  cease calling at the Thames, and London will lose a very large revenue indeed in other directions.
  Mr. A. C. MORTON: I am sorry that this Instruction is to be withdrawn. I do not want to go into the merits of the case, that is for the Committee itself. But this question has never been discussed either in the House or in the Committee of 1908, although there was a distinct promise made by counsel in the Committee that all these matters should be considered when they came before Parliament. When Lord St. Aldwyn held his inquiry he said that this was not a matter he could express an opinion upon, but that it was for Parliament to settle. If these questions cannot be considered by the Committee upstairs, they will not be considered at all, and I am sure that would be much to be regretted. The hon. Member representing the Port of London Authority (Sir Owen Philipps) told us that they wanted this money to improve the Port. As far as we have been able to gather it is wanted for no such purpose. They want it to make up the loss brought about by taking over the docks. Why the Port of London should be damaged in its trade on that account I cannot understand. I am sorry that there should be any refusal on the part of the President of the Board of Trade to carry out the promise that when the Provisional Order came before Parliament this question should be properly considered, and I hope that my hon. Friends, if they cannot be heard in the House of Commons, will make an attempt by and by to be heard in the House of Lords.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Colonel HICKMAN: I beg to move: "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is referred, that they have power to hear all Petitions presented on or before Thursday, 7th July, 1910, against Clause 9 of the Provisional Order proposed to be confirmed by the Bill."
  After what has been said by the President of the Board of Trade, it is not necessary that I should make any statement. I therefore beg to move.
  Mr. ERNEST POLLOCK: I beg to second the Resolution. After the intimation the right hon. Gentleman has given I do not desire to say more. But I do trust that he will accept the Resolution as it stands. The right hon. Gentleman has

  1425
  already expressed the opinion that as far as possible all parties should be heard, and the Instruction is that there shall be power on the part of the Committee to hear all Petitions on or before Thursday. I am not unfamiliar with the practise that takes place before the Committee. It may well be that an opportunity might occur, otherwise the petitioners, not having their Petitions placed before the Committee before Thursday, should have the opportunity of placing their case before the Committee. At any rate, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept the terms of the Instruction, as they are such that the Committee may decide to, if possible, give an opportunity to all persons to be heard. If not, according to my information, there are undoubtedly some person? who will feel that they have not had the opportunity of having their Petitions heard. The object of this Instruction is that all persons should be represented and heard. They should have the feeling that their grievances, if any, are removed.
  Mr. BUXTON: As I have already informed the House I am very anxious that no bar should stand in the way of those who, through some misunderstanding, have not been able to lodge their Petitions early enough. I accept the Instruction, but, as I have pointed out to my hon. Friend, as regard the date I should prefer to have Tuesday, that is to-morrow, instead of Thursday. For this reason: That I understand the Committee will be set up and will sit. I think that is arranged, and that the parties have been notified they will sit to-morrow. Therefore, to present Petitions after the Committee has already commenced sitting is rather exceptional, and possibly would be of no advantage to the petitioners. But under the circumstances, and with the words put in that they have power to hear Petitions, I do not object. Only I think I must, in accepting the Instruction, point out that it is very likely that if Petitions are put in to-morrow there will be no opportunity for the Committee to hear them. I do not think, however, that this will act against those concerned, because those who represent the general midland traders have already been able to lodge their Petition upon which the whole position will be raised. So long as it is understood that no grievance can be alleged against the Committee or myself, if it so happens that by sitting on Tuesday these Petitions are not heard, I accept the Instruction.
  Mr. POLLOCK: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for accepting the Instruction as it stands? I am quite sure he does not desire to shut out any persons in the qualification he has given. There may be persons to whom it will be an advantage to have the opportunity of going before the Committee if the Committee should desire it.
  Question put, and agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS.— [30th June.]
Postponed Proceeding on Resolution reported.

INCOME TAX AND SUPER-TAX.
"That Income Tax shall be charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April nineteen hundred and ten at the rate of one shilling and twopence in the pound, and that the same Super-tax be charged for that year as was charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April nineteen hundred and nine."
Debate resumed.
Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: When the Debate was interrupted I had very nearly concluded my remarks on the subject of the Budget Resolution. I should like very briefly to sum up what I venture to submit are the three lessons that are to be learnt by the country on the presentation of this very large Budget. The first is the great need, through all parts of this House, of a resolve for economy in every Department as far as possible. That is the first great lesson—subject to this reservation, that I think the first duty of the Committee is to see to it that the nation is safe. The national security above all must be maintained. It can only be maintained by keeping the supremacy of the seas. It is our first duty, in my opinion, to see that this country always has such a Navy that it would be impossible that we should suffer defeat at sea. The second lesson which I think we may learn from the Budget is that the present sources of taxation have reached their limit of productivity. They are now at such a point that they cannot stand a greater strain. Income Tax is at war pitch; all other taxes—indirect taxes—are at such a point that if you attempt to raise them you will get no more revenue from them. That the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already found. The third point is that the two great national fiscal reserves must be kept up. These fiscal reserves are, first, that the Income Tax

1427
should be kept in time of peace at a low rate in order that when the emergency comes it can be easily raised without any undue discomfort or inconvenience to the nation. The second is that the fixed charge for the Sinking Fund should be kept up to a properly high limit. I suggest the limit that Sir Stafford Northcote fixed in 1875 of £28,000,000 a year. The charge for interest and management comes to about £18,000,000 a year. After that is paid the balance of fixed charge is about £10,000,000. This should be devoted, at all events at present, to the National Debt until it is reduced to the figure at which it was before the South African War. Until that period is reached the fixed charge should be kept up to £28,000,000. Unfortunately by this Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer is proposing to put the fixed charge this year at £24,500,000, the same as last year. I venture to close with a quotation from Mr. Gladstone on the importance of these two great fiscal reserves. He said:—
"They are no less important, for if used aright they are an engine to which you may resort. If, unhappily, necessity arise, yon may again resort if need be, and you can defy the world."
Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: Looking to the number of criticisms which have been directed to the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to retain the Whisky Duty at its present figure of 14s. 9d., I should like, as a Scottish Member, to say a few words on the Spirit Duty from the point of view of Scotland. I should like, in the first place, to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer very heartily indeed on the decision at which he has arrived. I can say with assurance that his decision has caused very general satisfaction indeed all over Scotland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has, I think, made out an unanswerable case for retaining the duty. It is one which will not only appeal to those whom hon. Members opposite delight in calling the temperance faddists and fanatics, the temperance supporters of the Government, but it will appeal to the great mass of the people, and to all who have the true welfare of the nation at' heart. I cannot understand how any Member of this House or any person attached to any of the great political parties, even if his own private interests in this matter were concerned, could object to a diminution of the crime which springs directly from excess in the consumption of strong drink, or how any Member could justify the fact
1428
that our national drink bill stands at £155,000,000. I think that figure suggests a great deal of room for some immediate and considerable reduction in the consumption of strong drink. That is an immense drink bill, two-thirds of which is contributed by the working classes of this country. I was glad to notice in the course of the Debate that it was hinted at by some hon. Members opposite that it was indeed a desirable thing to reduce the consumption of liquor. I am glad to find the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Mr. G. Younger), who is a most vigilant advocate of the trade's interests in this House, was quite candid in the matter when he said that it was an advantage that the people were getting less whisky, but then he went on to say—and he was supported in this by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond)—that the whisky which was now being sold was of a much more injurious character and was unlike the whisky used before, which, if it produced drunkenness, produced a pleasant drunkenness as contrasted with the foul and brutal drunkenness resulting from the consumption of raw and crude spirits. I will not enter into the different degrees of drunkenness or the merits or demerits of the different kinds of whisky. I do not think it would be a profitable inquiry. It would, however, lead to the conclusion that whisky, whether capable of producing a pleasant state of intoxication or drunkenness that was brutal, produced the same evil result in the homes of the people.
We have very good evidence on which to satisfy ourselves in Scotland as to the effect of the Whisky Duty. The evidence we have in our possession proves without doubt that there has been a decrease in the brutal form of drunkenness. There has been a decrease in the drunkenness associated with the assaults and breaches of the peace, and the criminal statistics make that quite clear. The Report of the Prisons Commissioners for last year is worthy of a good deal of attention. So far as Scotland is concerned we find in 1909 there was a decrease in assaults and breaches of the peace as compared with the year before of 2,972, and a decrease of offences against the Liquor Laws of 5,223. These figures speak very eloquently. The Report goes on to show that there has been a large diminution in the number of persons in the prisons, and this the Commissioners say was largely due to the increased price of whisky which took place in April. The Commissioners

1429
publish with their Report a diagram in connection with this increased price of spirits, which I think is very useful to look at. Since the first week of May there has been a steady decrease in the prison population as compared with previous years of some-think like 500 or 600. With regard to convictions for drunkenness, set forth in the Report, it will be found that for the first four months of 1909, taking the large centres in Scotland, such as Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Dundee, you find a decrease in the first four months of 735. When you come to the period when the effects of the Whisky Duty was felt, you find the decrease very much greater. In the second four months the decrease was 2,993, and in the third four months 3,237.
I should like to refer also to the figures given in this House by the Lord Advocate as regards the arrests for drunkenness. In 1909, in the four principal cities in Scotland, arrests diminished by 8,782, a decrease of 26½ per cent, and I am very glad to think that since the beginning of the year these figures have even improved. The figures given for the whole year ending 31st March, 1910, show a drop in convictions for drunkenness of 33 per cent. These figures, of course, it may be said are not likely to continue. I am glad to think they are, as we have evidence showing that this tendency is continuing in Scotland up to the present time. I should like to refer to the very latest figures available for Edinburgh. Up to the end of last week, for the second quarter of the year, you will find that the statistics, according to the city police for the work in their courts, show that during the past three months the number of cases dealt with was the smallest recorded during any quarter for many years past. From the 1st of April to the 1st of July 2,436 persons were apprehended, showing a decrese of 125 as compared with the previous quarter of this year, and then, if you turn to last year and take the second three months and compare them with the second three months of this year, you will find that while 1,642 persons were apprehended for offences while drunk during that three months last year, the number during the past three months was 1,324, being a reduction of 318. That is what Edinburgh has shown in the last three months. The improvement has been continuous, and I venture to hope we may see everywhere the same progress shown in the next few months as that which the Chief Constable reports from the City of
1430
Edinburgh, which ought to lead the way. You will find that, according to the Chief Constable's report, drunkenness has not been so low in the last fifty years as it has been in the year 1909. I should like to direct the attention of the Committee particularly to the fact that you find the sudden diminution occurring in the month of May. According also to the Prison Commissioners' report, it began at that time, and it continues, and the same applies to other figures I have quoted. We have thus the best evidence that can be afforded embodied in this report by persons who have considered this question, on which they are the highest authorities, and who all agree that the vast percentage of criminal offences, are due directly to the fact of the excessive consumption of alcohol.
A number of hon. Members have pressed the argument as to whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is entitled to put on the Whisky Duty for considerations other than those of a purely financial character. I am glad to think the hon. Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) did not himself follow up that argument at all, because we are accustomed to the answer to the query so frequently put to our Tariff Reform friends: "How are you going both to get revenue and keep out the foreigners' goods? "They always meet us by saying, "We are quite prepared to sacrifice the additional revenue to a very considerable extent if we can only secure what we conceive to be a good result for the people of this country—the better provision of work."
Mr. ROWLAND HUNT: That is not the answer.
Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I think I am correct in saying that is the answer very frequently given, but perhaps, if the hon. Gentleman follows me he will give a better answer, if there is one. I think it is demonstrated from the figures I have quoted—and I can produce many others—that there has been a very substantial diminution in the consumption of strong liquor. That has a most important bearing upon the habits of the people themselves, and anything you can do to improve the habits of the people and to divert the unproductive expenditure on strong drink into other channels means more happiness and greater prosperity, and is worth a great deal more than any possible scheme which Tariff Reformers can secure for the people of this country.

1431
The Chancellor of the Exchequer in retaining this Duty of 14s. 9d. is proceeding on the soundest fiscal lines. In the first place, whisky is admittedly a luxury and is not a necessity of efficient subsistence. In the second place, the consumption of whisky entails upon the community a very heavy expenditure in respect of its social effects in the upkeep of gaols and workhouses, cost of the police, etc. If you take the highest authorities in finance, you will find that eminent statesmen on both sides of the House have recognised the principle of imposing the highest duty possible on the smallest consumption of spirits possible. Mr. Gladstone, in 1864, when justifying the increase of the Spirit Duty on home-made spirits from 8s. to 10s., laid down the principle, which was accepted, I think, by hon. Members on the other side.
"The principle on which Parliament has always acted with respect to the Spirit Duty is to impose on that article the highest amount of duty which it is possible to levy without increasing illicit distillation."
The whole Debate turned on whether that point had been reached or not. There is no question to-day of illicit distillation as a result of the Whisky Duty. Mr. Gladstone went on:—
"Whatever revenue was to he raised from spirits, it was desirable that it should be raised from as small a consumption as possible. In dealing with tea, sugar, and such articles,"
He added:—
"the principle was to raise the revenue by a duty as low as possible, in order not to interfere with the expansion of trade; but the exact reverse of that principle was applicable to spirits, and it was sought to raise the largest revenue which could he got from the smallest area of consumption."
That principle was accepted by hon. Members on the other side of the House, because Lord Iddesleigh, then Sir Stafford Northcote, following Mr. Gladstone, said:—
"Although the right hon. Gentleman had made a very considerable miscalculation …he still doubted whether the House ought at once to pronounce against the experiment the right hon. Gentleman had made. It had only been tried for three years and its failure from a fiscal point of view did not prove that the House ought to reverse its policy, which had never been to stimulate the consumption of ardent spirits, as it had done in the case of tea and coffee."
Following the views thus expressed, I think the right hon. Gentleman has acted on very sound lines in his attitude towards the Whisky Duty. It is suggested that it is a partisan device in order to act in vindictive fashion towards a particular industry. That is not the case. If hon. Members will refer to the eleven legislative proposals, effective or abortive,
1432
to increase the taxation of beer and spirits during the past thirty years, they will find that no fewer than six came from Unionist Chancellors of the Exchequer and five from Liberal Chancellors of the Exchequer. I think that disposes altogether of that argument. I feel satisfied the Chancellor of the Exchequer will get a substantial revenue from the duty. The forestalments and the exhaustion of reserves which took place last year will act as a very important element this year, and will be felt in a very substantial addition to the revenue from this source.
I feel sure the proposal to remove the pauper disqualification for old age pensions will give the greatest satisfaction in Scotland as well as in other parts of the country. We have always recognised the great injustice to those who were disqualified under the earlier scheme, but we also recognised that that scheme was simply a beginning, and we accepted it fully believing the Government would redeem its pledge at the earliest possible moment. I think it reasonable we should at the present time accept the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the local authorities should be asked to contribute for a period in order that this scheme may be brought into operation at once. If we do not accept that view, the scheme must necessarily be postponed for a period. The money could not be got out of the present surplus, and what is more, and what counts with me for a great deal, is that you would also risk the postponement of that other scheme of State insurance which, I think, is one of the most important schemes ever placed before the country. I hope it will not be delayed for a long period. The fishermen in my Constituency do not, in one sense, know what unemployment is; they are always employed, but very often they have very little to show for their work. There is no calling more exposed to risks than that of fishermen, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will include that very deserving section of the community within the scheme so far as insurance against invalidity and sickness is concerned. The Budget has been characterised as "humdrum." I was surprised at the quarter from which this expression came. If "humdrum" means no increase in taxation, I hope we may long see "humdrum" Budgets in this House. This Budget represents a triumph on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has not only succeeded in redeeming all his pledges,

1433
but the Budget has vindicated the foresight and wisdom of his proposals last year, and has taken us a step nearer the goal which the Government have set before them to secure the dawning of a better and brighter day for the toiling millions of our land.
Mr. JOHN WOOD: As this is the first time I have had the privilege of addressing the House, I feel sure I shall be accorded that consideration which is always granted to new Members in this somewhat unenviable and trying position. It seems to me that although those affected by the Income Tax have, from patriotic views, refrained from speaking, as they consider that under the present fiscal policy of this country the money necessary for the service of the State cannot well be obtained from other sources than Income Tax, still the Committee should not fail to recognise that an Income Tax of from 1s. 2d. to 1s. 8d. in the £, as the case may be, in a period of profound peace, is a very great anomoly and one of serious import. Putting aside the handicap which it must entail upon capital and industry, I consider that there is another position, and that is that it has always been held in the past to be an axiom, and one, I believe, which Mr. Gladstone was keenly alive to, that the Income Tax should be treated as a great national reserve fund in time of emergency or danger. As long as it was known to the people of this country in general that this reserve was in hand, so long the nation felt secure that its resources could bear an exceptional strain. But now that the reserve fund is depleted annually for current expenditure, it is not available for extraordinary needs. In addition to this, the enormous Death Duties are used for purposes of revenue, whereas in reality they are capital, and we are, therefore, forced to the conclusion that the financial position is not as sound as it once used to be, in spite of everything which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said upon the matter. I think, therefore, I may be excused for saying that the situation demands the grave and serious attention of all thoughtful politicians on whichever side of the House they may happen to sit. We hope on our side that, by a change of fiscal policy, we may be able to tap other sources of revenue. We also hope in doing so to relieve the taxpayers of this country of their present heavy burdens, and at the same time benefit the trade and industries of the country as well as those engaged in them.
1434
There is another matter which I should like to refer to for one moment, and that is the mode proposed for obtaining some of the money required for the extension of old age pensions. I, for one, think it very necessary and right that the Poor Law disqualification should be removed, and that a pauper should receive the old age pension the same as other people. But I very much fear that the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer means an additional tax on the ratepayers. As I understand it, for every indoor or outdoor pauper who will become a pensioner the guardians will have to pay an amount equivalent to the sum by which they will benefit. Supposing that an indoor pauper costs the guardians 5s per week, I presume that this sum will be demanded from the guardians by the Government in respect of every pauper who leaves the workhouse on receipt of the pension. But it must be remembered that our workhouses are constructed to accommodate a certain number of inmates. There are also establishment and administrative expenses, and I think it is extremely doubtful whether the expenditure can really be reduced by the removal of a few paupers in order to accept old age pensions. It seems to me that the cost per head of those who will stay m the workhouse will increase, and the total cost, therefore, at the end of the year will not be diminished, while 5s. per head will still have to be paid by the guardians to the Government. I hope that my fears may not be realised, but it certainly seems to me to be an instance in which the ratepayer is very likely to lose over the transaction.
There is one other point which caused me much surprise in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I was amazed at the extraordinarily optimistic terms in which the right hon. Gentleman alluded to the trade of this country. As I understood him, he said a great boom is now in progress, and that next year it is going to be followed by an extraordinary boom. I sincerely hope he will be more accurate in the latter prophesy than in his present statement about good trade. Wherever the boom exists, it certainly does not exist in the licensed trade, and I can also answer for it that it does not exist in the Constituency (Stalybridge) which I have the honour to represent. It is a constituency which comprises many industries, but principally it is composed of cotton operatives. The right hon. Gentleman's optimism reminds me rather

1435
forcibly of a story which I believe once emanated from Scotland of a (barometer which persistently would point its finger at "set fair," whilst the rain descended in volumes, as it had been doing for a week all over the country. At last the owner of the instrument lost all patience with it, and unhooking it from the wall he shook it very energetically, and with a great many expletives and, I am afraid, much unparliamentary language, took it outside and said, "See the weather for yourself." I do not suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be taken outside or severely shaken, but, at the same time, I should like him to be quietly and gently taken throughout not only my Constituency, but also the whole of the industrial localities in Cheshire, Derbyshire, and Lancashire, and he will find that trade in that by no means unimportant part of industrial England is in a deplorable state, and the cotton trade especially is suffering acutely. It seems hypocrisy to tell workers, when many of them are almost on the verge of starvation, that trade is improving by leaps and bounds and the Industrial barometer is rising rapidly. I notice also that the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that there is to be an abundance of cotton raw material shortly. I did not know before that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a prophet, but I sincerely trust that his predictions may prove true, for it is what the trade is anxiously watching and waiting for. I have only to add that the Board of Trade Returns, upon which the right hon. Gentleman so plumes himself are not by any means always a fair reflex of the state of trade throughout the country, and I am much afraid that this is only another instance of that character.
Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: The Members on this side of the House have been taunted with the assertion that in the discussion on the Budget entry has not been made into details of the various matters the subject of debate, and the hon. Member for North Somerset particularly has denounced and accused us of cowardice and various vices of that sort. The reason, I imagine, that there has not been any detailed discussion up to this time may be due to the fact that there is no particular novelty in the vices of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The vices are the old ones. The Budget is a reproduction of the old illness, and the only difference in the illness which one can trace at the
1436
moment is that while it was acute last year, this year it is tending to become chronic. It is surprising that we should be called upon to try and convert people who know perfectly well that they are not open to conversion, and surely it is right that this stage of the discussion should be devoted rather to what experience has shown since the proposals of last year. I notice a belief on the other side of the House that so long as a Radical majority is present in the Chamber you have an accurate reflex of popular opinion outside, and I know it is officially believed that that opinion will readjust itself in consonance with the constantly changing opinion outside. When I hear that, it only surprises me that there is ever any change of parties in this House when once the Radical party gets into power. Because, if they are so capable of interpreting the will of the people outside, surely when the next general election comes they will and should foe returned to power. But it has not been proved that any majority at any time in this House necessarily represents the views of the people outside. I think I may say that hon. Members opposite will probably agree with me that they have fixed political convictions. That is true of all of us; but the only difference in their view between this side of the House and the other side is that while they are gentlemen of fixed principles we suffer from fixed delusions. But fixity is the note of all politics as discussed in this House, and that may be a sufficient excuse why no detailed discussion of the Budget on the old lines has been insisted upon at this stage of the debate.
The only, in one respect, new aspect of the matter is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is still fortunate enough to be without the help of experience in regard to the new imposts proposed by him. He has acknowledged that in regard to the Land Taxes, the Super-tax, and various other taxes, and in that respect we believe him to be extremely fortunate. As to the Spirit Duty, it is certainly surprising to us new Members of the House of Commons to find the Chancellor of the Exchequer acknowledges himself as a financial failure, and as a fiscal proposer saying, in excuse for himself, "Well, if I am a very bad Chancellor of the Exchequer I am at any rate a very good temperance reformer." Surely it is a violation of the whole sense of the Budget to deal with such questions; and surely it is foreign to the business of

1437
the Budget to introduce into an ordinary question of finance the question of national temperance. As regards a part of this Budget we know this, that upon a trade which was already overburdened with taxation new imposts were imposed. That trade already gave evidence in many ways that it could not bear a greater burden, and that the strain was almost too much, but it was chosen by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the trade upon which to impose new and great imposts. We know the result. We know the confession he makes with regard to that. However it may appear to gentlemen from the other side of the Tweed who are so concerned in the state of temperance in that part of the United Kingdom, we are concerned here with the question whether revenue is being raised in an efficient manner and from proper sources. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer says "I know I was wrong in my calculations, I know I am taxing a declining trade," he shows that he is not confining himself to two points to which every Chancellor of the Exchequer traditionally should confine himself: Tax where you can produce revenue and tax where you will not produce inconvenience. Against both those canons the Chancellor of the Exchequer again sins, and this time he sins in the face of the light because whatever he could say on the former occasion as to the production of revenue he knows, now that he sins again, he has not the excuse of "no practical experience "behind him.
As to what we have heard about Death Duties, the Chancellor of the Exchequer congratulates himself that this country is living upon income. With great respect he deceives himself. The capital of the country is only the aggregate capital of the people of the country together with the national credit. Where in the case of the Death Duties you are living upon the capital of the individual transferred into the pocket of the State, you are just as much living upon the capital of the State as if the money was originally the State's itself. If you are doing that you are doing also this. By the withdrawal of national capital, owing to the destruction of individual capital you are destroying national credit. As regards the Land Duties we have not got practical experience of them but I think it is fortunate for the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he has the less to explain. He says that he is in favour of land nationalisation, but that he is walking warily and going by degrees. By natural sequence that brings
1438
one to the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Snowden). It is good to know from the assurance of the hon. Gentleman himself that he is practical and not a theorist. It is, however, worth while to consider what his innocent proposals amount to. He would nationalise the land by purchase, and he would pay the purchase price by creating a trust. I thought trusts were things which were to be hurled at the heads of Tory candidates as indicative of Tory despotism and cant. But to nationalise the land the hon. Member will create a great public trust. I do not know whom he will invite to take the scores of millions of shares which he would have to issue, but I hope sincerely that he and some of his friends will underwrite the issue. It makes one put to oneself the conundrum: When is a trust not a trust? And the answer would appear to be: "When the trust is created by the State."
10.0 P.M.
The interesting development of the argument of the hon. Member is that he is not going to confiscate. He is not going to steal from anyone. He is going to pay everyone his fair purchase price, but as soon as he has converted the purchase price into a convenient form of liquid assets, which can readily be raided by any Chancellor of the Exchequer, the first thing he is going to do is to take all he can off the local rates and put it upon Imperial taxation. As soon as he has done that he will gladly charge 50 per cent, upon incomes over a certain amount, and as soon as he has done that for one or two years he has the satisfaction of knowing that he has not only got the land, but has the money as well, and that he has done it so neatly that no one can see his sleight-of-hand. These are the proposals of the hon. Member. I do not discuss the result to the State. There are still those who think that human nature is, and may remain, human, and that you are likely to produce chaos by destroying all motive for private initiative and enterprise. I hope he puts forward this doctrine with motives more creditable than others which he urges the Chancellor of the Exchequer to adopt in reference to the finances of this country. The hon. Member over and over again begged the Chancellor of the Exchequer above all things to be popular. He told him to introduce measures for which he had no money, and to leave the footing of the Bill to the Tories when they returned to power, to get the credit of introducing the measure, and leave the Tories to get the odium of paying

1439
the Bill—advice which I sincerely trust for the credit of the great office which he occupies, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will hesitate to adopt.
I have a suggestion to make to the right hon. Gentleman. I am afraid I may be suspected of being more extreme than the hon. Member (Mr. Snowden) himself, but I do not claim credit for the suggestion. The idea occurs in the refrain of a song. We are familiar with the People's Budget, and we are familiar with the ways by which it was sought to catch favour by stimulating every sort of motive of greed and jealousy in the people. The People's Budget may some day be not so popular as it is deemed to be now by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the suggestion I make will be convenient when the People's Budget loses some of its popularity. I think it will be unrivalled in popularity. The only feeling I have about the matter is that I think I owe an apology to the hon. Member (Mr. Snowden), because I feel that if the suggestion I am about to make takes favour the schemes of the hon. Member will fall into disrepute as being moderate and slight compared with the thoroughly Radical scheme which forms the refrain of the song. This I would commend to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to the hon. Member for Blackburn as material for a future Budget:—
"Let us call all the 'quids' in, and share them out alike—
Pile them up in the market square, and share them out alike.
And when the poor have spent their share on oysters and champagne,
Well, pile them up in the market square, and share them out again."
Mr. WEDGWOOD: I rather hoped that after the Chancellor's speech the other day we should have less of the "organised despondency" from the other side. I do not think that the hon. Member who has just sat down need really take such a gloomy view of the future in spite of the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden's) speech. After all, the criticism of this year's Budget has been purely speculative, and rather similar to the criticisms we heard on previous occasions. Whenever a Budget has been introduced, at any rate since 1906, we have heard complaints about the failure of British credit; we have had the same talk of the fall of British Consols, of the increase of unemployment and of the death of Free Trade. But here we are to-day with a marvellous
1440
position of being able to wipe out a deficit of £16,000,000 without putting on a penny of extra taxation. I think it is a most splendid result of Free Trade finance, and if I criticise parts of this Budget I trust I shall not be hypercritical, or in any way wishing to detract from this vindication of last year's Budget. I wish first of all to say that I do heartily press the Chancellor to increase the Sinking Fund at the earliest possible moment. I regard £24,500,000 as wholly insufficient when the vast sum of our public debt is considered, and I would readily myself pay an increase in income tax if only we could get that Sinking Fund up to the £28,000,000 again at which it was three or four years ago. In saying that I believe I carry with me hon. Members on both sides of the House; that in order to put our finances into a sound position they would welcome extra taxation devoted solely to that object. Repayment of debt is one of the strongest influences on the general trend of the nation, providing cheap money; whilst it is also invaluable in case of war to have a big sum to draw on. Let me pass on to another point. In discussing the extension of the Old Age Pensions Act let us remember that the abolition of the pauper disqualification is not in itself the removal of the greatest blot upon that Act. The earliest possible step should be taken to wipe out the 12s. a week limit, because all who work during their lives, and who pay rates and taxes have a right and a claim to an old age pension whether they have managed to lay by a little money or not. It is in the highest degree a bad principle, and bad for the nation, that those people who have subscribed to a friendly society, or to their trade unions, or who have managed to put by a little money in the Post Office Savings Bank, should not get their full pension, whilst the improvident are getting it, and it would certainly be in the interests of the whole community if this pension, which is a statutory right of every man who has paid his rates and taxes, should be paid to everybody, including myself. There is another criticism of this Budget, in regard to which I find myself for the first time in full agreement with the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden). I do think that in the interests of Free Trade, as well as the interests of sound finance, steps should be taken to wipe out those ridiculous taxes on cocoa and chocolate. I am encouraged in that by the cheers from the other side. Surely, when the other side are willing to

1441
pay the £300,000 a year that this would cost in some other form of taxation in order to relieve the consumers of cocoa and chocolate, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should jump at the opportunity of conciliation, of conference, and of compromise, and put this change in taxation through with every speed, while every side of the House is prepared to welcome it. Therefore, I think it would be a good thing to press even to a Division the reduction of these taxes on cocoa, chocolate, and all such articles. They cost to collect far more than the big, staple taxes. The cost of collection is very large, the amount of the revenue received is very small, and the burden on the consumer is considerable. Therefore, I think, the Chancellor should take the earliest opportunity for getting rid of that taxation. Then I trust that before next year's Budget we shall take some steps to fulfil that promise which Liberal Members have given to their constituents that the "breakfast table duties" should be reduced. I know it is the custom in this House to draw some sort of elaborate comparison between direct and indirect taxation. I do not think that really there is any mark of distinction between direct and indirect taxation. Nearly all the taxation which we commonly call direct is, in effect, indirect. For instance, Income Tax, now that it is deducted from the source, whilst, perhaps, more visible than it used to be, is an indirect tax upon those who use capital, and is borne ultimately not by the man who owns capital but by the person who uses it, by the working classes. Any taxation of wealth increases the cost of capital, and therefore increases the amount the owner of capital is able to charge on the man who wishes to use it. Therefore income tax, if considered from an economic point of view, may be taken to be an indirect tax. The profits of the Post are an indirect tax upon industry. Stamp Duties are a tax upon industry, and therefore a tax upon the worker who is employed in industry, and add to the cost of all goods that are produced by industry. Therefore I wish we could get out of the habit of making any contradistinction between direct and indirect taxes, because all that we are accustomed to call direct taxation is really in the long run indirect taxation and a burden upon industry. Having said so much to urge the Government to an early reduction in the taxation of coffee, cocoa, and sugar, let
1442
me say I am heartily at one with the Chancellor in the proposal, when relieving local authorities from the burden of supporting the aged paupers, of recovering from the local authorities the amount that those paupers have been a charge upon the local authorities. It will be difficult to share it out, but I am confident he is taking the right line in insisting upon getting from local taxation an equivalent to the amount he is going to save the local authorities. This extension of the Old Age Pensions Act will reduce the poor rate which has been, since the time of Elizabeth, a hereditary burden upon the land. Every man who has bought land or who has inherited land has inherited or bought with it a statutory charge to provide for the poor in the neighbourhood, and if you do away with this poor rate and substitute in support of the poor a tax upon industry, upon the people as a whole, you are presenting to those people who have inherited or bought land a capital sum, raising the value of their land, permanently raising the value of what they have bought or inherited, entirely unjustifiably and without giving any quid pro quo to the people of the country as a whole. In the Minority Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, which was signed by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, Mr. J. B. Balfour, afterwards Lord Kinross, Sir George Murray, and Sir E. Hamilton, chiefs of the Treasury, whose names carry conviction with both political parties, it is stated emphatically that if relief was to be given as they proposed to local authorities, in order to pay the increased charge for main roads, asylums, police, and various other matters, it was only just and right that the money required from the Exchequer in order to provide this relief should be taken from a tax or rate upon land values, because relief of the local rates, sooner or later, went into the pockets of the landlords and led to an increase of rents. Therefore I welcome the position taken up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he says that he is not going to give a large addition to the local rates and that he is going next year to require from the local rates the money he has to pay for taking paupers off the rates.
I think that by far the most important thing the Chancellor of the Exchequer foreshadowed in his Budget statement was that next year the whole question of the relation between local taxation and Imperial taxation was to be considered. Everyone who knows the appalling complexity of the various Government contributions to the

1443
local authorities for education, police, or anything else—everyone who knows the bad finance, and the bad checks on expenditure induced by the present system, will welcome that proposed change. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after he has got the complete valuation of the land, apart from the improvements on it, which is provided for in last year's Budget, will be able to effect this change and put really national burdens on national shoulders in a fair way, without giving at the same time a large present to the landlord.
Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: May I ask the hon. Member if he is referring to urban landlords or agricultural landlords?
Mr. WEDGWOOD: Both.
Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: It was only urban land that the minority Report of the Royal Commission dealt with.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: Certainly; but the same principles are true in both cases. I think the hon. Member for Somerset was referring to my speech, and I meant that relief would be given to landlords, both urban and agricultural, if the rates were reduced by a Grant from the Imperial Exchequer. That is true whether you apply it to urban or agricultural land. I wish to call the attention of the Labour party to the attitude they have taken up on this subject. I do not know whether the House really appreciates the supreme joke of last Thursday, when the hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) spoke very much as I am speaking now, and said that any relief of local rates would be a gift to the landlords, and he therefore welcomed the Chancellor of the Exchequer's position. At the same time, in one of the Committee Rooms down below, the Labour party were for about the fifth time this Session throwing over their leaders, and proposing Resolutions in a directly contrary sense. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about yourself?"] I myself have been disposed to differ from my leaders, but it has been in trying to get them on to a more advanced position. The difference is that the Labour party try to drag their leaders back by their coat-tails. It was the same last Session. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) protested against the Chancellor of the Exchequer's gift of £600,000 a year to the landlords, and he was deserted by his entire party. This Session the hon. Mem-
1444
ber for Blackfriars has been given away over and over again by his party. I think they might avoid passing Resolutions and giving them to the public in future until they have found out what their leaders really think about the matter. I do not know who was present at that meeting. Of course the majority of them did not know what the effect would be, but the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. J. R. Macdonald) and the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. James Parker) have no such excuse, and I should like to know how they justify the vote which they gave in the Committee Room down-stairs to present a million a year to the landlords of this country? Perhaps I have, in the heat of speaking, attacked the Labour party further than I intended. I only wished to emphasise the fact that in giving away this vast sum to the ratepayers I think they are actuated by the desire to cadge votes, and are not going on sound principles. Of course, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden), speaking here to-day, referred to me as a theorist. He said that he was a practical man; that, although my theories were all right, he knew perfectly well that when this money was given away it would not lessen rates in any way, because our expenditure would increase. When he accuses me of being a theorist, and says that he is a practical man, I ask him is not that exactly the argument that is used against us both by Tariff Reformers opposite. They say, "You are all right in theory; we are practical men. We know that a duty on pottery will mean more pottery in North Staffordshire." I prefer to be a theorist, and to base myself on sound argument and sound political economy, and neglect the question of whether we are likely to get votes, a position which is far more easily taken up, but far more fatal to this country in the long run
Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: We on this side have been appealed to as to whether we would not join in supporting the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reduction of the duties on cocoa and chocolate, which would cost this country about £300,000 a year. I think that many of us would not wish that he should put himself to that expense. We would only support the much more modest proposal of the Member for Aberdeen, and that is that he should effect a reduction which would only cost him about £25,000 a year, in order to put the cocoa and chocolate duties on a Free Trade basis, in

1445
accordance with his principles. But there is one small matter in which the hon. Member for Aberdeen may have made a mistake—namely, that the cost to the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not merely be £25,000, but there would be the far more valuable consideration—the support of Captain Coe and his merry men. The only two other challenges thrown across the floor of the House were by the hon. Member for St. Andrews Burghs (Mr. Duncan Millar). He repeated some of the old arguments about our alternative fiscal system, and said we would have to choose between Protection and revenue; but I would point out to him that any article manufactured in this country under the proposed change would produce revenue just as surely indirectly as it would be doing directly if imported and paying Customs duties. This is not the occasion for a general discussion, but on any Amendment or on the Second Reading, when this matter will be more immediately brought up for discussion, I am quite sure that any of us will be perfectly willing to meet the hon. Member in argument in this House or in any other place in support of the contentions we put forth. The other challenge which the hon. Member made had reference to the number of duties which had been placed on beer and spirits by Unionists Governments as distinguished from the party now in power. The hon. Gentleman stated that out of eleven increases in duty six had been proposed by Unionist Governments. Of course, anyone who analyses the question will see that it is not the number of increases but the aggregate amount of them that is the real point. My answer to him would be of another kind. If he says that the present Government cannot be accused of being vindictive because they have only proposed five increases, as against six by the Unionist party, then we trust that the hon. Member and others opposite who share his opinion will no longer go about saying that we on this side are friends of the brewers, after what he has said. The most striking speech after the opening criticism by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire, was that of the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden). We on this side of the House, who disagree with him, and disagree entirely with some of his inferences, I am sure at the same time fully appreciate the well-argued and concise way in which he put his views. Perhaps it is well that some one on this side should State how it is that, while equally sincere in our
1446
wish for some of the objects which he and his colleagues desire, and while agreeing with many of the criticisms that the hon. Member has passed, we yet can differ from him entirely both in his support of the Government and in the fiscal views and economic views which he has brought forward. We agree with him, and we thank him for one minor point that he urged on the Committee earlier this afternoon. He urged upon the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the fact that the increase in imports and exports—that is to say, in the total of foreign trade—need be no indication whatever of the prosperity of the country in general. If I may direct the attention, I think it was of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, to the actual Returns, I think that even, on his own argument, he will see that the general figures of the Returns of foreign trade as compared with a couple of years ago, both for Germany and the United States show that our own increase does not, although it is great, compare very favourably with the returns for Germany and the United States. But the main point with which we agree with the hon. Member for Blackburn was that the Returns for foreign trade need be no real index of the general state of the home trade and employment in this country. The reason is an obvious one. I am not denying for one instant that at the present moment trade is better in this country than it was. There are fluctuations in trade, up and down, under any fiscal system at all, but at the same time, when the total of our foreign trade presents a proportion of our whole trade which is always changing, and which at this present moment is a greater proportion of our total trade than it was some years previously, the mere increase in the totals of foreign trade is not an index of the growth of trade done in the country at large.
When the hon. Member for Blackburn went on to bring forward another argument then I think that in his critical faculties, which are very clear at dissecting the faults of others, he was himself at fault. He was alluding to the great increase of wealth in this country as compared with the fact that wages in certain years had not increased. He himself took as his criterion the figures of the gross assessments to Income Tax. If I may venture to suggest to him, I think he ought to take some fairer criterion of the wealth of the richer classes of the community than the gross assessments to Income Tax.

1447
Let me illustrate the matter by one perfectly simple case. Suppose a man is earning £2 10s. per week, or, say, about £150 per year. It is probable that he is not assessed to Income Tax at all. If his wages are raised by ten shillings per week then in the subsequent year he is earning £170, and the figures of the gross assessment to Income Tax go up, not by the increase of £20, but by the whole £170. So as wages gradually do tend to increase in the country, if a period of years is taken, there is nearly always from time to time a rather larger portion of the community which come under the assessments for Income Tax, and that fact throws out altogether any inference as to the wealth of the richer as compared with the poorer classes in the community which the hon. Member for Blackburn sought to draw.
There are two main points in which, if I may, I would like to express my almost entire agreement with his views. The first is with regard to the cost of the Navy. I am anxious, and I believe many of us are anxious, that sums of money should be devoted to social reform, and wisely devoted to the right social reform. The extraordinary cost of the Navy at the present moment is absolutely deplorable, but at the same time that we absolutely deplore the cost of the Navy, the amount of millions that are spent upon it, which might quite easily be spent either upon more productive work, or on labour employed in productive agencies, or else in remedying some of the hardships that quite undoubtedly exist, quite earnestly I urge the view that was put forward by my Noble Friend this afternoon. It is absolutely necessary, as has been urged again and again from this side, that the safety of the country should be made secure. That being the case, with whom does the real responsibility for the growth in the Navy Estimates lie? Armaments in these days are competitive. It is a mere platitude to say so. Where there is no agreement in these matters, then, as in business, there is competition. In that competition you have all the conditions that obtain in competition in other walks of life, and amongst others is the factor of the personal equation—whether your competitor believes you are in earnest or not.
Some years ago, when the proposal was made at The Hague Conference for a limitation of armaments, some of us were
1448
quite willing at that time that the programme of battleship building should be cut down from four to three, as a proof of bona fides, for that one year only. What happened? The proposal that was made was not accepted. Had the matter of disarmament been pursued at all on businesslike lines, it would have been made clear that while our proposal was bonâ fide, yet at the same time we were determined to safeguard our position, and that if it was not accepted, as it was not accepted, next year, at any rate, our programme would be restored to its previous, if not to a higher, standard. Instead of that, our programme was further cut down. Battleship building is competitive, and the result was nothing else but to spur our rivals on, in the belief that we were not in earnest in our programme. Just because they were spurred on, we are landed today with these enormous Navy Estimates. It is my firm belief that neither Germany nor this country would be spending nearly the vast sum we are spending to-day upon armaments if our Government those few years ago had shown that they were in earnest by not decreasing their programme still further when foreign countries refused to accept our offer in the first instance.
The next point on which I find myself in full agreement with the hon. Member for Blackburn is the great desirability of introducing some system of invalidity insurance. Every person who works amongst those who are specially affected by illness agrees as to the importance of such a measure. Anyone acquainted with them, or who has lived amongst them, knows that a system of invalidity insurance is really of more importance to the country at large than a system of old age pensions. The latter appeals, no doubt, to the pathetic side of human nature; but, so far as actual individual suffering is concerned, and so far as advantage to the community is concerned, it is probable that invalidity insurance to a man in the prime of life, with a wife and family dependent upon him, is of more importance than even a system of old age pensions. That being so, we are given various reasons why a system of invalidity insurance has not been proposed this year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given as his reason the delay in the passage of the Budget last year. I think the reason is quite a different one. It is neither that nor the amount of our armaments. I wish to say it without any offence at all: the reason is that the social

1449
reform policy of the Government has had electioneering as its main principle, and social reform as its second. If hon. Members will consider the matter quite frankly, apart from the heat sometimes engendered in Debate, I think they will admit there has been a great deal of electioneering in regard to these matters, and not perhaps a sufficiently full consideration of those social reforms which first need to be carried out in the order of preference. If there was an order of preference in which reforms needed to be carried out it was a system of invalidity first. Anyone who knows the pressure of illness upon a family such as I have described, anyone who is acquainted with that particular type of worker, knows quite well that however much he may have provided for himself according to his means, yet he cannot very often have the means in order to provide both for his family while he is ill and also for his own efficient cure. I myself have come across individual case after individual case—histories that I have personally traced and tabulated—of skilled workmen who through illness of that kind are now to be found, having lost their peculiarly skilled occupation, amongst the ranks of the casual labourers. I think if the Government had been both enlightened and fully in earnest from the point of view of social reform—of social reform first of all and electioneering afterwards—that there is no question whatever that it is this system of invalidity that they would have first undertaken instead of the other.
With regard to the other point which has been laboured by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle and other hon. Members who spoke from the opposite side, the consideration I have mentioned affects the whole question of this pauper disqualification as well. The reason, no doubt, for the pauper disqualification formerly was that it was more or less recognised that if a man was a pauper he had looked after himself less well than those other members of his own surroundings who had kept themselves in independence. The reason for the abolition of this pauper disqualification itself is, if I may say so, a matter of sentiment as well as of reason by most people, who believe that there are certain great classes of circumstances which make the general principle untrue. A man may fall upon misfortune through illness or through lack of work. These cases, it is urged, form such a large proportion that it is no longer fair to say that be-
1450
cause a man is a pauper that therefore he does not deserve equal treatment with other men. Hon. Members opposite below the Gangway will, I think, really realise, as well as everybody else, that so far as it is possible to discriminate between the deserving and the undeserving it is right to do so. The abolition of this pauper disqualification is only suggested upon the grounds that at present it is not possible to discriminate between them. One of their own authorities, Mr. Sidney Webb, in one of his recent books,, states—he has put it with a certain mildness and niceness—that the natural habit of persons, where they can do so, is rather to consume commodities and services where they have not earned them than to earn them with out consuming them. Everyone, I think, in all quarters of the House will realise, if it is possible to discriminate, that it is right to do so. A part of the whole object of the Government's programme has been to change the conditions which may cause a man to become a pauper through no fault of his own—
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott): The hon. Member should remember that his remarks should bear some relation to the question under discussion.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask whether you, Sir, have in mind the fact that included in the Budget proposals is the removal of the pauper disqualification to which my hon. Friend is referring?
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is dealing too much with the question of social reform.
Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I shall endeavour to confine myself directly within your ruling, Mr. Emmott. May I suggest that in so far as part of the Government programme is to produce this system of invalidity and insurance in the near future which is foreshadowed in the Budget, and as part of the Government programme in the late past has been to produce a system of Labour Exchanges—these are two which will do away with the whole cause according to a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite—though we would add some fiscal changes as well—of the pauper being brought to his present state of destitution through no fault of his own, and the more proper course for the Government would have been to have done away with the cause of unmerited hardship, and to have dealt with the cause of pauper disqualification afterwards. I would urge again

1451
upon the attention of the Committee that, however good some of these objects may be, yet taken in the main the whole of the policy on which this Government came back to power was the policy of peace, retrenchment, and reform. It was on that policy that they appealed more than once to the country.
However desirable some of these objects may be, there is justification in every Budget for every object that entails expenditure. For that reason that cry ought to be given up, and no longer appealed to by hon. Members opposite as a means of obtaining favour in the country, or else some effect should be given to it in the financial proposals of the year. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. A. Chamberlain) showed the other day that the increase under the present Government was a matter of sixteen millions of money per annum. That increase was nothing either to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) or to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hobhouse). They were both prepared to have an increased Budget of even £300,000,000 or £400,000,000 per annum. To advocate an increase of the Budget until it stands at such a figure as between £300,000,000 and £400,000,000 is either platitudinous or preposterous. It is platitudinous if you suppose, with the Secretary to the Treasury, that the population, the wealth, and production of the country were to go up proportionately, so as to justify it. But if the Budget is a Budget when the production and the industries of this country are on approximately the same basis as at present, as is supposed by the hon. Member for Blackburn, then it is preposterous, and I tremble to think that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would ever give countenance to the proposals made by the hon. Member for Blackburn. But the increase of £16,000,000 is not by any manner of means the total increase in the burdens of the community. The Government have pointed to the number of social reforms they have carried out. Some of these have been borne upon the Budget; others have been borne simply upon the industries of the country, such as the Trade Boards Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act, but they are none the less burdens upon the country. Other reforms, again, such as reforms in education, town planning, or small holdings, for which credit is taken, are borne not
1452
by the Budget, but by the local rates. Hence the increase is not merely one of £16,000,000, but of £16,000,000 plus the increase on the local rates, which have gone up something like 104 per cent, in the last twenty-four years, and the whole of the increase laid on industry direct.
I do not think anyone on this side of the House can look upon the policy of the Government without somewhat of that despondency which the Chancellor of the Exchequer deprecates. In the first place, the Sinking Fund is not what it ought to be. I believe the proportion of the Sinking Fund to the total of the Debt is less than it has been for some twenty years, except for the years of the war. It should not only bear a certain proportion to the total of the debt, but it must also be somewhat regulated by the annual expenditure. If a man has a mortgage upon either his buildings or his land, what the mortgagee looks to is the margin of security. The margin of security in the matter of the National Debt and of national borrowing is the power of the country to pay the interest upon the debt which is created; and in so far as by these huge estimates you diminish the power of the country to pay possible charges upon the debt, you ought to be the more scrupulous in keeping up the Sinking Fund to a higher level than is at present indicated in a fixed charge of £24,500,000. It is hardly possible to rely completely upon the statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or of his supporters behind him. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker) gave some reasons for the fall in Consols, but the whole of them, with one exception, were inaccurate. The one accurate reason he gave was that there was better information diffused now with regard to securities abroad, and that consequently there was a greater tendency, other things being equal, for investments to be made abroad. That is perfectly true, but with the depreciation in the securities at home the outflow is greatly increased. Extraordinary and striking figures were given to me by a firm in the City the other day with regard to investments made through one considerable avenue. They had been asked out of every £100 to invest £67 in foreign countries, £27 in our Colonies, and £6 only in this country, whereas nearly all the securities they were asked to sell in order to make those investments were English. The right hon. Gentleman gave as other reasons for the

1453
fall in Consols the extension of trustee securities, the change in the rate of interest, and the amount of borrowing there had been. That is all very true, but the whole of those tendencies had come into full operation before ever this Government came into power. They may well explain any fall in Consols which took place before the Government came into office, but it is no explanation whatever of the fall that has taken place since that date. The same inaccuracy appears in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. "When he came to his peroration he seemed to fall into a habit which has become chronic with him—one of mingled emotion and inaccuracy. He alluded to the awful warning given us by foreign countries, and spoke of the favourable position we were in with regard to our own finances. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might, with the help of the hon. Member for Swansea, make an excursion into the actual finances of foreign countries. If so he will find that the deficit in Germany is not really due to inability to find the money—but to the financial Home Rule which exists in Germany as between the various States of the Empire. The suggestion of inability to find money in the United States, too, is inconceivable and not worth argument. We have, therefore, some reason to look upon the whole course of the expenditure of the Government, so far as caused by social reforms, as lacking in principle. We have some reason to be anxious by reason of the loose way in which commitments have been made for the future without any certainty that the revenue of the future will be sufficient to meet those commitments. When the hon. Member for the Blackfriars division of Glasgow characterises this Budget as humdrum, and when other Members describe it as a peaceful Budget, I can only say we on this side of the House realise there are two reasons why a thing is humdrum or why it is peaceful. The first I might call the quiet of healthy content. The second is what the hon. Member for Swansea will understand to be what the Germans call Katzenjammer which means the unhealthy period of quiet which follows after a strenuous period of financial debauchery.
Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I do not propose to follow the last speaker in his general disquisition, but I must say I think he has strange courage when he says this party has been using social reform
1454
to catch votes. I have an election card of the Leader of the Opposition in 1895, having at the top the Union Jack and the portrait of Queen Victoria, and on it appears the words, "Old Age Pensions."
And, it being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Tuesday).

ADJOURNMENT.
MASTER of ELIBANK: I beg to move "That this House do now adjourn."
Mr. JAMES HOPE: As a matter of convenience might I ask one of the representatives of the Treasury when the Government propose to take the Report of Ways and Means of 30th June?
MASTER of ELIBANK: We shall not take it to-morrow. I will consider the hon. Gentleman's question. Perhaps he will put it again to-morrow.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Six minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  Land Valuation Office.
  Land Valuation Office.
FINANCE ACT, 1909–10.
  HOME-MADE AND IMPORTED SPIRITS (DUTY).
  HOME-MADE AND IMPORTED SPIRITS (DUTY).
  LICENCE DUTIES TRANSFERRED.
  LICENCE DUTIES TRANSFERRED.
  Local Education (Annual Grant).
  Local Education (Annual Grant).
  Super-Tax Regulations.
  Super-Tax Regulations.
  Local Assessors of Taxes (Pees).
  Local Assessors of Taxes (Pees).
  Pensions (Commutation).
  Pensions (Commutation).
  Occasional Licences (Ireland).
  Occasional Licences (Ireland).
  University College Grants (Advisory Committee).
  University College Grants (Advisory Committee).
  Finance Bill, 1909–10 (Ways and Means Resolutions).
  Finance Bill, 1909–10 (Ways and Means Resolutions).
  Old Age Pension Disallowed (County Down).
  Old Age Pension Disallowed (County Down).
  Judges' Pensions.
  Judges' Pensions.
  New School-Houses (Ireland).
  New School-Houses (Ireland).
  Cycle Races, Phœnix Park, Dublin.
  Cycle Races, Phœnix Park, Dublin.
  Boycotting Cases (Ireland).
  Boycotting Cases (Ireland).
  Oaths Act, 1909 (Ireland).
  Oaths Act, 1909 (Ireland).
  Resident Magistrate (Mr. G. M'llroy Appointed).
  Resident Magistrate (Mr. G. M'llroy Appointed).
  Distribution of Purchase Money (Ireland).
  Distribution of Purchase Money (Ireland).
  Port Inspector, Greenore.
  Port Inspector, Greenore.
  Revising Barrister (West Belfast).
  Revising Barrister (West Belfast).
  Seizures for Rent (Kinvarra, County Galway).
  Seizures for Rent (Kinvarra, County Galway).
  Firing from Excursion Trains, Pottadown.
  Firing from Excursion Trains, Pottadown.
  Newhall Estate (Armed Party).
  Newhall Estate (Armed Party).
  Grazing Lands (County Clare).
  Grazing Lands (County Clare).
  Credit Societies, Ireland.
  Credit Societies, Ireland.
  Morristown Property (Limerick).
  Morristown Property (Limerick).
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Superannuation of Sessional Crown Solicitors.
  Superannuation of Sessional Crown Solicitors.
  Working Hours of Irish Judges.
  Working Hours of Irish Judges.
  Teachers' Training Diplomas.
  Teachers' Training Diplomas.
  Evicted Tenant (Waterford).
  Evicted Tenant (Waterford).
  Crossan School (Tyrone).
  Crossan School (Tyrone).
  Contagious Vaginitis in Irish Cattle.
  Contagious Vaginitis in Irish Cattle.
  Labourers (Ireland) Act.
  Labourers (Ireland) Act.
  Evicted Tenant's Claim.
  Evicted Tenant's Claim.
  Trinity House (Patterns of Scourers).
  Trinity House (Patterns of Scourers).
  Royal Navy (Two-Year Commissions).
  Royal Navy (Two-Year Commissions).
  Third Division, Home Fleet (Accountant Staffs).
  Third Division, Home Fleet (Accountant Staffs).
  Military Lamps (Aldershot).
  Military Lamps (Aldershot).
  Army Discharge Certificates.
  Army Discharge Certificates.
  Cordite (Standard Test).
  Cordite (Standard Test).
  Deserters Pardoned (King's Accession).
  Deserters Pardoned (King's Accession).
  Surrey Veteran Reserve.
  Surrey Veteran Reserve.
  4th Connaught Rangers (Discharge).
  4th Connaught Rangers (Discharge).
  Army Ordnance Depot, Enniskillen.
  Army Ordnance Depot, Enniskillen.
  Royal Welsh Fusiliers, Youghal.
  Royal Welsh Fusiliers, Youghal.
  Towyn Church School.
  Towyn Church School.
  Akbar Reformatory for Boys.
  Akbar Reformatory for Boys.
  Suez Canal Company's Concessions.
  Suez Canal Company's Concessions.
  Hankow-Szechuen Railway.
  Hankow-Szechuen Railway.
  Old Age Pensions Act (Appeals).
  Old Age Pensions Act (Appeals).
  S.S. "Rutherglen."
  S.S. "Rutherglen."
  National Telephone Company.
  National Telephone Company.
  London Postal Service (Assistant Superintendents).
  London Postal Service (Assistant Superintendents).
  Central Telegraph Office (Overseerships).
  Central Telegraph Office (Overseerships).
  Post Office (Boy Messengers).
  Post Office (Boy Messengers).
  Telegraphic Delays at Cork.
  Telegraphic Delays at Cork.
  Sale of Swine (Montgomeryshire).
  Sale of Swine (Montgomeryshire).
  Long Preston Moor, Skipton Division.
  Long Preston Moor, Skipton Division.
  Stationery Office (Labourers).
  Stationery Office (Labourers).
  Trustees of Charities (Audit of Accounts).
  Trustees of Charities (Audit of Accounts).
  Fishing Industry (Scotland).
  Fishing Industry (Scotland).
  Scottish Judges (Hours of Work).
  Scottish Judges (Hours of Work).
  School Boards (Scotland).
  School Boards (Scotland).