Sitting of 14 June 1910

Preamble
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table (Sir Courtenay Ilbert) informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker from this day's sitting:—
Whereupon Mr. EMMOTT, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, in pursuance of the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Exmouth Gas Bill,
Exmouth Urban District Water Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Morecambe Tramways Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
Mountain Ash Water Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Central Argentine Railway Bill [Lords],
Great Central Railway Bill [Lords],
Handsworth Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company Bill [Lords],
Padstow Harbour Bill [Lords],
Provident Association of London Bill [Lords],
Saint Mary, Stockport, Rectory Bill [Lords],
Tynemouth Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Bradford Corporation Bill (by Order),—
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday.
Gas Companies (Standard Burner) (No. 1) Bill [Lords] (by Order),—
Gas Companies (Standard Burner) (No. 2) Bill [Lords] (by Order),—
Gas Companies (Standard Burner) (No. 3) Bill [Lords] (by Order),—
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order),
London Electric Railway Amalgamation Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Port of London (Registration of Craft) Provisional Order Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday, at a quarter past eight of the clock.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill,—"to confirm certain Provisional orders of the Local Government Board relating to Chesterfield and Wakefield," presented by Mr. HERBERT LEWIS; supported by Mr. Burns.
Ordered, That Standing Order 193A be suspended, and that the Bill be read the first time.—[The, Deputy-Chairman.]
Bill accordingly read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill,—"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Bedford, Caerphilly, Epping (Rural), Guildford, Leek (Rural), Morpeth, Richmond (Surrey), and Rotherham (two)," presented by Mr. HERBERT LEWIS; supported by Mr. Burns.
Ordered, That Standing Order 193A be suspended, and that the Bill be read the first time.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Bill accordingly read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill,—"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Brighton, Honiton, Oxford, Torquay, and West Hartlepool," presented by Mr. HERBERT LEWIS; supported by Mr. Burns.
Ordered, That Standing Order 193A be suspended, and that the Bill be read the first time.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Bill accordingly read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill,—"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Ashton-under-Lyne, Blackburn, Carlisle, Leigh-on-Sea, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and Sheffield (two)." presented by Mr. HERBERT LEWIS; supported by Mr. Burns.
Ordered, That Standing Order 193a be suspended, and that the Bill be read the first time.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Bill accordingly read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill,—"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the North-East Durham Joint Smallpox Hospital District, the North-East Kent United Districts, the Conway and Penmaenmawr, and the Windsor and Egham Joint Hospital Districts," presented by Mr. HERBERT LEWIS; supported by Mr. Burns.
Ordered, That Standing Order 193a be suspended, and that the Bill be read the first time.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Bill accordingly read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 11) Bill,—"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to Reading," presented by Mr. HERBERT LEWIS; supported by Mr. Burns.
Ordered, That Standing Order 193a be suspended, and that the Bill be read the first time.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Bill accordingly read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 12) Bill,—"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to Bath," presented by Mr. HERBERT LEWIS; supported by Mr. Burns.
Ordered, That Standing Order 193A be suspended, and that the Bill be read the first time.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Bill accordingly read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Message from The Lords—That they have agreed to—
Amendments to—
Standard Life Assurance Company Bill [Lords],
Charnwood Forest Railway Bill [Lords],
Farnham Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

EAST INDIA (INDIAN FORESTRY SERVICE).
Address for "Return giving the qualifications at the time of admission of probationers selected during the last three years for appointments in the Indian Forestry Service."—[Mr. S. H. Butcher.]
EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
Address for "Return showing the number of Experiments on Living Animals during the year 1909, under licences granted under the Act 30 and 40 Vic, c. 77, distinguishing the nature of the Experiments (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 176, of Session, 1909)."—[Mr. Masterman.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Congo (Kasai Company Director).
  Sir GEORGE WHITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention had been drawn to the fact that Commandant Sarrazyn, an ex-Commissioner for the Equator district of the Congo, had recently returned to the Congo as sub-director of the Kasai Company in which the Belgian Government hold half the shares; if he was aware that one of the circulars issued by this official, showing him to be a self-confessed dealer in slaves, was published in the "White Book [Cd. 1933]; and, if so, whether he proposed to take any action in the matter?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The circular to which reference is made appears to have been issued in 1896. Inquiries are being made as to the facts referred to by the hon. Member.

  Irish Bacon at Buenos Ayres.
  Mr. JOYCEasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether his attention had been called to a complaint made by the firm of W. T. Shaw and Sons, bacon merchants, Limerick, relative to a consignment of hams and bacon sent by them to a customer at Buenos Ayres in the month of August 1909 and refused entrance to that port; what were the reasons given by the Argentine authorities for refusing the goods; had Messrs. Shaw and Sons asked the Foreign Office to inquire into the matter; and, if so, with what result?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Messrs. W. T. Shaw and Sons' hams were rejected by the Argentine authorities on the ground that the analysis showed traces of boric acid. The bacon was not condemned. His Majesty's Minister at Buenos Ayres inquired into the matter, but was of opinion that it would be useless to make representations to the Argentine Government as the consignees of the hams had endeavoured, on their rejection by the Buenos Ayres authorities, to reintroduce them at another Argentine port.
  Mr. JOYCE: Has the Foreign Office done anything with regard to the bacon to which no objection was taken?
  Sir E. GREY: I understood that the bacon was not condemned. If there are any facts which have not been brought to my notice that my hon. Friend can let me have I will see if anything can be done.
  Mr. JOYCE: I prefer to bring out the facts by question across the floor of the House.

  Education in India (Office of Director-General).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether there was any intention on the part of the Government of India to continue the office of Director-General of Education in India in the event of the present Director-General vacating that position?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The Secretary of State is not yet in a position to make any statement on this subject.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked whether it vas the intention of the Government of India to formulate a scheme for extending primary education on free and compulsory lines; and whether there was any intention to nominate an educational member to sit on the Viceroy's Council?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The subject of the first part of the question was discussed at great length in the Viceroy's Council on 18th March. My hon. Friend will find in the report of that Debate, which is in the Library of the House, a full explanation of the views of the Government of India as to the extension of primary education.

  Indian Police Methods
  Mr. O'GRADYasked whether the attention of the India Office had been drawn
  1174
  to the comments of Mr. Justice Harington and Mr. Justice Tennon, of the Calcutta High Court, in disposing of a murder ease from Midnapore on 7th May, the opinion of the judges being that the confession in this case was instigated by the police; and whether, having regard to these statements, the Secretary of State would cause a special inquiry to be made, into the administration and methods of the Indian police?
  Mr. MONTAGU: A comprehensive inquiry into the administration and methods of the Indian Police was carried out during the years 1902 and 1903 by a strong Commission including both European and Indian members. In their Report, which was presented to Parliament in 1905, the practice of working for confessions or relying on them as evidence against accused persons was emphatically condemned. The views of the Commission were endorsed by the Government of India and continuous efforts have been made ever since to enforce them in practice. The Secretary of State sees no reason for instituting a further inquiry.
  Mr. O'GRADY: Is no notice being taken of eases that now occur?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Every notice is taken and every effort is made to deal with such cases. I hope before long such cases will cease to arise.

  Date of Army Examinations.
  Major ADAMasked the Secretary of State for War who was responsible for the date of the Army promotion examinations having been fixed in Whitsun week, a date which would naturally be inconvenient to many officers of the Regular and Territorial Forces?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): The date for the Army promotion examination in question is fixed for the third Monday in May by the King's Regulations, paragraph 870. The attendance of Territorial Force officers is voluntary, but as nearly 600 presented themselves, as compared with 113 at the December examination, it is evident that the date was not inconvenient to them.
  Major ADAM: I should like to ask if, when this inconvenience was brought to the notice of the War Office the only reply was that that Department did not know, and could not be expected to know, the date of Whit Monday?

  General Staff (Service of Officers).
  Major ADAMasked whether there were any officers who had served continuously on the general staff for more than the regulation period of four years; if so, what period of extension had each enjoyed?
  Mr. HALDANE: The general staff was not formed until September 12th, 1906, and there are accordingly no officers now on the general staff who have served for more than four years in that capacity.

  Hougomont Farm.
  Mr. GRETTON (for Lord Charles Beresford)asked whether Hougomont Farm was the property of the British Government; whether yearly financial provision was made for its maintenance as a British graveyard; and, if so, what amount; whether visitors were charged for admittance; and what arrangements were made for its proper custody and reverent control?
  Mr. HALDANE: Hougomont Farm is not the property of the British Government, and there is no British graveyard there. I am informed that the bodies of those who fell there were removed many years ago to the cemetery near Brussels. The arrangements for admission to and the preservation of the farm rest, it is understood, with the local proprietor.

  Royal Garrison Artillery (Promotion of Officers).
  Mr. STARKEYasked whether stagnation in the promotion of officers still existed in the Royal Garrison Artillery; and, if so, at what period in the future the normal flow of promotion would be reached?
  Mr. HALDANE: I have nothing at present to add to the information which I gave the House during the Debate on Army Estimates on this subject. It is not possible to forecast the period at which the normal flow of promotion will recommence, though I hope that that period is not far off.

  New Bullet (Trials).
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked if the result of the trials with the new bullet have been satisfactory; and, if so, how soon the new ammunition will be issued for use?
  Mr. HALDANE: Trials are still in progress.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Have the trials of the bullet which were described as "filling up the gap" been satisfactory?
  Mr. HALDANE: These trials are in progress and it is rather unwise in these questions to jump to conclusions.

  Mobile Field Kitchens.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked what units will be provided with mobile field kitchens for experimental purposes on manœuvres this year; and, inasmuch as it will not increase the present scale of transport, if these experiments may be made on a larger scale than in former years?
  Mr. HALDANE: Two cooking waggons and two cooking carts are being issued to the Aldershot Command for distribution to units for trial. The introduction of mobile field kitchens will increase the present scale of transport. Until a satisfactory pattern has been found, experiments on a large scale are not warranted. Up to the present no pattern that has been tried has proved satisfactory.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware in the first place that, owing to the delay in the action of the War Office in this matter, that in some units officers are paying for cooking carts for their men out of their own pockets, while the men are subscribing for this much-needed reform through the canteen fund; and, in the second place, is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that he has just authorised an extra G.S. waggon to carry the men's dinner, so that in the event of the cooker being supplied this G.S. waggon would be redundant, and, therefore, that there would be no extra transport required?
  Mr. HALDANE: I do not know about that, but if the Noble Lord will put down a question I will make inquiry.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the extra cart was supplied, and therefore this would be redundant if the cooking cart is supplied to take its place?
  Major ADAM: Is it not the fact that the German Army is now issuing a field mobile kitchen not only to battalions but also to companies?
  Mr. HALDANE: I have seen something of the sort in the papers, but I do not know. All I can say is that having tried a number of patterns we have not found one which we consider satisfactory.

  Indian Emigration to Crown Colonies.
  Mr. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Report of the Departmental Committee which inquired into the question of Indian emigration to Crown Colonies will now be made available for hon. Members?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): The Report will be in the hands of hon. Members in a few days.

  African Railway Extensions.
  Mr. REESasked the Under-Secretary of the Colonies if the Secretary of State can give the House any information as to the arrangements made for financing the extension of the Uganda Railway?
  Colonel SEELY: The only extension of the Uganda Railway at present authorised is the line from Jinja to Kakindu. I am informing my hon. Friend in reply to another question how the cost is to be provided.
  Mr. REESasked whether the Government proposes to construct a branch line to the tin fields of Bauchi from the Baro-Kano line; whether of the latter line no less than 100 miles have been laid in the current year; and, if the answer in either or in both cases be in the affirmative, whether the Secretary of State will give the House any information as to the manner in which these lines and extensions have been, are being, and will be financed?
  Colonel SEELY: The Government is not prepared to undertake at the present moment a branch line from the Baro-Kano Railway to the tin fields of Bauchi. Railhead has advanced more than 100 miles during the course of the present year. Full information as to the manner in which funds have been provided for the construction of the railway will be found in the papers laid before Parliament in March, 1909 (Command 4523).
  Mr. REES: Are special grants made, and do they come before the House for this purpose?
  Colonel SEELY: I think it best to refer my hon. Friend to the Command paper. He will find the full accounts of it set out in Command 4523.
  Mr. REESasked whether a railway is being constructed from Jinja to Kakindu on the Victoria Nile in order to turn the rapids of the river; and, if so, in what manner such construction is being, or is to be, financed?
  Colonel SEELY: Authority has been given for the construction of a railway from Jinja to Kakindu. The amount necessary for construction will be advanced as a loan from Imperial Funds.
  Mr. REES: Do the Colonial Office contemplate making similar advances from Imperial funds to develop railway extension in other parts of Africa?
  Colonel SEELY: That depends upon circumstances. It depends upon the railway.

  Trinidad Tariff Revision.
  Mr. POINTERasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether he is aware that, though the revision of the Trinidad Customs tariff has been under consideration since 1906, nothing was made public until after the new tariff was arranged and accepted by the Legislative Council, and therefore no opportunity was given to any of the persons or bodies affected, with the exception of the druggists, to express their opinions; and whether he is aware that owing to the limited extent of the elective principle in the Legislative Council the working classes believe that because of the secrecy maintained their interests have been sacrificed; and will he state what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  Colonel SEELY: My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that it is usual, and indeed necessary in the interests of the Revenue, that any alterations which may be contemplated in a Customs tariff shall be carried into effect without allowing importers an opportunity to forestall the action of the Legislature. The Secretary of State sees no reason to believe that the interests of the working classes in Trinidad have been sacrificed in the changes which it has recently been found necessary to make in the Customs tariff of the Colony.
  Mr. POINTERasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the greater portion of the increase under the revised Trinidad tariff is obtained either from fresh duties on articles of food largely used by the working class, such as salt pork or salt

  1179
  fish, or from increased duties upon other, food, and that, owing to the system of indentured labour, no corresponding rise in wages is possible; and what action he proposes to take in this matter?
  Colonel SEELY: I think my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension as to the general effect of the increase which it has unfortunately been necessary to make in the Customs tariff of Trinidad, and that I cannot do better than quote the following extract from a Minute written by the collector of Customs on the subject:—"The articles used mainly by the working classes on which new duties are imposed are fish (pickled, smoked, and dried), meats (preserved in brine or dried), peas, and beans. These articles were free under the old tariff, and the duties now imposed are extremely moderate, namely: 50 cents the 100 1bs. on meats and 1s. the 100 lbs. on the other articles. The revenue estimated to be derived from them amounts at the outside to about £8,000, against which compensation is given by the reduction of the duties on oils, workmen's tools and implements, and other articles. The larger part of the increased duties will be derived from articles of food used by the wealthier classes of the community. The tariff of Trinidad as amended is generally lower than those of the other islands."
  Mr. W. THORNE: Will the increased duties increase the cost?
  Colonel SEELY: No doubt that will be the case.
  Mr. POINTERasked whether the import duty on matches costing 10d. per gross has been fixed in the new Trinidad tariff at 1s. 6d. per gross, being equal to a tax of 180 per cent.; and whether the import duty on cocoanut oil, an article of local production and of large local consumption among East Indians, has been left in the new tariff at 1s. 3d. per gallon?
  Colonel SEELY: No alteration has taken place in the rate of duty imposed on matches imported into the Colony, which was formerly 2s. 6d. a gross on boxes of 120 and is now 1s. 6d. a gross on boxes of 72. The rate of duty on cocoanut oil was also left unaltered.
  Mr. POINTERasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he had any knowledge of the existence in Trinidad of a rum trust which supplies the
  1180
  local markets at 2s. 3½d. per gallon, the production above what is required for local consumption being sold in England at from 10d. to 1s. per gallon; whether what makes this state of things possible is the fact that the Excise Duty is 8s. 6d. per gallon and the import duty 9s. per gallon in Trinidad; whether it had been understood that this anomaly would be remedied whenever the tariff was revised; and whether he can give any reason why this abuse still continues?
  Colonel SEELY: My hon. Friend's question appears to be founded on a misapprehension due to a confusion between the liquid and the proof gallon. Rum is sold in the Colony by the liquid gallon and not by the proof gallon as in England. The average strength of the rum produced is 40 per cent, over proof. I am informed that the average local price is about 2s. per liquid gallon and the average market price in England about 1s. 2d. to 1s. 4d. per proof gallon. I may add that the question of an increase in the Excise Duty is under consideration.
  Mr. POINTERasked whether it would be possible by raising the Trinidad Excise Duty from Ss. 6d. to 9s. to produce an additional revenue of £7,600, entirely deducted from the profits of the trust, the price of rum remaining the same or lower to the consumer as before?
  Colonel SEELY: As I informed my hon. Friend, in reply to another question, the possibility of an increase in the Excise Duty—which is, however, already in excess of the Excise Duties imposed in other Colonies—is under consideration.
  Mr. POINTERasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government of Sir George Le Hunte, in Trinidad, is considering a still further increase of taxation; whether a committee has been appointed with that object; and, if so, whether he can supply their names, and state whether their deliberations will be entirely secret or whether the public will be given an opportunity to discuss the proposals made by them before they are finally adopted?
  Colonel SEELY: A committee has been appointed to consider the question of raising the additional revenue required for necessary public works. The committee was to consist of the Colonial-Secretary, the Auditor-General, the Receiver-General, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Goodwille, Mr.

  1181
  Henderson, and Mr. C. de Verteuil, the last four gentlemen being members of the Legislative Council; Mr. W. Scott, Mr. McLelland, the Warden of Tacarigua, Mr. Boland, who is the chairman of the St. Ann's Local Road Board, and Mr. C. C. Soodeen, who is chairman of the East India Association. The Secretary of State has no information on the points raised in the last part of my hon. Friend's question, but it is obvious that any increase or alteration of taxation that may be recommended could only be enacted after discussion in the Legislative Council.
  Mr. POINTER: May I ask if the four members of the Legislative Council are elected?
  Colonel SEELY: I am not quite sure. Speaking off-hand, I would not like to say; but I will inquire, if my hon. Friend wishes.
  Mr. POINTER: Would it be possible for the Working Men's Association of Trinidad to be represented on that Council as representative of the working classes?
  Colonel SEELY: All questions of representation in Trinidad are very difficult, as my hon. Friend knows. If we were to give representation to the Working Men's Association it would be necessary to give representation of the East India Association, which are a larger element of the community. We have every desire to give representation to all interests concerned, but it is a difficult matter.
  Mr. REES: Does not the Working Men's Association of Trinidad contain not more than 256 members?
  Colonel SEELY: I should not like to say.
  Mr. REES: I will give him that information.

  Zulu Chief Tilonko.
  Mr. GREENWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in view of the fact that the clemency of the Crown had been extended to Dinizulu upon the advice and with the approval of the Government of United South Africa, he would use his good offices with that Government and with the Governor-General in order to procure the release of the Zulu chief Tilonko, who was sentenced on 17th August, 1906, to ten
  1182
  years' imprisonment with hard labour by a military court-martial, although on 12th July previously to such trial and sentence an Act of Indemnity for all things done during the existence of martial law in the Colony had passed both Houses of the Legislature of Natal, the effect of such Act being to preclude the chief Tilonko from appealing against the sentence so pronounced upon him under martial law?
  Colonel SEELY: The Union Ministry have already shown by their action with regard to Dinizulu, to which my hon. Friend refers, that they are not indisposed to exercise clemency in these cases, and the Secretary of State is confident that they will give full consideration to the case of Tilonko.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman use his good offices?
  Colonel SEELY: I think it would be very unwise for me to add anything to the answer I have given.

  Anthrax.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the persistent increase in the number of cases of anthrax since the beginning of the current year, causing danger both to healthy livestock and to human beings, the Board propose to take any, and, if so, what steps of a more drastic character than those hitherto taken to stamp out this disease?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir E. Strachey): The Board have some doubt as to the accuracy of the diagnosis in some of the cases of disease returned as anthrax, and they are considering the issue of a revised Anthrax Order at an early date, designed to secure a more uniform and efficient method of diagnosis. The Board's veterinary advisers have little hope that anthrax can be stamped out, but every effort will be made to prevent the spread of infection.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: Is the hon. Baronet aware that during the last six months there has been an increase of over 12 per cent, as compared with the corresponding six months of last year in this virulent disease, and that during the last three weeks three persons have died from handling carcases, and whether that does not disclose a state of affairs in which the Board ought to take stringent action?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I am aware of the serious increase and that is why the Board are contemplating taking further action.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. BOWERMANasked on what date the Argentine Government officially declared that country to be free from foot-and-mouth disease; what steps the Board have taken during the meantime to verify such declaration; and what is the reason of the Board's delay in acceding to the request of the Argentine Government that they should be permitted to export live cattle to this country for slaughter?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The declaration to which my hon. Friend refers was dated 25th August last. It was made officially by the Argentine Government, and the Board took no steps to verify it. The freedom of a country from disease at any given time is not however the only consideration which the Board are required to take into account in considering whether or not the importation of animals into this country should be permitted, and in view, inter alia, of the past history of foot-and-mouth disease in Argentina, and of its geographical position in relation to other countries in which the disease was known to exist, the Board did not feel justified in withdrawing the existing prohibition.
  Mr. BOWERMANasked whether the two provinces in Argentina in which it was stated that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease has quite recently occurred were not far removed from the ports of embarkation of cattle for this country; and, if so, whether the placing of a cordon round the two affected districts, as was done to the satisfaction of the Board in the case of a recent outbreak in North America, would meet the requirements of the Board, so that cattle from districts free from disease may at once be brought into this country for slaughter?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Our information as regards the locality of the outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in Argentina is of a very general character, but we know that the disease exists in the territory of Chaco and in the zone north of Santa Fé, as well as in the two provinces of Corrientes and Entre Rios. The southern portion of the last-named province is not more than forty or fifty miles from Buenos Ayres. In any case, however, there is no likelihood that the Board
  1184
  would be able to accept the arrangement suggested as affording sufficient security against the introduction of diseased animals into this country.
  Mr. BOWERMAN: Is it not the case that in North America when an outbreak occurs this system of drawing a cordon is adopted, and, if so, is there any special reason why it should not be adopted here?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The conditions are so different.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: During the period in this country, when there were no regulations such as those which now exist, epidemics occurred abroad, and was it not invariably the case that the disease was introduced here, it being found impossible to prevent its introduction owing to the fact that once it comes in it spreads with the utmost rapidity, and no regulations which are imposed can humanly prevent the spread of the disease?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. HAMILTON BENN: Is it not the fact that the period of incubation in this disease is fourteen days, and that the voyage from South America is about a month, so that there can be no doubt about the disease being discovered if it exists among the cattle in the ship?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I think the hon. Member has stated the conditions correctly, but they are no safeguards.

  Labour Exchanges (Advisory Committees).
  Mr. BRACEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the reason for the delay in appointing the advisory committees in connection with the Labour Exchanges; and upon what date does he expect to have these advisory committees completed and their work commenced?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): Under the General Regulations made under the Labour Exchanges Act, the Board of Trade are to consult persons and bodies of employers and workpeople in connection with the appointment of representatives on the advisory committees. Such consultations, of which there have been a considerable number, have necessarily caused delay in the selection of these committees. Some of the committees are, however, now nearly completed.

  Civil Servants and Deserters (Amnesty).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can see his way clear to recommend to His Majesty the King to grant an amnesty to Civil servants and deserters such as was granted to the Army, Navy, police, and mercantile marine?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The question is not understood. Perhaps the hon. Member will let me know the kind of cases to which he refers?

  Stage Plays (Censorship).
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the Report of the Joint Committee on Stage Plays (Censorship), recommending, inter alia, that a single licence should be granted to both theatres and music halls, and that the existing obligation to obtain the sanction of the Lord Chamberlain to the performance of stage plays should be abolished; and whether he proposes to introduce legislation accordingly?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): I can only reply at present that the Report is under my consideration.

  Police Medal.
  Mr. PRETYMANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can say whether the design of the medals awarded to the police by His late Majesty in November last is yet settled; and whether he can now fix an approximate date for their presentation?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The design for this medal has been approved, and I am informed that some of the medals will be ready early next month. His Majesty's pleasure will be taken as to their presentation.

  Metropolitan Police Force.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked what is the number of candidates who have applied to join the Metropolitan Police Force since 1st January, 1910; how many have been medically examined by the chief medical officer at Scotland Yard; what proportion of these were accepted; and the number rejected on medical grounds?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The total number of applications received between 1st January and 28th May, 1910, was 6,065. Of these 2,862 abandoned their intention on learning the requirements of the Metropolitan Police as regards physique and education, or have not yet presented themselves for examination. Of the 3,203 who presented themselves 955 were accepted, 1,602 were rejected by the chief surgeon, or his deputy, as physically unfit, and 646 were rejected on other grounds.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked what is the number of men in the Metropolitan Police Force who are not at present doing the full beat round daily?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The only men in excess of the number required for beats are those engaged on such police duty as traffic, point, police court, station or other similar duty, and the reserve for relieving for leave. When recruits are posted, they have to be shown round their beats at first by experienced constables.
  Mr. POINTERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can say if the two days' extra pay granted to the members of the Metropolitan Police Force in connection with the arrangements for the funeral of the late King was granted to all the members of the force stationed in this House during that time; if not, can he say why; and whether he will take steps to put these men upon an equality with their fellows?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The extra two days' pay was given to those members of the Metropolitan Police on whom fell directly or indirectly the exceptional strain caused by the funeral of the late King. No special strain fell at that time on the officers employed in this House—on the contrary, their duties were lighter than usual at this season of the year, and they had therefore no claim to the extra two days' pay. They draw a special allowance, which is calculated to compensate them for the extra duty which at other times falls to their lot.
  Mr. POINTER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hours put in by these men were excessive on two or three days about that period, that on one day their hours were twelve and on another thirteen and a half, and that twenty members working in and about the House already in possession of the special privileges he referred to have been actually in receipt of this two days' pay?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have given the answer which has been supplied to me. I naturally do not deal with the roster of police duty myself. If there are special circumstances which the hon. Gentleman thinks are not covered by that answer, if he will let me have them I will have them again looked into.

  Experiments on Living Animals (Return).
  Mr. GREENWOODasked when the Return of Experiments on Living Animals during the year 1909 will be presented?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The Return was moved for yesterday, and I hope it will be in the hands of Members next week.

  Pilotage Examination (Accident in Rocquaine Bay).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the vessel "The Alert," while recently engaged upon a pilotage examination, struck a rock in Rocquaine Bay and had to be sent to Southampton for repairs; and whether the whole of the candidates on board duly passed the examination and are now qualified pilots?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am aware of the casualty to "The Alert," but I am unable to answer the latter part of the question. The Board of Trade have no pilotage jurisdiction in the Channel Islands.

  Emigrant Ships to Canada (Sanitary Arrangements).
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Trade whether complaints have reached him from the third-class passengers of certain steamers carrying British emigrants to Canada that the sanitation, food, drinking water, and general accommodation are so miserable as to excite widespread indignation; whether he has made, or will make, inquiries into this matter; and whether, especially in view of the very large numbers now proceeding to the Canadian provinces, he can immediately approach the steamship companies against whom complaints have been or may be received with representations for more sanitary and proper treatment?
  Mr. BUXTON: Yes, Sir. Complaints have reached me from third-class passengers on some of the steamers carrying emigrants to Canada, and each such case has been, or is being, investigated. Great care is taken to see that the statutory Regulations as to food, sanitation, and
  1188
  accommodation are complied with on these vessels, and representations are made to the owners in any case in which this appears necessary.

  Salvage Work at Wrecks.
  Mr. GRETTONasked the President of the Board of Trade if there is any British company or private owner, who is a British subject, possessing vessels specially built and fitted for salvage work to wrecks, and, if so, will he state where such vessels are usually stationed on the British coasts?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have no special information on the subject referred to by the hon. Member, but he will, I think, find the information he desires in the Appendix to Lloyd's Calendar.
  Mr. GRETTONasked if the Admiralty is provided with salvage vessels or has made any arrangements with private persons possessing vessels fitted specially for salvage work securing priority for the Admiralty in cases of need?
  Mr. McKENNA: Several dockyard tugs and lighters are specially fitted for salvage work. The reply to the second part of the question is in the negative. The Admiralty always have ample opportunity of selecting from among the applicants for employment in salvage work.

  Midwives (Payments).
  Mr. HENRY WALKERasked, with reference to the doctor called in on an emergency under the statutory rules, in pursuance of the Midwives Act, and to the fact that payment is now being made to him out of the rates in some places under the Public Health Act, 1875, and in others under the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1848, whether, in the absence of any application for consent by or on behalf of the patient or her husband, such a payment out of the rates to the doctor, whether under the one Act or the other, is treated as parochial relief; whether, as a matter of fact, the patient and her husband in respect of attendance on the former of whom the doctor is thus paid under the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1848, are in some unions, but not in others, entered and classed as paupers in receipt of medical relief; whether, when the payment is made under the Public Health Act, 1875, the patient and her husband are everywhere spared from any demoralising contact with the Poor Law, and are not

  1189
  subjected to visits from the relieving officer; what authority in each locality decides whether the payment out of the rates to the doctor shall be made under the one Act or the other; what authority determines whether the patient and her husband in those cases in which no application or consent is made by, them or on their behalf shall or shall not be regarded as in receipt of parochial relief and be dealt with as paupers; and whether, in view of the diversity of opinion and of action among local authorities in this matter, the President of the Local Government Board will issue a circular clearing up the legal position?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Bums): As I informed my hon. Friend, in answer to his question of the 28th April last, there are two or three cases in which payments of the kind referred to have been made under Section 133 of the Public Health Act, 1875. Such payments would not be parochial relief. Some Boards of Guardians have, I believe, made similar payments under Section 2 of the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1848, but I have no information as to their practice in the matter. It does not seem to me to be necessary to adopt the course suggested in the last part of the question. I may remind my hon. Friend that a Bill has been introduced on behalf of the Government, in another place, which contains a provision on this subject, and I can assure him that the points to which he has drawn attention will not be lost sight of.
  Mr. H. WALKER: May I ask, with regard to the Bill introduced by the Lord President of the Council, whether the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to substitute the local supervising authority for the board of guardians as the authority.
  Mr. BURNS: I have already told my hon. Friend that the point to which he has drawn attention will not be lost sight of.

  Taunton Relieving Officer (Charge of Cruelty).
  Mr. POINTERasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the circumstances attending the death of Richard Bartlett, a labourer, whose decomposed body was found in the river at Taunton, and upon whose body was found a letter, in which occurred grave charges of brutality and callousness on the part of a relieving officer named Chapman, em-
  1190
  ployed by the Taunton Board of Guardians; whether it is part of the duties of a relieving officer to direct men lacking physical strength to go to a member of the board of guardians to work for 1s. a day; and whether, if the matter has already been before his notice, he is prepared to take action in the matter; and, if not, will he inquire?
  Mr. BURNS: I had already caused inquiries to be made with regard to this case, and had considered the reports of the inquest. It is possible that the relieving officer may have committed an error of judgment in advising Bartlett as to obtaining work, but there is no evidence that he acted with any intentional harshness. The officer has held office for more than twenty years, during which time the Local Government Board have received no complaints with regard to him. I have, however, given a warning that he should be most careful in future to bear in mind the importance of tact and sympathy in the discharge of his duties.

  Excise Staff (Sheffield).
  Mr. JAMES HOPEasked whether, and, if so, when, it is intended to appoint additional officers of Excise in the City of Sheffield to cope with the increase of work due to the Finance Act and the prospective increase owing to the coming removal of the Poor Law disqualification for old age pensions?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: A rearrangement of the work of the Excise officers in Sheffield collection, which includes Sheffield City, is at present under consideration. It is not at present intended to increase the staff of officers in the City of Sheffield in consequence of any work due to the Finance Act. As regards the prospective increase of pension work owing to the coming removal of the Poor Law disqualification, the question will be considered before the additional work in question arises and when a reliable estimate can be formed of its amount.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that these officers are worked practically up to the breaking point already, and also whether he is aware it is already estimated that at least 1,200 more claims will have to be investigated?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: In regard to the first part of the supplementary question, I have to say that I am not aware of the

  1191
  fact. As to the second part, I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got his information from, but it is not according to mine.
  Mr. STUART WORTLEY: May I ask whether there is any truth in the rumour that it is intended rather to diminish than increase the present staff?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am not aware that there is any truth in the rumour. I was not aware of the rumour.

  Postal Servants' Uniform.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Postmaster-General whether he can make arrangements for the provision of one suit of uniform every year to men who are regularly employed every day by the Post Office under an allowance in delivering His Majesty's mails, even if the time occupied in such employment does not exceed an hour and a half?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): No uniform is supplied to auxiliary postmen and men employed under allowance who work for less than three hours a day. I do not think that there is any justification for the heavy expenditure which would be entailed by the supply of uniform to men whose official duty takes up so small a portion of their time.

  Local Post Offices (Appointments).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Postmaster-General whether he can make arrangements to put on the regular staff at local post offices men who have for several years been employed there as substitutes, to the entire satisfaction of the Post Office authorites and of the general public, instead of filling the vacancy by sending strangers from the district office?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I shall be glad if the hon. Member will give me particulars of the cases he has in his mind.

  Post Office Offenders (Punishments).
  Mr. WILESasked the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that in celebration of His Majesty's Accession remissions of sentences and condonation of certain offences have been granted to the Navy, Army, mercantile marine, and the Metropolitan Police Force, it is his intention to advise, as an act of grace, a remission or reduc-
  1192
  tion of punishment or disqualification to Post Office servants?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The circumstances differ in the Post Office from those prevailing in the other Services mentioned by the hon. Member. The punishments awarded for offences or irregularities are extra duty, loss of stripes carrying loss of pay, deferment of increment, withholding of promotion, reduction and dismissal. I fear it is not possible to devise any system of remission of these punishments which would be workable without giving rise to serious inequalities, even if it were desirable to adopt such an innovation. I do not propose, therefore, to take the action suggested by the hon. Member.

  Gardening Classes at Syderstone, Norfolk.
  Sir GEORGE WHITEasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that in connection with the school gardening classes at Syderstone, Norfolk, the grant earned by four boys who had made thirty-eight, and one boy thirty-nine attendances out of forty, had been withheld though they were prevented completing their attendances solely because the school was closed by order of the local sanitary authority; and whether he will take steps to prevent local authorities, who are doing their best to develop this part of educational work, being discouraged in this way by using the discretionary power possessed by the Board under paragraph 13 of Schedule III of the Elementary Code?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD Of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): My right hon. Friend is aware of the case referred to, but he is not prepared to accept without reservation the statement that the boys in question were prevented from making the requisite number of attendances "solely because the school was closed by order of the local sanitary authority." The Regulations require forty hours' instruction to be given in order that the 4s. grant may be earned. This very moderate number of hours constitutes a minimum, and it was open to the authority to spread the course over the whole twelve months ending on 31st October, 1909. The school was closed on 11th October, and at that date only thirty-nine hours of instruction had been given to any scholar in the class. It is obvious that the authority were cutting down the hours of instruction very close to the minimum, and had left them-

  1193
  selves no margin for accidents. The Board are most anxious to encourage progressive authorities in their endeavour to develop this form of instruction, and they are most unwilling to impose unnecessary hardship, but it does not appear to my right hon. Friend that any hardship is involved in this case.

  Feeding of School Children.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Education if his attention has been called to the report of the London Education Committee, which states that the improvement in the children's physical condition is due to regular feeding during the school term, and which further states that directly the meals were discontinued during the holidays there was a marked falling off in the physical condition of the children; and whether the Government propose legislation which will empower education authorities to feed the children during the holidays and vacation?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: My right hon. Friend has not been able to trace the report referred to. As regards the second part of the question, I must refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for the East Division of Leeds on 18th April.
  Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he can give any reason why the Government are not going to legislate on the question when as a matter of fact the Bill will be non-controversial?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: We do not hold the view that the Bill would be non-controversial.
  Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he can suggest ways and means for feeding the necessitous children during the holidays?

  Submarine Service (Eyesight of Officers and Men).
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any official information showing that officers and men serving in submarines have their eyesight affected in consequence; and, if so, whether the naval medical authorities have suggested any method of dealing with the circumstances?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): There is no evidence that officers and men serving in submarines have their eyesight affected in consequence.

  His Majesty's Ships at Shanghai and in River Yangtse.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether His Majesty's ships "Cadmus" and "Clio" had for the last two years been detailed for service at Shanghai and in the Biver Yangtse; whether, during the summer months, no climatic allowance had been paid to the officers and ships' companies; whether these ships are not suitable for work in hot climates; whether the "Bramble" class and small river gunboats were specially built for such service; whether their officers and ships' companies are paid climatic allowance; and whether he will give the matter his consideration?
  Mr. McKENNA: The reply to the first two parts is in the affirmative. The Admiralty consider that these sloops are suitable for work in hot climates. The "Bramble" class and the river gunboats which are given climatic allowances were specially built for this service. I shall be very glad to give further consideration to the question to which the Noble and gallant Lord has been good enough to draw my attention, of extending the allowance to the sloops; I have, in fact, taken steps to consult the Commander-in-Chief in China on the subject.

  H.M.S. "Pegasus" (Warrants against Crew).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether fifty-seven warrants have been issued in less than ten months against the crew of His Majesty's ship "Pegasus"; whether he has any official information showing that the crew is full of discontent; and whether he can state the cause of the trouble?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is true that, according to the latest returns, a somewhat larger number of warrants than usual have been made out on board the "Pegasus" since her recommission in March, 1909, but the great majority have been for leave-breaking offences, which are prevalent on the Australian station. There is no official information as to any discontent on the part of the crew, but inquiries are being made.

  Dockyard Workers (Petitions).
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when he proposes to intimate the decision of the Lords Commissioners with regard to the petitions presented by the employés in the various dockyards during 1909?
  Mr. McKENNA: The proposals of the Admiralty have been sent to the Treasury, and we are now waiting for their concurrence.
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: Is there no means of expediting the replies to these petitions? I think these were presented last June.
  Mr. McKENNA: I am extremely sorry that delay has taken place. The answers to petitions have to go through a great many departments in the Admiralty, and the petitions are all answered at the same time. The result is that we have to wait for the answer to the question which takes the longest amount of time to consider.

  Dockyards (Filling of Vacancies).
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked whether, when filling vacancies on the established lists of the dockyards, it is proposed to adhere to the Home Dockyard Regulations, particularly Regulation 293a?
  Mr. McKENNA: In filling vacancies on the established list it is proposed generally to adhere to the Dockyard Regulations. An exception will, however, be made in regard to the rule relating to age limits in favour of those workmen who have passed the usual maximum age whilst the established list has been closed, in order that they may not be disqualified by age for establishment in the immediately available vacancies.

  Deptford Victnalling Yard (Local Labonr).
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will give instructions that workmen required for the Deptford Victualling Yard and other naval establishments shall be engaged through the local Labour Exchanges?
  Mr. McKENNA: Instructions have already been given to all the Admiralty establishments that the Labour Exchanges are to be freely used for the purpose of obtaining workmen as required.

  Selling during Prohibited Hours (Glasgow).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been drawn to the cases of William Wilson, butcher, 7, Norfolk-street, Glasgow, and Jeanie Wilson, or Sharp, dairykeeper, 207, Firhill-road, Glasgow, recently fined 5s. and expenses for serving customers with steak cuttings at 7.10 p.m. and 4 ozs. of boiled beef at 8.15 p.m., respectively; and whether he will introduce legislation to bring the law of Scotland more into harmony with that of other countries?
  In putting this question, may I say that as I handed it in, it asked whether the Lord Advocate will introduce legislation to bring the law of Scotland more into harmony with that of civilised countries.
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): Inquiry has been made into the cases referred to. It appears that in each case the accused pleaded guilty to a breach of a closing order made under the Shop Hours Act, 1904, which, as the hon. Member is aware, is a statute applying to the United Kingdom. The convictions were quite regular, and, on the information before me, I see no necessity for legislation.

  FINANCE ACT.

    VALUATION FOR LAND TAXES.
    Mr. PRETYMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he still adheres to his estimate of the cost of valuation for the land taxes as two millions; if not, what is his revised estimate; can he now state how long he expects it will take to complete this valuation; and, if so, can he give any figures or p0articulars on which his estimate of time is based?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and consequently the second part does not arise. With regard to the third and fourth parts, I cannot at the present stage add anything to the information which was given to the House on this subject by my right, hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 11th August, 1909.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman still satisfied that these duties will produce enough to replace the whisky money lost by the local educational authority?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That hardly arises on this question, but I certainly think they will. In any event, I will give a guarantee that the amount will be made good whether the taxes produce that amount or not.
    Mr. PRETYMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in ascertaining the annual value of the land for the purposes of Schedule A, Undeveloped Land Duty paid in respect of the land may be deducted; whether it is intended to levy Undeveloped Land Duty for the financial year 1909–10; and, if so, whether (as such duty, not having yet been ascertained, cannot be deducted before the tax for 1909–10 is paid) an allowance will be made when the duty is levied for the tax overpaid?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative and to the second part in the affirmative. The third part of the question does not arise.

    REGULATIONS FOR STAMPING.
    Mr. PRETYMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the regulations made by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under Section 4 of the Finance Act, 1909–10, provide that an instrument presented for stamping under that Section must be accompanied either by a copy or by an abstract of the instrument, and by a copy of any plan therein contained or referred to: and, if so, whether it is considered that the power given by the Section to the Commissioners to make regulations as to the mode in which an instrument is to be presented to them for stamping authorises them to require the instrument to be accompanied by further documents involving trouble and expense to the taxpayer.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The answer to the second part of the question is also in the affirmative. I may add that the further documents required to be lodged with the instrument are necessary for the purpose of enabling the Commissioners to assess Increment Value Duty.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I beg to give the right hon. Gentleman notice that I shall raise this matter to-morrow on the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the ruling of the Comptroller of Stamps Office to the effect that where a contract for the sale of property has been entered into before the commencement of the Finance Act, 1910, there is no provision under Section 4 of the Act for impressing a stamp signifying that no Increment Duty is payable; whether, having regard to the fact that many conveyances of such property have been and will be dated subsequently to the commencement of the Finance Act, 1910, in which the contract being unrecited there will remain an open question as to whether Increment Duty was or was not due, thereby causing uncertainty and expense in future dealings with the property by necessitating the production of the original contract; and whether, having regard to these considerations, he will consider the desirability of providing that the stamp provided for by Section 4, Sub-section 3 (c) or some other stamp should be impressed in these cases?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The difficulty to which my hon. Friend refers has been brought to my notice. It is, however, merely a temporary one, a remedy for which appears to lie in the insertion in the deed of conveyance of a reference to the date of the contract, in pursuance of which the deed is executed; and it appears neither necessary nor desirable to provide for impressing a stamp in these cases as suggested.

    Situation in Crete.
    Mr. GIBSON BOWLESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information with reference to the action His Majesty's Government have taken and the attitude they now hold as regards the position and future of Crete, and can he lay any correspondence upon the Table; and, if not now, can he name any time when he proposes to give the House that information and to disclose the correspondence?
    Sir EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's Government, who have always acted in full agreement with the other protecting Powers in regard to the Cretan Question, have recently, in conjunction with the Governments of France, Russia, and Italy, caused collective notes to be addressed to the Cretan Executive Committee stating that the Powers will not permit the

    1199
    Mussulman functionaries to be debarred from the exercise of their functions or deprived of the emoluments of office under the pretext that they have not taken the oath of allegiance to the King of Greece, and that if Mussulman deputies are excluded from the Assembly on a similar pretext, the Powers will consider what steps are required to regularise the situation. The attitude of His Majesty's Government, as of the other protecting Powers, consists in the maintenance of the suzerainty of the Sultan of Turkey, the protection of the Mussulman inhabitants, and the furtherance of the good government of the island under an autonomous regime. The statement which has been made in certain quarters that His Majesty's Government hold a different view from that of the other protecting Powers, is entirely without foundation. The Cretans have lately given provocation to Turkey by repeated attempts to alter the status quo, and have shown little consideration for the advice of the four Powers to whom they owe their autonomy. It will be necessary to ensure that the Cretans do not make changes which might give rise to a breach of the peace in the Near East, and having obtained their autonomy it would be most unwise of them to force others to take action which cannot be to their advantage. I do not think the present is a suitable moment for publishing correspondence.
    Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Can the right hon. Gentleman state when the collective address was presented; what does it state, and has any reply been received?
    Sir EDWARD GREY: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me notice. It was quite recently.

    Coal Mine Inspectors (Fifeshire).
    Mr. JOHN HOPEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can now state when additional inspectors will be appointed for the coal mines in Fifeshire?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I propose to take up shortly the question of the increase of the staff of inspectors of mines, and I will carefully consider the representations which my hon. Friend made on more than one occasion to my predecessor as to the needs of Scotland. The reorganisation of the inspectorate on the lines recommended by the Royal Commission on Mines, which
    1200
    had first to be taken in hand, has already I been carried out, and the new arrangements for inspection in Scotland which were recently announced will considerably strengthen there the administration of the Acts.
    Several other Members took and subscribed the Oath, and one other Member made and subscribed the Affirmation required by Law.

QUEEN-MOTHER'S ANSWER TO MESSAGE OF CONDOLENCE.
Mr. BURThaving been appointed, with Sir John Dewar, Mr. Lonsdale, Mr. Mildmay, Sir Mark Stewart, and Sir Alfred Thomas, to wait upon Her Majesty the Queen-Mother with a Message of Condolence from this House, appeared at the Bar and reported Her Majesty's Answer:—
I thank you with all my heart for the Message of Condolence which you have presented. I am deeply sensible of the warmth of your sympathy in My irreparable loss; and the assurance which you give Me of the unalterable affection of your House and the Nation mill help to sustain Me in My great grief.

MESSAGES FROM THE KING.

  PROVISION FOR THE CIVIL LIST.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER(at the Bar) acquainted the House that he had a Message from the King to this House signed by His Majesty's own hand.
  And he presented the same to the House, and it was read by Mr. Deputy-Speaker (all the Members of the House being uncovered) as followeth:—
  GEORGE B. I.
  The demise of the Crown renders it necessary that a renewed provision shall It made for the Civil List.
  His Majesty places unreservedly at the disposal of the House of Commons those hereditary revenues which were so placed by His predecessor; and ha* commanded that the Papers necessary for a full consideration of the subject shall be laid before the House.
  His Majesty is further desirous that competent provision shall be made for Her Majesty the Queen in the event of Her surviving Him;

  1201
  and for His Majesty's younger children in the, event of their respectively attaining their majority or marrying.
  The Revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall will, in His Majesty's judgment, so far as can at present he foreseen, he sufficient for the maintenance of His Royal Highness; and His Majesty does not propose to invite the House to make any further provision for that purpose. But His Majesty desires that, in the event of His Royal Highness marrying, suitable provision shall he made for the Duchess of Cornwall.
  His Majesty recommends the consideration of these several matters to His faithful Commons, and relies on their attachment to His person and family to adopt such measures as may he suitable for the occasion.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: To-morrow I shall move: "That the King's Message be taken into consideration, and that a Committee be appointed."

  REGENCY.
  The PRIME MINISTER(at the Bar) acquainted the House that he had a Message from the King to this House signed by His Majesty's own hand, and he presented the same to the House, and it having been read by Mr. Deputy-Speaker (all the Members of the House being uncovered) as f olloweth:—
  The uncertainty of human life, and a deep sense of My duty to My people, render it incumbent upon Me to recommend to you to consider contingencies which may hereafter take place and to make such provision as will, in any event, secure the exercise of the Royal authority.
  I shall he prepared to confer with you in those measures which may appear best calculated to maintain unimpaired the power and dignity of the Crown, and thereby to strengthen the securities which protect the rights and liberties of My people.
  GEORGE R. I.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move,
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, to return to His Majesty the thanks of this House for His Majesty's Most Gracious Message, and to assure His Majesty that, under the full conviction of His Majesty's beneficent intentions, this House will, with the least possible delay, apply itself to the discussion of the high and im-
  1202
  portant objects which His Majesty has been pleased to propose for its consideration, and will proceed to provide such measures as may appear best calculated to maintain unimpaired the power and dignity of the Crown, and thereby to strengthen the securities which protect the rights and liberties of the people."
  Ordered, That the said Address be presented to His Majesty by such Members of this House as are of His Majesty's most honourable Privy Council or of His Majesty's Household.
  Question put, and agreed to.

PRESENTATION OF BILL.
  MORALITY BILL.
  "To make further provision for the protection of women and girls, for the suppression of immoral and indecent literature, etc., and otherwise for the prevention of immorality and indecency, and to amend the Law relating to certain crimes, and for other purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. King. (To be read a second time upon Friday, 1st July.)

PARLIAMENTAEY FRANCHISE (WOMEN).
Mr. SHACKLETON: I beg to move for leave to bring in a Bill to extend the Parliamentary franchise to women occupiers.
First of all, I speak this afternoon as representing, not a Committee of this House in the ordinary official sense, but an unofficial Committee representing every section in this House. This Bill, for the introduction of which it is my privilege to ask leave, is looked upon, rightly or wrongly, as intended to conciliate all those who hold different views with regard to the enfranchisement of women for the Parliamentary vote. So far as I can gather from the correspondence I have received from all sections, who urge that all that should proceed, I believe that this Bill satisfies them for the moment. They agree that as far as it goes this measure gives them a first start as electors in the representation of Parliamentary divisions. It is in that sense I ask leave to introduce it. I do not for a moment say that I think the Bill satisfies what I think ought to

1203
be done. Personally, I believe in a far more advanced Bill than this, but it has been one of my ideas throughout my life, not only in the political, but in the industrial world, to get in the thin end of the wedge. I have generally found that to be the most successful way of achieving my object. And it is because I find that this is the only objection to the present Bill that I am so much in favour of it. I think the House will realise, when they calmly consider the question of the claim put forward by women, that this is the minimum, and that, they have striven long and arduously to achieve representation. If they will only think for a moment of the number of women who are employed in factories, I believe they will realise that, if Parliamentary representation be granted to them, a beneficial change will come over the factory and workshop life of the country as the outcome of their direct influence over the legislation of this House.
In all the walks of life the responsibilities of women have increased tremendously. The Education Act of 18v0 gave to women, as to men, the same opportunities, and they have a right to claim that the education which they have received shall be followed by giving them the chance to make the best use of it by granting them representation in this House. I have had some little experience of women workers in various walks in life. In dealing with factory legislation and with the sweated workers in this country no class of the community worked harder than women. For years they have taken part in the local government of the country, and who is there who will point a finger against them in regard to their work as members of boards of guardians? Their work in connection with those bodies has been indispensable to the community. Without them our boards of guardians would have been unsympathetic; without their presence the treatment of women and children in the workhouses might not have been what it now is had men alone been appointed guardians. Their presence, too, in our education authorities has been useful in our educational system, especially in connection with elementary education. Their representation has been extended to the county and borough councils, and we have shown confidence in women by repeated additions to their work. Following on all
1204
this women naturally recognise that they have a right to come in and take their part as citizens in the full sense of the term. The object of this Bill is to make it possible that women who to-day are voting in our municipal elections shall have the right to take part in our Parliamentary elections. When we remember that they have had this power for municipal purposes so long, and have used it wisely and well, surely this House need not fear to take the step of enfranchising for Parliamentary purposes the women of the country. It appears to me that this is the first step. It is a step I have advised many years ago. It is a case that cannot be repudiated, because the fact that they have used the power wisely all these years with regard to municipal government proves that they are entitled to have the extended power which the Parliamentary vote would give them.
There is only one other point I desire to make, and that is with regard to the question of opportunity. We are at the present moment living in a sort of truce on the great constitutional question, and surely, this House might well be occupied in giving a few hours' consideration to this Bill. I am assuming that the feeling of this House is the same as that of the last one; and the same as that of every House of Commons for many years back. Since 1902, every Bill presented in this House on this subject has received the approval of a majority of the House. So far as I know, the present House is of that opinion. I hope, if this House does give a First Beading to this Bill, that we may be able to persuade the Government to give us a fair opportunity, during the lull on the constitutional question, to spend a little of that time in order to give full effect to this Bill. I believe that the women are entitled to this small measure, to exercise the tender persuasion during Parliamentary elections which the vote gives them. Every Member of this House realises that the power of the vote behind a deputation is something to all Parliamentary candidates; and if they are receiving a deputation of women, then women should have the power to persuade, not only by argument, but the power also to give effect to their influence with the ballot-box. The women are entitled to that. By it their power in the State will be increased, and rightly so. I feel that this is a modest demand, and I have full confidence that the House will give me the opportunity of introducing this Bill.
Mr. F. E. SMITH: The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shackleton) is a persuasive and moderate advocate of every cause to which he gives his Parliamentary support, and it is certainly no part of my purpose, in the very short time for which I shall ask the indulgence of the House, to depart in any way from the example of moderation and good feeling which he has set me. I think I may be permitted to point out that the preface of his speech was not convincing to those who have not hitherto been able to persuade themselves with regard to this subject. He told us in the few sentences which he addressed to the House, that the proposals contained in the present Bill conciliate all those who support the cause of women's suffrage. That statement would have been a little more impressive if he had not qualified it in two or three sentences afterwards by giving the reason which enabled those who support this Bill to unite all those who are in favour of female suffrage. He was so good as to leave us in no doubt whatever as to the conciliating element in the present Bill. He told us it satisfied them for the moment, that it gave them the first start, and he told us also that the Bill did not satisfy him, but that he supported it because it was the insinuation of the thin end of the wedge. We cannot be too grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the frankness with which he has informed those of us who are not in favour of female suffrage of the motives underlying this unity. It does not mean that any real difference of substance has been composed, but it merely means that all the different sections have united in order to capture the first redoubt, because they know that the assault on the later and ultimate redoubts will be easier if they capture this. We understand exactly, then, the value of the compromise which has been put forward, as if it represented some concession in regard to the real case.
I do not propose in the few moments at my disposal to examine either the principles or the details of the question of female suffrage. I rise in order to caution the hon. Member and those of his friends who share his sanguineness of the futility of hoping in this House, elected under the circumstances which to the knowledge of all of us marked the creation of this House of Commons, by a few hours' discussion to discuss and dismiss this highly controversial question, dividing the whole country, and dividing the House of Commons on lines of cleavage, which are not party
1206
lines of cleavage. What was the language the hon. Gentleman used. He said:
"Surely we may have in the truce under which we are happily living u few hours consideration for thin Bill."
A few hours when a few months would be inadequate. I may venture to say that no one who has ventured to consider the long, tedious, and painful processes by which fundamental reforms in the franchise have been effected in this country will say that I am using language of exaggeration when I say that it would take months to make effective legislation which would introduce this prodigious upheaval in our representative institutions. Surely when the hon. Gentleman throws out the suggestion, all the more menacing because of the plausibility and moderation of the language, that the Government should give facilities in order that this matter should be discussed, one may be entitled to point out that the Government to which the appeal is addressed to give exceptional facilities for introducing a highly controversial proposal, is by no means unanimous in its favour. I carefully watched, if I may say so, the countenance of the First Commissioner of Works when the seductive and persuasive appeal was being made to the Government to grant facilities, and I failed to discern the slightest symptom of enthusiasm. I then take the case of the Attorney-General, who has frequently publicly declared his strongest antagonism to the proposals the hon. Member commends to the attention of the House and to the favourable consideration of the Government.
It would be wrong of me to take further advantage of the indulgence of the House beyond saying in the plainest and most explicit language, speaking on behalf of myself and on behalf of those of my Friends on this side of the House who share my views, and I am not entitled to speak on behalf of hon. Gentlemen opposite—I can only say we shall offer to these proposals, now or at any time, the most implacable resistance which the Rules of Parliament permit In whatever other circumstances the Government may lend consideration to the appeal of the hon. Member, having heard the humble warning which I, on behalf of my Friends, address to them, they will not, at least, respond favourably to the appeal under any impression that the Bill is not to be disputed and most seriously contested throughout.
Question, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to extend the Parliamentary Franchise to Women occupiers" put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Shackleton, Mr. Arbuthnot, Mr. Burt, Sir Thomas Esmonde, Mr. Harmood-Banner, Mr. Henniker Heaton, Mr. Hugh Law, Mr. Leverton Harris, Sir Charles M'Laren, Sir Albert Spicer, Mr. Philip Snowden, and Sir George White.

PARLIAMENTAEY FRANCHISE (WOMEN).

  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE (WOMEN) BILL.
  "To extend the Parliamentary Franchise to Women occupiers," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next.
  4.0 p.m.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: On a point of Order. May I inquire whether the hon. Member for the Walton Division at Liverpool (Mr. F. E. Smith) was in order in opposing this Bill unless he intended to carry his opposition to a Division; and whether Mr. Speaker himself has not indicated that it is not in accordance with the spirit of the Standing Order that an hon. Member should speak in opposition to a Bill under the Ten Minutes' Rule unless he intended to carry his opposition to a Division?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No. I have often heard it done before. Sometimes an hon. Member, in rising to oppose a Bill, says that he does not intend to divide the House upon it, although he intends to oppose it at a later stage. It is not out of order to oppose a Bill by speech, although that speech is not backed up by dividing the House.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: May I say, in order to put myself right with the House, that when I rose to speak it was my intention to challenge a Division? I did in the first instance challenge a Division, but, realising that the sense of the House—which I believe, rightly or wrongly, was not entirely on the merits of the proposal, but merely on the question that the Bill should be read a first time—was against me, and believing that that was the view of the House as a whole, I desisted from the intention which I originally had.
  Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was in any way intimidated?

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. WHITLEY) in the Chair.

  (IN THE COMMITTEE.)
  Clauses 1, 2, and 3 agreed to.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to move to insert the following:—

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Sums to be issued and applied only to specific purposes already voted; penalty for issue or application otherwise.)
  "No part of the said sums authorised to be issued and applied as aforesaid shall be issued or applied to any use, intent, or purpose whatsoever other than the respective uses, intents, and purposes specified in such Votes granting the supply to His Majesty as aforesaid, as shall then have been voted by the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in this present Parliament assembled, and any person who issues or applies or is privy to the issue or application of any sum whatever to any other use, intent, or purpose shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and shall in addition forfeit any office he holds under the Crown or in the public service, and shall be a debtor to the Crown for the sum so issued,"
  In rising to move this Clause I hope I may disclaim any desire to embarrass either the permanent officials or His Majesty's Government. I hope I shall show the House before I have done that the insertion of such a Clause is necessary. No part of the Clause is new except the penalty. From all time up to the year 1870 both in Consolidated Fund Bills and in the Consolidated Fund Bill known as the Appropriation Act, which is only an enlarged Consolidated Fund Bill, there had been Clauses prohibiting the issue of public money for any other purposes than those for which it had been voted. The course of our finance is this. His Majesty the King asks for Supply. It has been said occasionally that the Lords cannot initiate Supply, while the Commons can. But the Commons cannot initiate Supply any more than the Lords. The only initiator of Supply is His Majesty the King. It must be made by a demand from himself, no doubt through the mouth of His Ministers. The Commons grant Supply in Committee of Supply, and then comes Committee of Ways and Means. When the money is provided, the settled rule of our finance,

  1209
  established by the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1866, is that every penny should go into the Exchequer. As a matter of fact, every penny does not go into the Exchequer, but that is for another reason. That is another story to which I may, perhaps, refer at another time. The major part does go. There are an infinity of specific clauses in Acts of Parliament with regard to the collection of taxes. Beyond those there stand the courts of law who construe Acts of Parliament, and they constantly discover that the Inland Revenue and other tax collectors have made the grossest mistakes in their notions of the taxes which they may collect. I need hardly refer to the Duke of Richmond case, in which the Inland Revenue thought they were entitled to levy duty on £1,000,000, and it was discovered they were entitled to levy on only £300,000. I bring that in in aid only to show that even the highest and ablest permanent officials are not absolutely perfect. Even they require some restraint upon their tax-collecting ardour. But that is not the ardour I propose to restrain now. My proposal deals with their issuing ardour.
  As the Exchequer can only be filled by Acts of Parliament, so the money once got there can only be extracted from the Exchequer by Acts of Parliament, and the Exchequer can only be emptied of those specific sums already applied to specific purposes by votes of this House. In this instance the Bill proposes a general issue for the Civil Services. If I may use a homely simile, when the money has been collected it is put into the till, in separate parcels, each labelled with the specific purpose to which alone it can be applied. If I may pursue my homely simile, lam bound to say that the Treasury has been robbing the till. The seriousness of the matter will be appreciated if the House remembers what the Treasury is. The First Lord of the Treasury is the Prime Minister; the Second Lord is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Treasury is the culprit on this occasion. These eminent persons—I say it in a purely Parliamentary sense—have conspired together to rob the till of the Exchequer. They did it first secretly, quietly, in the back parlours of the Treasury in Whitehall, by the dark lantern method, and but for that excellent and admirable body, the Public Accounts Committee, it is probable that the secret of their misdoings would never have been
  1210
  discovered. But the Public Accounts Committee, not for the first time, found them out, and revealed in its Report the fact that a sum of £4,417 11s. 9d. had been improperly applied out of Post Office funds to the payment of old age pensions. My belief is that the misapplication of this issue really amounts to £69,000, but I recognise that there was a sum of £64,000 available under the Civil Contingencies Fund, which it was in the power of the Treasury to issue for this purpose. I do not apply my simile of robbing the till to the whole of the £69,000, although I think strictly I might. I apply it only to the £4,417 11s. 9d. This discovery was made, and when I confronted the Secretary to the Treasury with it last night he positively had the assurance to justify it. He allowed that it was illegal, but he said it was highly desirable that so illegal an act should have been done. Let the House fix its eyes on the culprit. He admits that he has broken the law, but, insteal of being ashamed of it, he glories in it. Two offences were committed. The first was an offence against the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1866, which ordains that the Post Office should pay the whole of its gross revenue into the Exchequer. That was not done. Instead of paying its gross revenue into the Exchequer, the Post Office paid £4,417 11s. 9d. into the pocket of old age pensions. The second offence—and this is the one with which I am more particularly concerned—was that the Post Office authorities, with the sanction of the Treasury—I am not sure that it was not by direction of the Treasury, but I do not think that that lessens the crime—issued this £4,417 11s. 9d. not only without lawful authority, but absolutely and positively against the law. My right hon. Friend pleads his good intentions. I acknowledge his good intentions, but the matter is not to be disposed of in that way, and if it continues it may not-be long before His Majesty's Government find themselves in that place which it is stated is paved with good intentions. What I should fear would be that possibly there it will be too late to learn wisdom. It is because of this that I venture to intervene in the interests of financial propriety. I think the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues of the Treasury must have been studying the Jesuit casuistry of Escobar and Suarez. Their doctrine was that if you see anyone determined to rob a poor man, it is lawful to turn him from his purpose by pointing out

  1211
  a rich man that he can rob instead. That is the attitude of the Treasury on this occasion. The right hon. Gentleman said: "Here is a poor old age pensioner; we desire to help him; if I am not to provide an old age pension which I have no power to provide under the law, I shall be robbing him. I will rob the Exchequer instead." That is what the Government did. Not only did they do so, but they proceed to justify their action. Let the House remember that this is the very same Treasury which authorises criminal prosecutions. Let the House, remember that if a humble man like myself robbed a Rothschild of a crown, or even half a Rothschild of half a crown, I should be prosecuted by the Treasury, and very shortly should make the acquaintance of a plank bed. I see no prospect of that before either the right hon. Gentleman or any of his Treasury colleagues. They continue to keep their eiderdown pillows, and come the next morning to this House and justify their wickedness.
  Let me give a short history of this matter. Our ancestors were well aware that they might conceivably be at the Treasury at the time Gentlemen professing the opinions of Escobar and Suarez, of Robin Hood, and of Rob Roy. They were conscious that officials might be found there capable of issuing moneys improperly and for purposes not voted by the House of Commons. Consequently they took precautions. From the earliest times that I have been able to investigate—I admit I have not gone beyond the beginning of the nineteenth century—I think that suffices—from the beginning certainly of the nineteenth century down to 1870 there was in every Consolidated Fund Bill a clause which provided:—
  "That the Treasury might issue—"
  And consequently that they might not otherwise issue—
  "moneys for such purposes as shall then—"
  Then—
  "have been voted by the Commons of the United Kingdom."
  Part of the right hon. Gentleman's case is that although these moneys had not yet been voted it was presumed that Parliament would vote them at some future time. That is no excuse at all. It scarcely amounts to the dignity and character of an evasion. It is neither an answer nor a reason. Then I find in every
  1212
  Appropriation Act up to 1870 there was—I take the '66 Act because that is the last form of it—this Clause:—
  "The said Aid and Supply provided in the aforesaid shall not be issued or applied I to any use, intent, or purpose whatsoever other than the uses, intents, and purposes before mentioned, or specified, in the several Schedules referred to in this Act."
  The House will notice that that is a specific prohibition. No issue was to be made except for the proper purpose. That prohibition remained, as I have said, in every Appropriation Act, and there was a corresponding prohibition in the Consolidated Fund Act up to 1870. In 1870, for the first time, these most necessary and proper clauses were omitted. No reasons that I can ascertain from "Hansard" were assigned for this. No reason was assigned for the omission except this, that Mr. Stansfield, an eminent gentleman, and Secretary of the Treasury, I believe, said. "That these Clauses were omitted in order to simplify matters." No doubt they did simplify matters. They made things very much more convenient for persons who desired improperly to issue public moneys, but they were a very great and serious injury to the financial securities and the financial proprieties of our system. If the right hon. Gentleman has done me the honour to follow me so far he will see that the Clause I propose does nothing more than restore the former practice; indeed, in the former words, with only this addition: That, having found by bitter experience that a mere empty prohibition is not sufficient, I venture to ask the House to add the prohibition of a penalty. That penalty is found in the last six words of my Clause. All the rest is old; that is, new. And even the penalty is not entirely my own invention. It is taken from the Appropriation Act. Every Appropriation Act makes certain offences against financial propriety a misdemeanour. Out of respect for tradition I have kept to the word "misdemeanour," although, if it would please the right hon. Gentleman, and induce him to accept this most necessary Clause, I will omit the word "misdemeanour" so long as I am allowed to retain some penalty, to terrorise misdoing officials.
  The right hon. Gentleman tells me that even if I get this Clause passed it will not make any difference. So audacious is he, I may say so presumptuous, that he says that if you pass this Clause absolutely

  1213
  prohibiting the wrongful issue of money, it I will make no difference. I think it will make a difference—with my penalty. I think that not only will it make a very serious difference in the power to punish I any offender, but it will act as a bogey against offenders. If the right hon. Gentleman suggested to anybody, or anybody suggested to him, the improper issue of money, in face of this penalty, the prospect of losing his employment, and of becoming a debtor to the Crown, I think would undoubtedly make that person; either hesitate to break the law or sanction it. The Bill is a Bill for the issue of the sums mentioned for making good the Supplies granted in Committee of Supply. My Amendment applies to these sums, and no other. Let me remind the House of two things. In the first place, the ease with which the Treasury is filled has enormously increased; up to the year 1662 any Grant made by this House was an annual Grant. There was no such thing as any Grant that lasted more than for one year. Up till recent times the majority of Grants were annual only. It was only the small portion that was permanent. The thing is now wholly changed. So large is the amount that is permanently granted by permanent Acts of Parliament that there are more than £100,000,000 of money annually at the disposal of any Government without any Act of Parliament, without any intervention of any House of Commons, without any Bill, Budget, or anything of the sort. You have got that £100,000,000 constantly flowing into your Treasury, instead of having to renew either the whole or a greater part of it by an annual Vote. That, I venture to think, adds very seriously to the need of a check on the issue of all moneys. Formerly when money only came in in driblets, and was only disposed of by annual Votes, one might perhaps be careless as to the issue, as Parliament could always stop the supply. Now that there is a permanent flow of over £100,000,000 to any Government that sits upon those Benches, I submit it becomes increasingly important to guard the issues, in a proper and lawful way. It is impossible to forget that our taxes will probably vastly increase. The income is also increasing. Parsimony and thrift seem to have disappeared, and nobody: seems to care.
  "Poor pale Economy is out of date,
  And honest Penury dare not show her face."
  That is Dryden slightly altered. All these old virtues have gone, possibly
  1214
  never to return. But, at any rate, let us put a lock upon the till, and fit a key. The lock, I submit, would be the new Clause that I propose, and the key the penalty which forms part of the Amendment. This really is a most serious matter. Public officers, temporary or permanent, have acquired an increased power nowadays such as never before was known. We are governed now mainly not by Act of Parliament, but by Provisional Orders. Orders in Council, and ordinances of that sort, made outside of this House, without this House having the slightest control over them, except a shadowy and pretended control, that these ordinances, shall lie upon the Table to give an opportunity to call attention to them on a certain day—which you can never get! The Government is passing into the hands of permanent officials, and it is therefore of the highest importance, it seems to me, that at any rate in their official doings they should be checked by some such Clause as I propose to restore. For again I remind the House that what I propose is not new. I say again that it is most important to put a check upon the permanent officials.
  I have endeavoured to conceive the kind of answer the Government or the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury will make to my proposal. The only answer I can imagine is the cynical answer that the right hon. Gentleman is determined to go on breaking the law, and that it is for the public benefit that he should do so. I cannot accept that situation or decision. I have endeavoured to make my remarks as brief as possible, but I do submit that I have made out an unanswerable case for the new Clause that I propose to insert. If there was wanted an absolutely final clinching of the argument for this Amendment it lies in the fact that the right hon. Gentleman himself is positively not ashamed to come to this House and boldly, audaciously, and wickedly justify the unlawful action which he admits has been committed. I beg to move.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): My hon. Friend, in moving the insertion of this Clause, is, I think, to be congratulated in the first place because he is the only Member of this House, so far as I know, who has, on two separate occasions, found an opportunity by his ingenuity to evade the ruling of successive Chairmen of Committees, and move an Amendment to the Consolidated Fund Act.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: It was also done by the hon. Gentleman's son.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Well, where the son did not succeed the father has been successful. My hon. Friend has very good-humouredly charged me with being too willing to break the law. I confess that, as the hon. Member says, I stand here quite unabashed by the crimes that have been committed. I confess that I have some sympathy with the hon. Member in his effort to draw attention to what, of course, is a grave departure from the ordinary financial procedure of this House, but I am not asking for any great extenuation of the action of the Treasury. I must ask the House to take its mind back to the circumstances in which these acts were committed. The Old Age Pensions Act came into force on 1st January, 1909. The amount of weekly payments estimated as likely to accrue was about £125,000. The payment for the first week was, I think, as a matter of fact, £120,000, the payment for the third week had got up to £137,000, and by the time that 20th February came round I think it amounted to something nearer £150,000 per week. It was impossible to foresee how many people would be likely to draw pensions, and the number in the case of Ireland had largely exceeded the reasonable expectations of the Treasury in this matter. The House of Commons was summoned to meet on 16th February. It was not until February that any actual shortage in the cash available to pay these pensions was discovered. As I think every Member of the House is aware, it is impossible during the Debate on the Address to interrupt the proceedings for any purpose whatever. It was not, therefore, until the Address was concluded, which occurred on 25th February, that it was possible to take Supply.
  Although it was found on 19th February that there would probably be a shortage, that shortage did not, in fact, take place until some time after, on the 26th or the 27th of the month, I think, when, what I may call, stragglers from previous weeks' payments, made up of money orders, came in. That was on Friday or Saturday, and on the Monday following, the first possible Parliamentary day on which it could be done, Supply was proceeded with. That was on Monday, 1st March, and on the 2nd Report stage was taken, and the payments made by the Treasury became regular ones. That is the financial position, and therefore it was only for a period
  1216
  of two days and in connection with a sum of something like £4,000 that this—and I deliberately use the word—financial impropriety took place. It was impossible to have foreseen the shortage, and the action of the Government was to remedy the financial position created at the earliest possible moment. My hon. Friend wants to prevent a recurrence of such an event as this, which occurred on only two occasions in times past. I think we must go back to the year 1882 or 1883 for a similar occurrence.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: It is not only this special case I had in my mind, but scores of cases that have come before me.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I confess I am not aware of any other than those that are covered by the utilisation of the Civil Contingency Grant. There were six or seven such cases, and it was to meet these that the fund was instituted; but to get a similar case to this you must go back to 1882 or 1883. Therefore, the occasions when it is practically necessary, unless you are prepared to bring to a full-stop the payments authorised by Parliament, to do something of this sort are very rare. The question is whether the Amendment pro-proposed by my hon. Friend would not really in itself be a greater evil than the evil which it is designed to stop, and, in the second place, whether the words he proposes would really carry out the object he has in view. I contend that it is very much better to stand here in a white sheet, if necessary, to confess one's error, and to put the whole facts before the House, and to get an Act of Indemnity for this financial operation which has taken place than it would be to suspend the whole of the service which has been authorised by Parliament for something which it was impossible to foresee.
  The words my hon. Friend proposes to insert are, "No part of the said sum authorised to be issued and applied as aforesaid, shall be issued or applied to any use, intent or purpose whatsoever other than the respective uses, intents and purposes specified in such Votes granting the Supply to His Majesty as aforesaid, and shall then have been voted by the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." That is the first part of his Amendment. That might possibly cover the payment of any sum out of money which had already accrued to the Exchequer, but as the hon. Gentleman will see when he studies the evidence before

  1217
  the Public Accounts Committee, this payment was not out of moneys which had already accrued to the Exchequer, but out of revenue allocated, and therefore the words he suggests would not cover or remedy the case with which we are dealing. Then the second part of his Amendment would lay a penalty upon any person going behind the Act, but apparently he intends that the felony should operate rather against Civil servants than against Parliamentary Ministers.
  The House has already power over Ministers who commit illegal action or undesirable action, and therefore the penalty which my hon. Friend desires to impose upon officials, so far as Parliamentary officials are concerned, is already met by the constitutional practice of this House. As regards the permanent Civil servants, I think my hon. Friend will agree the constitutional practice which enforces the obedience of the Civil servants to his Parliamentary chief, and lays the responsibility for any action upon the Parliamentary chief, and punishes his misdeeds by Parliamentary dismissal, would be very greatly infringed by any Act which would give a reason to the Civil servant to dispute the orders of his Parliamentary chief. I think it might lead to very serious friction in the ordinary business of the nation between the two sets of officials, and it would far more decrease the influence and the responsibility to Parliament for the action undertaken by Members of this House, than it would increase any power of this House.
  If my hon. Friend will look at the Public Accounts and Charges Act, 1895, 2nd Sub-section, he will see that either his Amendment is in conflict with that Sub-section of this most valuable and important Act, or if it is not in conflict, the words he desires to insert are redundant words, because all the powers which he desires to put into this Section for the restriction of any acts of any person connected with the Treasury are at present covered by the words of the Act to which I have referred. Therefore his words are either in conflict with existing legislation or they are merely redundant. I think I have now dealt with all the points raised by my hon. Friend. I do not think he would be placing on the Treasury any greater restriction than is laid upon them at the present moment, and for the reasons I have endeavoured to present to the House, I trust the House will refuse to accept this Amendment.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman does not, I think, quite appreciate the Penalty Clause. It is not as explained by the right hon. Gentleman. He says that the House has power of dismissing any Minister who does something that he ought not to do. I do not quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman, because the party will always back up a Minister against the House, and therefore the dismissal really is in the hands of the party. The proposal of the hon. Member (Mr. Gibson Bowles) says if any person does so-and-so, he shall be guilty of the misdemeanour, and shall, in addition, forfeit any office he holds under the Crown, and if the hon. Member will only make that retrospective I should vote with him with far greater pleasure than I shall do now. The effect of the Amendment would be an extremely good one. The only reason that the right hon. Gentleman has given for his opposition to the Amendment is this—and it is a repetition of the defence he made yesterday—that what was done was done with a good object and a good intention. I believe that the financial arrangements of all parties are made with a good object and intent, but unless something of this sort is put into the Bill there is a temptation to Governments to make incorrect estimates and then avail themselves of the power which has been availed of by the right hon. Gentleman and come here and say, "We have done something which is wrong, but we have done it with a good object." Their excuse will be that they consider that it is an excellent object. The right hon. Gentleman said this money had been spent upon old age pensions. The result will be that anything which is a good object to attain will be sufficient excuse for breaking the custom which has always obtained at the Treasury.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I coupled with that statement the proviso that anything of that sort should be rectified by Parliament as early as possible.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Yesterday the Secretary to the Treasury had the effrontery to unblushingly admit what he had done and claimed that he had done right. Today he winds up his remarks by saying that he is standing in a white sheet. I do not know whether it occurred to him that it would be a little wiser to take up rather a humbler attitude. It became clear that on 19th February a shortage was likely to

  1219
  occur, and on 27th a shortage did occur, and the right hon. Gentleman says:—
  "That is not our fault, because the House did not meet until 15th February, the Address could not be interrupted, and we could not do anything until 10th March."
  Why did the Government not call Parliament together before 16th February? All these sort of things ought not to have become clear on 26th February, but long before, and it is because I believe that unless some Amendment of this sort is adopted this kind of thing will not become clear in the future that I think the proposal of my hon. Friend is necessary. The other justification of the right hon. Gentleman was that the original estimate was £120,000, and it rose to £150,000. Personally I think that is a very bad estimate. I am speaking now of all Governments, and I say that if the officials think they can get out of their difficulty by making a bad estimate, and taking money belonging to one department and handing it over to another, and then standing in a white sheet declaring, "We have made a mistake, and we will not do it again until the next time." If that is to be allowed, there is no way of stopping the diversion of money from one Vote to another. This sort of thing grows. I told the President of the Local Government Board the other day that he was desirous of emulating Julius Cæsar, and that is the hope of the head of every department, for he desires lo become an emperor in his own sphere.
  Mr. BURNS Mr. BURNS dissented.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I suppose he is a little modest for the moment; but what I have stated is the desire of all heads of departments. As I read the new clause proposed by the hon. Member opposite, it would be possible for the Treasury to sanction the transfer of sums from the Army to the Navy.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: This proposal concerns only the Civil Service. In the case of the Army or the Navy, you would have the same security and the same provision in the Appropriation Act when it comes as you have now. That really legalises what may have been done under Clause 4, and this would not affect it. When, as I intend to do, I introduce a corresponding clause to this in the Appropriation Bill, I shall insert, "Save as provided by Clause 4."
  Sir F. BANBURY: The Secretary to the Treasury said this sort of thing had been done in 1882 or 1883, but it is rather curious that where something of this sort is wrong, the right hon. Gentleman has to go back to another Liberal Government. This sort of thing happens when Liberal Governments are in power, and this fact induces me to support the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite. I do not want to make it too easy for my own side on the Front Bench or for any other Front Bench to spend money recklessly, which all parties are inclined to do.
  Mr. LOUGH: I may say that I have not been convinced by the hon. Member for King's Lynn as to the merits of this clause, but I was so shocked by the defence made by my right hon. Friend that I have been converted to its merits. I think anyone who looks at the Bill will admit that the clause proposed by my hon. Friend is desirable. The desire of the Mover of this Amendment is to insert a provision to protect the taxpayer. I admit the difficulties put forward by my right hon. Friend, but what has he given us in defence of the course which has been taken? Simply an elaborate series of excuses about one trifling mistake, and that is the particular case of £4,000 with regard to old age pensions. My right hon. Friend does not see that this is only an illustration of a great principle, and that we are struggling for that principle. We are not to be laid aside by the right hon. Gentleman saying he is willing to come down to this House and stand in a white sheet. Let me repeat one phrase used by my right hon. Friend, and it is one of the most shocking I have ever heard from a Minister. The right hon. Gentleman said it would be inconvenient for Ministers not to be allowed to tell their subordinates to break the law.
  Mr HOBHOUSE Mr HOBHOUSE dissented.
  Mr. LOUGH: But the whole argument of the right hon. Gentleman was that it is convenient for Ministers to use their autocratic powers, and tell the unfortunate people in their Departments to obey them to the extent of breaking the law. I say that is a bad argument, and it is not a sound one. I think very often the officials know the law better than the Ministers, and they point out the difficulties they would get into if an illegal step is taken. The only argument used against this proposal is that it is badly drawn. How can

  1221
  the right hon. Gentleman expect the hon. Member for King's Lynn to draw up a clause properly, because he has not a Government draftsman at his disposal?
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: The words contained in this Clause have been adopted from time immemorial. The only part which is my venture is the penalty.
  Mr. LOUGH: I know if anybody could draw up a clause it is the hon. Member for King's Lynn, but if this Clause is wrong my hon. Friend is not tied to these particular words, and I am sure he is prepared to accept an Amendment. We want the principle to be accepted, and I think I the right hon. Gentleman ought to be willing to accept a clause which will afford I this protection. I will support any necessary alteration of the words submitted which the right hon. Gentleman thinks is necessary, and if he will agree to this course it will save us from differing from him upon this question. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to recognise the principle involved in the Clause.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I desire to say a few words in support of the Amendment of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, and I wish to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the inference he has drawn from the Public Accounts and Charges Act is one which can really be sustained? The objection taken by the hon. Member for King's Lynn was that money should not be diverted in the way it has been diverted, and this Clause is intended to prevent that taking place in the future. The Public Accounts and Charges Act was never intended to authorise the diversion of money at all. Its whole object was merely to prevent this money being paid into the Exchequer, and so appearing in the accounts twice over.
  5.0 P.M.
  The legitimate inference is not so much that this Amendment should be refused because it is at all in conflict with the Public Accounts and Charges Act, but rather that the Public Accounts and Charges Act itself should have its scope diminished and restricted so as not to allow the loophole which it at present gives for the payment of money without authorisation by this House.
  The only other point I would wish to make is that this Amendment should be supported not only because of particular cases which have been brought under the
  1222
  review of the House by the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Gibson Bowles), but also because those cases are really somewhat symptomatic of various small irregularities which have taken place this Session and which took place last year. There has been a certain irregularity with regard to teachers' bonuses under the first Vote an Account. Having no direct proof, I would not like to say there have been cases of the manipulation of finance by not exactly postponing payments, but by rather insisting upon extra tests being applied under Government contracts so that the money on Vote 1 for the Navy should be eked out for rather longer than naturally would be so. There has also been a certain amount of irregularity by the Admiralty pressing for accounts to be sent in for last year's Budget in order that the amount might be swollen, and I believe that hon. Members opposite might be induced to vote an extra sum than they would otherwise be inclined to do. This irregularity which has been mentioned by the hon. Member for King's Lynn does not stand by itself, and the object of my support of this Clause is really to show that some stricter conduct should be observed with regard to the control of finances by this House.
  If there ever was an occasion when the spending Departments, and especially the Treasury, should, like Cæsar's wife, be above suspicion, it seems to me just this precise minute. This irregularity which this Amendment is devised to meet occurred at precisely the time when it was being loudly claimed that this House should have sole control over the finances of the Kingdom. Surely it is just at such a time that those who have the control of the finances should be most strict in their conduct of them. These irregularities, together with others, have taken place just at this juncture of events. They not only affect the House which is to have the control of the finances, but also the question whether this House is really itself to be able to know exactly what is going on; and, if this is allowed to pass without an Amendment of this kind or without some vindication of the principle, it can only mean the multiplication of these irregularities in the future. For my own part, I feel just a little inclined to congratulate the Secretary to the Treasury. He appears to me to be like one of the rather celebrated Italians of the Renaissance, Fra Lippo Lippi. He uses the great protestation for virtue which the Government

  1223
  have made with regard to their financial procedure in the same way in which that painter did the tonsure—the rather better to indulge in certain peccadilloes without public attention being attracted to them. But at this precise minute, when this House is to have sole control of the finances, it does seem rather more necessary that at least the claim of the House should be vindicated and that all matters concerning the finances of the country should be brought before it.
  Mr. J. D. REES: I should like to refer to one point made by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F. Banbury). Referring to one of the excuses of the right hon. Gentleman's, he said that there was no reason why the House should not have met before 16th February. I submit there is every reason, and it is the limitation of human strength and endurance. Everybody is not like the hon. Baronet. Everybody has not his indefatigable zeal and gigantic strength. I think the House meets early enough, and sits long enough to despatch the public business. To-day I asked a question of the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies which seems to me really very pertinent to the point raised by the hon. Member for King's Lynn. I asked whether a railway is being constructed from Jinga to Kakindah on the Victoria Nile.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. J. H. Whitley): I do not see how that arises on this new Clause.
  Mr. REES: In proposing this new Clause my hon. Friend referred to a series of iniquities to be charged to the right hon. Gentleman. I am not going to charge him with another iniquity. I asked how this railway is to be financed. The right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies said the amount necessary for the construction will be advanced as a loan from Imperial Funds. I respectfully submit that to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is the authority who decides to what railway money should be granted and to what railway money should not be granted would be in order?.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member must wait till to-morrow. It might be in order on the Third Reading. It is certainly not in order on this new Clause.
  Mr. W. P. BYLES: I cannot claim to be a financial authority, but only a common and garden Member of the House, who mainly looks on its proceedings. I have been impressed for many years by the over-readiness with which the House votes away public money, and by the equally careless manner in which the House appears to watch the money after it has been voted and raised. My hon. Friend, as I understand, only desires to secure that the money which the House votes shall be devoted to the purpose for which the House votes it, and the only defence, as far as I have been able to gather, that has been offered is that there are times when it becomes necessary to depart from that rule, and when, at any rate, it is a great convenience to Ministers.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Not a convenience to Ministers, certainly not. My plea was that it might be of vital importance to the recipients.
  Mr. BYLES: My right hon. Friend says that when money has been voted to A, it is very convenient when B is short of his money he should be able to take it instead of A. That appears to me to be the line of defence he has assumed. I do not think it is a good defence, and in the interests of greater strictness in the disposal of moneys which are voted by Parliament, I propose to join my hon. Friend in the Division Lobby.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I only wish to clear up one point. My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. I daresay it is my fault for not making the point clear. What I meant to say was that cases may arise—I can only trace two or three in twenty-five or thirty years—in which the intentions of Parliament are clear that certain payments should be made and where the funds provided by Parliament are in the aggregate sufficient, but where it is impossible under ordinary circumstances to issue money from the Exchequer to make any payment. The cash is really available, but it is impossible for the moment to turn the key and get the money out of the Exchequer. That is the only case in which I ventured to represent to the House that it was better to make a slight, a very temporary, and a fleeting infraction of the law than to put a stop to the whole machinery of payments and disbursements. With regard

  1225
  to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough), the real protection of Parliament is not in any way added to by the words of the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Gibson Bowles). The real protection is the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1866, and the words of the hon. Member for King's Lynn do not add in one single particular to the protection of Parliament in this matter. The protection afforded by the Exchequer and Audit Act still remains the same, neither diminished nor increased by the proposed Amendment. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington were to compare the words contained in the Amendment and those in the Act, he would see no extra protection is afforded by the amending words, and that the protection afforded by the existing Act is really sufficient.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to my hon. Friend, said the money had been voted. That is not the fact; it has not been voted. I quoted from the Public Accounts Committee, in which they say on 28th February that the expenditure on old age pensions amounted to £1,269,000, being £69,531 in excess of the sum at that time voted by Parliament. How can you say the sum was voted by Parliament?
  Mr. HOBHOUSEmade a remark which was inaudible in the Press Gallery.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman admits that is an error. Let me call attention to another error. It is not this relatively trumpery case of £4,000 to which I call attention. Had I chosen I could have cited twenty
  cases drawn from my experience on the Public Accounts Committee. It is a great principle that I am affirming. It is a great principle that was formerly affirmed by every Consolidated Fund Act and every Appropriation Act. It has unfortunately been allowed to drop out for convenience. This accursed word was used as though we were to be the slaves of convenience and as though the law were to be made a convenience for permanent and temporary officials. It is in order to affirm a very great and necessary principle that I have moved this new Clause.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The statement made by the, hon. Member for Salford was absolutely correct. The only defence really made was that it was for the convenience of someone. I admit the right hon. Gentleman did not say it was for the convenience of Ministers, but the fact is it was for the convenience of a Department presided over by a Minister, which had not taken the proper estimate at the proper time for the proper sum, and did not find out that their estimate was wrong at the proper moment. Everything was put off until it was too late to obtain the money, because Parliament had been called together earlier, and, that being so, in order to avoid trouble, this course was taken. I venture to say it has been taken for the convenience of Ministers, and in order to save the heads of the Department taking the proper estimate at the proper time.
  Question put, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 101; Noes, 184.

  Division No. 72.]

  AYES.

  [5.17 p.m.

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

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Henderson, Major Harold (Berkshire)

  Adam, Major William A.

  Chanring, Sir Francis Allston

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Arbuthnot, Gerald A.

  Clough, William

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Coates, Major Edward F.

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Colefax, Henry Arthur

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

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

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Falls, Bertram Godfray

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Barnston, Harry

  Fell, Arthur

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

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

  Fleming, Valentine

  Llewelyn, Venables

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

  Forster, Henry William

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

  Foster, John K. (Coventry)

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

  Brackenbury, Henry Langton

  Gardner, Ernest

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Brunskill, Gerald Fitzgibbon

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

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

  Calley, Colonel Thomas C. P.

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

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

  Cator, John

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

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Heaton, John Henniker

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Mason, James F.

  Ridley, Samuel Forde

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Mitchell, William Foot

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Valentia, Viscount

  Mount, William Arthur

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Stanier, Beville

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

  Ormsby-Gore, William

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Proby, Col. Douglas James

  Sykes, Alan John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Gibson Bowles and Mr. Byles.

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Rankin, Sir James

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Alden, Percy

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

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Allen, Charles Peter

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

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

  Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

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

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Radford, George Heynes

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Barclay, Sir Thomas

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

  Rees, John David

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott

  Henry, Charles S.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Hindis, Frederick George

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Barton, William

  Hope, James Fitzaian (Sheffield)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Beale, William Phipson

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Beiloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Roe, Sir Thomas

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

  Hudson, Walter

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Bentham, George J.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

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

  Birreil, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Boland, John Pius

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Snowden, Philip

  Brace, William

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Bryce, John Annan

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Soares, Ernest Joseph

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

  Lambert, George

  Summers, James Woolley

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Leach, Charles

  Sutton, John E.

  Cameron, Robert

  Lehmann, Rudolf C.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Haywood)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Chappie, Dr. William Allen

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Thomas, David Alfred (Cardiff)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Clynes, John R.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  McCallum, John M.

  Vivian, Henry

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

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

  Wadsworth, John

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

  Walker, H. de R. (Leicester)

  Crossley, Sir William J.

  M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

  Walton, Joseph

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

  Middlebrook, William

  Waterlow, David Sydney

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Millar, James Duncan

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-shire)

  Mond, Alfred Moritz

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

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

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

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

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Elverston, Harold

  Muspratt, Max

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Williams, Aneurin (Plymouth)

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Geider, Sir William Alfred

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

  Ogden, Fred

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

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  O'Grady, James

  Wing, Thomas

  Glanville, Harold James

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Greenwood, Granville George

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Pearce, William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Guiland.

  Grenfeil, Cecil Alfred

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

  Hancock, John George

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.

  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow.

  CENSUS (GREAT BRITAIN) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill for taking the Census on 2nd April, 1911. The Bill, which has now been in the hands of Members for some considerable time, follows generally the Census Act of 1900. It applies to Scotland as well as England and Wales, but it does not apply to Ireland, for which country a separate Bill will be introduced this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland. It is only right I should tell the House that in preparing this Bill and the schedules, instructions and regulations that ensue from the measure, the Local Government Board have been advised by the Registrar-General for some considerable time, and he has consulted with the various authorities—the learned societies and statistical experts—on the plan, method and condition and the procedure of taking the Census that will be secured under this Bill. It is only right the House should be informed that, important though this Bill is, the schedules and regulations that accompany it are really the most important and most operative part of those measures. The House would probably like to know that the Royal Statistical Society and the Society of Medical Officers of Health, who the House will at once recognise are intimately acquainted with subjects of this kind, have been good enough to thank the Registrar-General and the Local Government Board for the consideration given to the suggestions of those societies. Generally speaking, they are in favour of the improvement and additions that have been made both in the Bill and in the accompanying schedules. I should like also to say that the Bill and the schedules, as well as the instructions, make a considerable advance on the methods of taking the Census. While the new Bill contains the essential features—the standard features of the old Bill—a few improvements and necessary additions have been made. For the first time in the English Census we are making provision for information being obtained from married couples as to the duration of marriage and the number of children born of the marriage. We believe that this will furnish data of the highest value for the study
  1230
  of certain social problems, such as comparative fertility in classes of different social positions, and in occupations, bearing on age and upon certain questions relating to infant and child mortality, to which increasingly the community is giving closer attention. We are justified in asking for this addition on the broad grounds that since 1851 the birth-rate has dropped from 34 to 26 per 1,000, while, I am glad to say, in the same period there has been a set-off by the death-rate having been reduced from 23 to 15 per 1,000. The marriage rate has remained on the whole fairly stationary, or only dropped from 17 to 15 per 1,000, and it is a matter of congratulation to everybody that infant mortality, about which we hope to get increasing information and which for many years stood practically stationary, in the last five years has dropped from 145 to 109 per thousand in England and Wales, and in London from 144 to 107. I believe that if we had had some of the information that we hope to get by this Census as to the fertility of marriage, and the light which it would bring to bear upon this, and kindred matters—if we had had this information thirty or forty years ago—the reduction which we have secured in the last five years might probably have occurred twenty-five or thirty years ago.
  Another alteration and addition, and a very important one, is, that under the Census Act of 1900 an inquiry was instituted as to the number of rooms which were inhabited by the man who returned the answers to the questions, and by the persons who were living in the house, but it was restricted in one definite direction, because the inquiry was as to the number of persons who were living in a house and occupying five rooms or less. Anyone who has any knowledge of housing conditions will know that if we want to get at certain facts with regard to housing, public health, and, above all, density of population with regard to housing, it is not necessary you should confine your investigations to persons living in a house of five rooms or less, particularly when we know that some of the worst forms of density and overcrowding occur in six, eight, or ten-roomed houses. The London County Council and other local bodies attach great importance to the information which we hope to get under the new Census, and we think that the number of rooms occupied by a family in a tenement may be a better unit of statistics than the number of persons in a house of five rooms or less. Clause 5 of this Bill varies from Section 5 of the

  1231
  Bill of 1900, and has been simplified. The enumerators' duties are to be prescribed, and instructions are to be issued in a clearer form than hitherto. Clause 6 enables wider provision to be made for the inclusion of large establishments where large numbers of people do mostly congregate, such as hotels, big firms, institutions, and so forth. The reports and returns, we trust—in fact, I am convinced of it by what I have seen—will be simpler, and we provide that a preliminary Report shall be laid sooner than the preliminary Report of last Census, and, indeed, at as early a date as practicable without setting any limit of three or five months, and the Registrar-General hopes that the preliminary Report will be out within less than three months after the Census is taken, while he is optimistic enough to believe that the main Report may be considerably earlier than usual—that is, if the Treasury sanction, as I trust they may, a certain mechanical apparatus for tabulation and counting, which I think they would be well advised to grant.
  Another new point is in Section 9, and that will enable the Registrar-General to supply statistical information which might be gleaned from the Census Returns, but is not published in his Report, so that the council of a county borough or an urban district council and many other councils for definite public purposes may avail themselves of useful information that is in the Census Office, but which has not been used. Subject to the proper conditions laid down by the Registrar-General, therefore, as to confidence, it will be open to students and others and public bodies to be able to get more detailed information than has been customary from previous Censuses. The enumerators under this Bill will be asked to make a statutory declaration in regard to their duties, and in this respect it is similar to the Irish Act. I had hoped that a quinquennial Census might have been provided for in this Bill on this occasion, but the fates and finance—both of which mean the Treasury—have decided otherwise, and we cannot include in this Bill an absolutely statutory provision for a quinquennial Census five years hence. But if this Census works satisfactorily, as we hope it will, there is plenty of time between now and the lapse of the next four years for those who desire a quinquennial Census to press their point upon the Treasury at a time when that body is less obdurate than it is now.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: What would be the cost?
  Mr. BURNS: Frankly, there is something to be said for the Treasury in this matter. Continually we hear from Members on all sides of the House that large and increasing demands are being made upon the Treasury by this House for public reforms, and a quinquennial Census may mean anything from £100,000 to £185,000. The Treasury say that the time has arrived when they must begin to listen to advisers of economy in some form, and as I am nothing if not an economist in the administration of my Department, although the Treasury happen to be against me on this particular scheme that I have put forward, I think there is some reason for their refusal. With regard to certain proposals that have been made as to what the Census should be, I content myself on this occasion by quoting the opinion of four or five very distinguished statisticians, the late Sir Robert Giffen, Dr. Ogle, Mr. Ryan, and Sir Alexander Bailey, and I would recommend those hon. Members who wish to include everything to consider what they have stated. They say that they are all agreed that it is better to devote attention to rendering the facts obtained by the Census more accurate than they are than to increase the facts obtained by extending their scope. I believe, therefore, it is best to obtain the greatest possible accuracy under sixteen heads of information, and better for Census information and reliable statistics, than the course of diffusing the information and making it of doubtful value over thirty or forty heads. It should never be forgotten in this connection that in this country every head of a family is his own statistician, and too many questions have a tendency to puzzle some persons when they are intricate in detail and large in number. In some of the countries where the number of questions asked is more than here, the enumerator, the expert, and the official answer the questions, whereas in this country the head of the family does it himself. I prefer the British method. I think by enlarging the columns as we do from twelve to sixteen, by giving three or four sub-heads with regard to the fertility of marriage on the lines I have previously suggested, etc., we improve this Census considerably beyond previous Censuses, and all the experts with whom I have come into contact agree that on the lines which I have laid down in the Bill, and the accompanying

  1233
  Schedule, the Census of 1911 will be an advance on that of 1901.
  If the Schedule is drawn, as it will be, on the improving lines of the Bill, much valuable information will be secured, and we have taken, as it was our duty, the precaution of consulting with the Board of Education, the Board of Trade, the Home Office, and many of the outside societies which were interested in this matter, and they agree with me that we shall be able to get light on a number of social, public health and vital statistical problems by means of this improved Census, and that we did not have sufficient information before. My last point is this. It has been suggested somewhere that there is an attempt to alter a number of boundaries, which the people of this country very properly respect, because the enumerators' districts are to be slightly different than those which prevailed at the last Census. What we have done, however, is consistent with the maintenance of all the ancient boundaries of the civil parishes, and of the ecclesiastical parishes, and all these have been made to harmonise with Ordnance Survey Maps, so that we not only get a statistical view of it, but we get a standard map area which would be a symmetrical and also a statistical unit of greater value than now. The returns and the report will be useful for local, parochial, county and national use, and we think we ought to get the support of the House to a measure of this importance. Another point I may mention is that we are in communication with the Colonies and the Dominions Beyond the Seas to see whether it would not be possible, and I hope it is not too late, to get even for 1911 a Census of the Empire at approximately the same time, which would be as mutually beneficial to the Colonies and Dominions as it would be to the Mother Country. I sincerely trust that I have, in a brief space, given a quite sufficient explanation of the Census Bill for 1911, and that the House will allow us to get the Second Reading this afternoon.
  Sir CHARLES DILKE: The question put across the floor of the House just now by the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil) about cost is of importance in regard to the last reference in the speech of my right hon. Friend with regard to the possibility of an Imperial Census, and, curiously enough, is somewhat connected with the investigation of this subject. My right hon. Friend told the House that he was unable to agree to a quinquennial Census,
  1234
  much as he personally would have preferred it, on account of Treasury objections on the ground of cost, and that connects with the Imperial question, as most of our Colonies and Dominions now have a quinquennial Census. In Australia, of course, there have been before Federation constant meetings of the Committee of Statisticians of all the Colonies, as they were, and as they are now States, of the Commonwealth, and the Australian Censuses have now been brought into harmony one with another. New Zealand also has given her help, and there has been an interchange of information. In the Australian Dominions the Censuses are not only quinquennial, but their statistics are much more detailed, and are more complete than those of this country.
  In this country we have, of course, in this, as in many other things, a more departmental treatment of the subject. One of the proposals which has always been favoured by large sections of statisticians in this country is that there should be a permanent Census Office, that office taking the statistical work of the other Departments so far as it is not concerned with the working of Acts of Parliament, legislative statistical work. For instance, the Home Office mine work must no doubt be left to the Department, and I think the tax statistical work will have to be left almost with Somerset House. But as regards the Local Government Board statistics my right hon. Friend, who has met the Statistical Society and our Census Committee most fairly and kindly upon this Bill, and discussed the matter with great care with everyone who is entitled to an opinion, is at the head of a Department which is an offender in this statistical respect, that is to say that the Local Government Board, for instance, overlapping the Board of Trade, deluges the country with statistics which, from their enormous bulk, grow continually more and more into arrear, and which concern names and districts which are not comparable statistically with similar names and different districts in the Board of Trade Returns.
  If it were in order, I could expand this matter by showing the different names in the Board of Trade statistics clashing with the Home Office statistics. I mention it on this Bill only because the counsel of perfection would be that, instead of taking on a lot of enumerators, not very highly skilled, once in ten years, we should have, not only a quinquennial Census, but a permanent Census Office, where you could

  1235
  keep the same men on, and that, I believe, would save money instead of spending more in introducing a scientific system. To carry out a complete census of production and of occupation, and to collect infant mortality statistics for trades would necessitate undue cost. To put ourselves on a par with our oversea dominions, with our Australian colonies in particular, we ought, of course, to concentrate most of our statistical work in a properly skilled Department of permanent men, and replace as far as possible the unskilled enumerators. That covers the whole question of the schedule of the questions that you ask, because it is no use asking questions unless you can get them on something like a comparable plan, unless you can get them sufficiently intelligently asked and answered to get them uniform throughout the country. To inquirers into social problems, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walter Long) well knows in connection with unemployed work, one of the greatest difficulties of the whole problem is that while you know what you would like to know you cannot get it. The difficulty of putting exactly the same question in such a way as to get a comparable answer in questions like occupation and unemployment is all but insuperable. Trade unionists, of course, are inclined not to see the difficulty, because in trade unions the thing is to be done. They work on one plan and use their language in the same way. But if you get outside the trade union world the difficulty of getting occupation statistics and basing trade mortality statistics upon the work of an ordinary Census is overwhelming. The more questions you ask the more statistically untrustworthy are the results likely to become.
  My right hon. Friend said with truth, that the Bill is looked upon as containing improved schedules, especially by the Census Committee of the Statistical Society, of which I was a member. That Committee was satisfied, as far as it went, but it made recommendations for a quinquennial Census, pointing to that larger reform which underlies the whole matter of which I spoke just now. It was a very strong committee, as strong a committee, I think, as could be got together in this country, and their main recommendations, so far as they have not been carried out, are these. The first is that it would conduce to the better preparation of the Census
  1236
  and to economy in its cost if my right hon. Friend had been allowed to pass this Bill last year. That was strongly recommended, and I think it is no secret that he inclined that way. His answer to questions pointed to that inference. I know the reply, which is that everything has been done in advance, and I have no doubt that is so, but I think it would probably have helped towards economy if it had been passed sooner. Then there is the proposal, which is a second line proposal, a compromise as regards the quinquennial Census, that the principal Census being taken once every ten years there should be either an intermediate Census, less costly and less important, but checking the results on those points where in time they go wrong, or else that power should be taken in this Bill to shorten the, period. In the Census of Production Bill there are these words: "And at such future period as shall," etc. That is to say, power is taken for shortening the period by words put into the Act. It would be a fair compromise if we had words of that sort put into this Bill.
  Then there is the suggestion, which commends itself naturally, that we should strive to get uniformity between the three Kingdoms. One of the most extraordinary facts and one of the greatest difficulties in the way of anything like statistical uniformity in the Imperial Census is that the statistics in the three Kingdoms are different in the form in which they are compiled for the United Kingdom. Although in the case of the forthcoming Census there is more uniformity, yet even now the three are not exactly the same, and the method of enumeration will not be exactly similar. When you come to consider details the differences are terrible. The steps of age are different in Ireland, and the whole system of local government is so different that the statistics are not comparable, and in statistics of other Departments—going beyond the Census—these differences are accentuated between the three Kingdoms. We have very much confidence in the working of the present Census this time so far as England and Wales are concerned, because the present Registrar-General was an active member and was vice-president of the Statistical Society, and is a most competent statistician having the confidence of the most brilliant of our statisticians. I have no doubt that everything possible will be done within the limits of the Bill to carry out to the full

  1237
  these new suggestions which have been made by him and by my right hon. Friend. Near the end of his speech he made an announcement as to the use of the Census during the three or four years while the temporary staff is still working on the results for the purpose of local investigations for corporations and so forth. I would warn him with regard to the ordnance maps that they are not entirely trustworthy for this purpose, as has been shown in previous Debates, especially as regards nomenclature, but still these special inquiries will be of great value, and I think they point to the possibility of one day convincing the House of Commons and the Treasury that a permanent Census Office might be desirable, and might not be costly, but, if so, is it possible to convince Scotland, is it possible to convince Ireland, that it will be to the advantage of the other Kingdoms to come into one system or, at all events, to make their work exactly similar with regard to ages, which vary so much, and nomenclature so that the results as regards the three Kingdoms may be comparable results which could be put before foreign countries as affecting the whole country? We are not setting a very brilliant example to other nations of statistical success in this country, though I think our statisticians are probably looked upon as the best in the world and looked up to by all portions of the statistical world. The power they show in using the statistics they have is, I think, not to be rivalled, even in Australia, which stands very high, but the material they have to work on is imperfect as far as the Government is concerned and is haphazard. Hon. Members will do well to supplement the inquiry undertaken each year now in the interest of economy by the Publications Committee. I know the right hon. Gentleman sympathises with our view as to carrying out the recommendation of a very strong Departmental Committee which sat some years ago in favour of a Statistical Office, which would conduct the Census itself. Our Publications Committee, being appointed only with a view to economy, and not to science, I suppose some of them took a different view, and although they took evidence on the subject, they only reported in these general words:—
  "Your Committee have been struck by the fact that this question [the preparation of official statistics] has not received greater attention since the inquiries conducted by the Official Statistics Committee appointed by the Treasury in 1877, and by the further Depart-
  1238
  mental Committee appointed in 1890 to inquire into certain questions connected with the taking of the Census."
  These were extraordinarily strong Committees, it is almost impossible to conceive stronger, as is shown in the evidence of the Secretary of the Statistical Society before the Committee on Official Publications. He was asked about Departmental Committees in connection with taking the Census. He said it was a very strong Departmental Committee "twenty-five years ago." They issued in 1881 a Report which was laid before Parliament by Lord Frederick Cavendish, Secretary to the Treasury. Then he was asked whether Mr. W. H. Smith, in appointing the Committee, had this matter in view. He said he had, and that the recommendations were signed by Mr. Childers, Mr. Arthur Balfour, Mr. Ritchie, afterwards Lord Ritchie, and Mr. Welby, afterwards Lord Welby. It was as strong a Committee as you could get together.
  6.0 P.M.
  Something substantial has been done between that time and now. Each Department has done something towards the improvement of the statistics, but the main difficulties of the Departments have not yet been got over. We remain with the same differences between the three parts of the United Kingdom which we had at that time. My right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board is not responsible. The House of Commons and the country are responsible for the fact that greater improvements have not-been made. My right hon. Friend has done everything in his power, and I am sure the Registrar-General has done everything that could be done in the circumstances of the case. I thank them for the way they have met us, and I hope that the House of Commons may put constant pressure on the Government with the view of bringing about a system which will improve our statistics—not to get statistics after Acts of Parliament have been passed, but to get sound statistics in advance which could be issued on a-uniform scale by a highly efficient officer.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: I do not rise to criticise in any way the suggestions which were made by the President of the Local Government Board or the conclusions at which he has arrived. I desire very briefly to support the views advanced by the right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Dilke) and to reinforce them by one or two remarks.

  1239
  The hon. Baronet pointed out the way in which the Census differs in the three Kingdoms and falls short of the scientific level which is reached by the statistics of other countries. He reminded the House that a Committee sat very many years ago and made recommendations which had so far failed to make any impression on the country. The President of the Local Government Board is in no way responsible for the fact that our Census is not what we should like it to be. The right hon. Baronet referred to the character of the Census Office. When I was President of the Local Government Board a good many years ago it was found that in connection with the Census a very serious mistake occurred, and inaccurate figures were circulated in the early copies of the Census. The inaccuracy was brought to my notice by people who attached very great importance to these figures, because they required them for their own purposes. They were very much concerned when they found they were inaccurate. No one was more distressed than the head of the Census Department. He felt that the credit of the Department was at stake, but how could he be really held responsible by the House or the country for the occurrence of a mistake in the preparation of the Census when it is realised that the work has all to be done in, comparatively speaking, a very short time, and done by a staff which is got together at short notice, and which is collected from the highways and byeways and only for the period when the Census work is being done? I am convinced that there is a great deal in what the right hon. Baronet has said. I believe it would be possible to have a quinquennial Census, and that there is a great deal to be said for it. When I was President of the Local Government Board pressure was brought to bear on me from influential quarters to advance the Census from the decennial to the quinquennial period. But the objection to that was the one stated by the President of the Local Government Board, namely, the additional cost to the Treasury. It has to be made perfectly clear to the Treasury that there is such pressure of public opinion and interest in this question as to justify them in granting the demand. If we are going to make any advance on this question, it will be only by Parliament giving its attention to it and possibly arousing some further interest in the country.
  1240
  I myself would throw out the suggestion that it might be well worth while, though a change cannot be made now, to consider the appointment of a Committee. I believe that a Committee, looking at this question with all the additional knowledge and experience we have got, might very well be able to draw up recommendations which would result in improving the character of the Census and possibly giving us one in the quinquennial period, and at the same time to make recommendations which would save the extra £100,000 which excites the criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir Frederick Banbury). I am quite sure that his views and those of the President of the Local Government Board are that we must not lightly cast additional charges on the Treasury. Heaven knows that the public expenditure is high enough as it is. It grows in almost every Department every year. While there are to be found in the House of Commons and out of it people who are prepared on other subjects to preach economy, when their own subject comes to be dealt with in the House of Commons the love of economy disappears, and they recommend extra expenditure. The Treasury watches public expenditure with a very jealous eye, but they are not always able to discriminate between the different demands made upon them and to treat each on its merits. In my own experience what they were forced to do in many cases was not merely to look into the merits of individual suggestions, but also to ask themselves what was the measure of support those suggestions would receive in the House of Commons, and even although a proposal might not be the best of those before them, it might get the grant when a more meritorious subject was for the moment passed by. I cannot help thinking that the time has come when a Committee might with advantage be appointed who would open the whole question again, and I think they might make recommendations which would lead to an improvement in the Census without necessarily adding to the cost to the extent to which the President of the Local Government Board referred just now. I welcome the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman that he has taken steps to try to get Census figures from our Dominions oversea. I think that is a valuable step, and I congratulate him upon it, but I am afraid it will not be so satisfactory as if the Census here were put on a more satisfactory footing. I have profound admiration

  1241
  for our permanent officials, believing that they are beyond compare both in their knowledge and skill. They deserve well of their country, but there is no official who deserves more commendation than the one who is responsible for the preparation of the Census, because he is called upon to do work of a highly technical kind, which is difficult and complicated, with a staff temporarily collected, and engaged only for the time being. If hon. Members had had the opportunity, as I have had, of going to the Census Office, when the Census is being prepared and seeing the officers and staff at work, I am confident that they would realise that we have not exaggerated what happens in the descriptions we have given of the work, I would be very glad if the President of the Local Government Board could see his way to accept the suggestion that a Committee should be set up to inquire whether any changes could be made without any considerable addition, or any addition, to the cost of the Census. I believe if certain improvements were made; the Census would give us figures which would be more valuable and reliable than those we have at present. I think it is fair to say that within their power those who are called upon to prepare the Census have performed their work with the greatest possible credit.
  Mr. BOLAND: I think when we have a Bill of this kind before us, which has to be decided quickly, it is much better that we should deal with proposals for its improvement than that it should be sent to a Committee, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) suggested.
  Mr. LONG: I did not suggest that this Bill should be submitted to a Committee.
  Mr. BOLAND: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to propose that the various suggestions should be put before a Committee. I say that here and now, if possible, alterations for the improvement of the Bill ought to be decided quickly; but if the right hon. Gentleman will help me in carrying through a suggestion which I have to make I will be willing to hand over other matters to a Committee or conference. In the course of the last couple of months, during which this Bill has been before the House, I myself and my colleagues and other Members of the House have made suggestions to the President of the Local Government Board that he should improve the Bill in one respect. The suggestion that I have to make is one that would be of great advantage, not only from the philological
  1242
  point of view, but also to people of other races, who happen to be living in Great Britain. At the present moment, I think that public opinion has come to recognise that the efforts of the various people in the United Kingdom to maintain their language have passed out of the region of controversy. I would suggest to the President of the Local Government Board that at the next Census information should be obtained as to the Welsh, Irish, and Scotch Gaelic now being spoken in Great Britain. It would merely mean the addition of a single column, and if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to support an Amendment which I will put down for the Committee stage, I am sure, so far as myself and colleagues are concerned, he will have every assistance in having the Census Bill carried through.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The point I wish to raise has reference to the remarkable difference between the Irish and the British Census. There is a column in the Irish Census with respect to the religious opinion and religious profession of the people, but there is not a similar column in the Census for Great Britain. I fear I should be in some way throwing an apple of discord into the House by bringing up this question of religious education and religious profession on the Second Beading of the Bill, but I hope to be able to move an Amendment in Committee to insert religious profession as a column to be filled up in the new Census. I think we have had enough of unofficial Censuses. Ever since the Census of 1851, which was conducted by Mr. Mann, which was more or less an official Census, there have been, and especially in Wales, series of unofficial Censuses carried out by the various denominations that endeavoured to ascertain the facts as regards the numbers of these denominations. I think the time has now arrived when the facts can only be ascertained by an official Parliamentary Census. On the general question of religious Census I should like to point out that Germany, Austria, Hungary, Spain, Italy, Belgium, and the Netherlands, as well as the United States of America, have all religious Censuses. They have not found them any infringement of individual liberties, and they find that the Census is easy to get, and, as in the case of Germany, is most perfect. Let us remember that in Ireland there has been a Census every decade since 1861, and that that Census has given very valuable returns of the

  1243
  various religious denominations in that country. It may be urged that it is an infringement of personal liberty to ask any man his religious profession. Why I cannot myself see; but an Amendment could be inserted, and I propose to put it on the Paper, to allow the return of religious profession to remain optional. Then it will be urged that a large number of persons will not make this return, but I should point to the instance of Ireland, where over 98 per cent., I believe, in every single Census have returned their religious profession.
  I wish to refer to the types of religious Census which have permeated Great Britain, and I think that it will show the need for a broad-minded, non-partisan, and official Census of the religious professions. There was a Census undertaken for Wales in the year 1887 by Mr. Gee, of Denbigh. He endeavoured to find out the religious professions of the people of Wales by the number of attendances at churches arid chapels on a particular Sunday. The result of this Census was that he was held up to opprobrium, and more than opprobrium, by a certain section of the Press in Wales. A certain publication, named "Y. Golenad," wrote as follows:—
  "If Mr. Gee had been the greatest enemy of nonconformity that Wales ever produced, he could not betray nonconformity more disgracefully and thoroughly than he has done in this matter. Nonconformist Wales will he bound to look upon him as one who has committed the greatest possible crime—a crime that has placed us in the hands of our enemies."
  That was written by a Welsh newspaper because a Census of the persons attending various places of worship of the different denominations in Wales on Sunday was taken. Why should it be, on such a question as this, necessary to use heated language, and to say that various denominations have ulterior motives either in keeping the Census hidden or in ventilating the facts? What I wish particularly to urge is that when there is such a question as Disestablishment and Disendowment we should be in possession of the whole facts, and that when the counting of heads is produced by one side or the other as an argument for or against Disestablishment or Disendowment, the figures and facts given should be official, and should not be of the type of statistics or of Censuses that are so frequently used on the platform.
  The next religious Census that took place was undertaken by Mr. Owen Owens, and was published in "The
  1244
  Times" on 18th December, 1891. That also was a very remarkable Census. This is the way in which it was taken. He selected a certain Sunday in November and appointed enumerators to go to the various churches and chapels and places of worship in Wales and to bring back statistics. I may tell you that in one place the two enumerators who were appointed were aged eleven and thirteen respectively, and in the returns which they sent in there was the astonishing variation of 45 per cent. Those statistics, although you frquently hear of them on platforms, and they are frequently used, are perfectly worthless. If religious statistics are to be used at all it is time that we had official statistics. There is one question to which I should like to refer with regard to the last figures given on the subject of religious profession in Wales. Only last year the President of the Free Church Council, speaking at Swansea, at a meeting of the Council, produced a large number of statistics not only about the denomination which he was representing, but also about the Established Church. I think I need not crtiticise the reverend gentleman, but I will read to you just a few sentences of what the Bishop of St. Davids said a fortnight later. He said that the President of the Free Church Council, in his address, said:—
  "That the Free Churchmen in Wales numbered three-fourths of the population. He himself, in the same address, gave the figures of membership of the four largest Free Churches in Wales, and their membership, according to the president, amounts to 535,880. The minor bodies need not be taken into serious account. His own church—the Calvinistic Methodist Church—gives figures not only for members, meaning those who, in the language of our Representative Church Council are persons qualified to be communicants, but it also gives figures for adherents."
  Then the Bishop says:—
  "Loose statistical assertions made by men in responsible positions warrant churchmen in demanding a Parliamentary religious Census if statistics are to be urged as a reason for Welsh Disestablishment."
  Why did he say that? Because, after giving those figures the President gave figures which proved to be wrong for the Established Church, and he gave figures, not for members, not for those who are qualified to be communicants, and not even for communicants, but he compared those who had communicated on one day on Easter Sunday with the total number of members of the Free Church. That we say, is an unfair comparison. Those statistics, we say, have been wrongfully applied, and until we get an official religious Census things of that sort will

  1245
  continue in Wales, and we shall continue to suffer from that injustice. We merely contend that if figures are to be used they should be accurate. The practical difficulty is not great. It only means adding a column to the Census. A lot of valuable information, valuable from the academic and the social as well as from the political point of view, will be gathered by such a Census, and I only hope that it is not too late for the Government to include a column for religious profession in the Census which is to be taken next year.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: As a Welsh Member, I wish to enter my protest strongly against the statements which have been put before the House. In the first place, I do not think it is right that any man should be asked to subscribe himself as belonging to any religious profession in any official Bill. I take my stand on that broad point in the first instance. I do not think it is in consonance with the spirit of the Constitution in this country and the tradition and history of this Kingdom that an inquisitorial claim of this kind should be put in any official Bill.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Why is it done in Ireland?
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I cannot help what is done in Ireland. We are a Protestant country here. The Inquisition has never been in vogue in this country, and I hope we shall never see the day when a question such as is suggested by the hon. Gentleman, who has just sat down, can be put to anyone, whether he is a Churchman or Nonconformist. But there is another reason which applies, perhaps, more peculiarly to Wales. There are statistics in Wales at present, as there are in England, Scotland, and Ireland, with regard to the religious profession of those unhappy people who are inmates of gaols, workhouses, and asylums, and a most extraordinary result has followed. I cannot pledge myself now to the exact result or the exact figure, but I believe it is true that those statistics show that seven out of every ten of the criminals and lunatics and paupers in Wales belong to the Established Church. I do not believe for one moment that members of the Established Church are more criminal or more lunatic or more pauper than members of Nonconformist bodies.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: There is the same proportion outside.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: Not even the hon. Gentleman would suggest that the proportion of members of the Established Church in Wales outside these interesting institutions is the same. Take, for instance, one little fact. What is the provision made for Church attendance by the Church of England in the diocese of St. David's, which is the oldest diocese not only in Wales, but in the Kingdom? The seating accommodation provided there for the whole of the Church population is only for 20 per cent, of the entire population. Therefore how can the hon. Gentleman suggest that in the diocese of St. David's there is a proportion of seven to three members of the Established Church to persons belonging to other denominations? If I liked to take up the time of the House I could show that in that diocese the Church has marked advantages. It is composed of rural parishes where from time immemorial there have been the ancient ecclesiastical buildings, now used as parish churches, which were originally built for the propaganda of other churches. Yet in that diocese, with all these churches which have been in existence in the rural parishes for so many centuries, provision is made for only 20 per cent, of the population. How can it be said that seven out of every ten people in that diocese, which is a typical Welsh diocese, belong to the Church of England? No; the real reason why criminals, lunatics, and paupers are returned as members of the Church of England is this, that when they are no religion they are put down as members of the Church of England. Everybody knows it, and therefore they have a right to call themselves members of the Church of England. I suppose I can claim to be a member of the Established Church, for the idea of an establishment is that every member of the State, every man who dwells within the boundaries of the Kingdom where a church has been established, is a member of that Established Church. If he does not like to describe himself as a Baptist, a Congregationalist, or a Roman Catholic, he must be described, if the Census is to be worth anything, as something. He does not describe himself as an Atheist if he is not an Atheist, or an Agnostic. Perhaps he does hot know what "Agnostic" means; or he has never been immersed, and cannot call himself a Baptist. He has never probably attended a single meeting of Congregationalists or Methodists, and therefore cannot call himself either

  1247
  one or the other. And remember that Nonconformists are very strict in these matters. Even up to a comparatively short time ago, if any member who had been received into the Communion of a Nonconformist church absented himself for three months from Communion he was ex-communicated. Though that rule may not now be so rigidly observed, yet here you have the fundamental difference between membership of Nonconformist bodies and membership of the Church of England. Every man is a member of the Church of England who is a citizen, and who is resident in this country, because he belongs to the State. That is the whole meaning of a State Church, and therefore anyone who cannot describe himself as a Nonconformist must be described as a member of the Church of England. For the purpose of the hon. Member opposite, or for any controversial purpose, a Census of the sort he suggests would be wholly illusory and inapplicable. The hon. Member referred to the fact of a religious Census having been taken at different times in Wales. I remember well when Mr. Gee tried to take a religious Census in 1887 or 1888, and I recollect perfectly well what then happened. In my parish only six or seven people usually attended the parish church, but when it became known all over the place that an unofficial Census was to be taken, the parish church was filled to overflowing. Where the people came from I cannot tell you, but there was the fact that the church, which was practically deserted all the year, and is now deserted to a very large extent, I am told, was on that day filled to overflowing. Then we had Mr. Owen Owen's Census. The hon. Member suggested that this Census is used on every platform in Wales to-day. For twenty-five years I have been addressing meetings in Wales, and I confess I never heard a single reference to it in any controversy.
  What has been done is this. During the last twenty years Nonconformists have been trying to get the number of those who hold their views and who are in membership. Up to twenty or thirty years ago the Puritan idea prevailed in Wales that to take a Census looked somewhat sacrilegious and boastful, and there was a great feeling against numbering the people of the different denominations. But as those religious denominations became more organised it was found necessary to ascertain more exactly what
  1248
  the number of their members was, and they have been doing their level best during the last twenty years to obtain that information. It is true to a certain extent that these statistics were not a Census at all, but simply a return from each individual church, and they have been used and are being used to a very large extent in the controversy with regard to the Disestablishment of the Welsh Church. So far as I know, these are the only figures which are used. The Government four years ago appointed a Royal Commission—of which an eminent judge is chairman and the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University, Archdeacon Evans, and other prominent Churchmen are members—in order to inquire into the various statistics which have been used. I suppose the result will be known some time next year. ["Hear, hear."] I understand that cheer, but perhaps the hon. Member will not be quite so ready to cheer when the actual Report is published. I do not know what the Report is going to be, but I look forward, at all events, with perfect equanimity to the result. I am perfectly certain that the religious bodies in Wales have done their level best honestly to give the right and real figures in this matter. The House should remember that the statistics to which I have referred were, in the first instance, not intended for controversial purposes at all. There was no idea of using them in connection with Disestablishment purposes, or indeed, any controversial purpose at all. They were simply brought together in order that the religious organisations might know what their strength really was. But I do not ask this House to consider the question of Disestablishment in connection with any question of the Census. We send thirty-two Members out of thirty-four to this House pledged to Disestablishment. Since 1865 we have sent a growing majority in favour of Disestablishment, and we say, in a constitutional country, that is all we ought to look to and need look to nothing else. On all these grounds I wish to enter my respectful protest at once on behalf of my colleagues against the suggestion which has been made by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down.
  There is one other matter to which I would like to draw my right hon. Friend's attention, and I do so as to a man who treasures the past in a conservative spirit—I only use the word "conservative" in a Pickwickian sense, and in no controversial sense. I understand a

  1249
  change is to be made in the regulations and directions that are issued from the Census Office. The House is aware that the country is divided into enumeration districts, and up to this year, as far as Wales is concerned, these enumeration districts were the old townships, whose boundaries are the streams and other natural limitations. Now, for the first time, a direction has been given to the enumeration officers that they must no longer observe these old historic marks, but go by the ordnance survey. A fear is expressed in regard to this, though I cannot bring myself to believe there is anything in it, but no doubt my right hon. Friend will make it quite clear to me that there is no intention on the part of the Census Officers to depart from the old system of getting the population of each of the old townships separately. I remember making use of the statistics that we were able to obtain two or three years ago in the rural portions of Wales. It has been possible up to now to find exactly what the population of a rural parish was thirty, forty, or a hundred years ago. All that I am concerned about is that my right hon. Friend should give an assurance, which is sadly needed in many districts of Wales, that these ancient boundaries cannot be departed from, and that we shall be able in the future, as in the past, to obtain the number of the population in all the ancient townships.
  There is one other matter to which I desire to refer, and on which I should like to make a suggestion. I trust this also will be found to be non-controversial. My hon. Friend from Ireland (Mr. Boland) made a very pertinent and useful suggestion, namely, that there should be added a language column to the Census paper for the whole of the United Kingdom. May I appeal to the love of scholarship and history of my right hon. Friend in this matter? Let me give him one illustration of how the suggestion which he made will work out. Monmouth is technically still a part of England, though we Welshmen always assert that it has never been a part of England at all. For that we have the authority of Shakespeare and a good many others. The ancient boundary of Wales was not the present border, which is usually taken. For instance, in a very large part of Herefordshire up to a recent date there were Welsh-speaking people, and I do not know whether there are not Welsh-speaking people there at present. If you take the
  1250
  case of Herefordshire, there you have villages with Welsh names, and up to fifty or sixty years ago there was a very considerable Welsh-speaking element. In Shropshire everyone knows that there is a very considerable Welsh population still. I dare say the Welsh-speaking population in that county is decreasing; but from the historical point of view I think it will be very interesting to find out how many there are of Welsh-speaking people still in Shropshire, and whether the number is increasing or decreasing. Shropshire was a Welsh county. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I will not say it was a Welsh county, but it was part of Wales, and Shrewsbury was the capital of Mid-Wales, so that we have not lost all interest in the hon. Gentleman because he happens to call himself an Englishman. We want to know how many of his constituents are still allied to us, in speech at all events. Why should a difference be made between Monmouthshire, where the number of Welsh-speaking people is decreasing, and Shropshire, where an increasing number of people speak Welsh? I venture to say that there are quite as many people speaking Welsh in Shropshire as there are in Radnor.
  In London there are, according to the lowest computation, 70,000 Welsh-speaking people, while, according to some, the number of Welsh-speaking people in London is 100,000. Is it not of some interest even to Englishmen to know the number of Welsh-speaking people? The hon. Baronet who represents the City might like to know if he was returned by Welsh-speaking persons, and in order to qualify himself to sit for an intelligent community of that sort he might even learn the language. There are* forty or fifty Welsh places of worship in London belonging to the Established Church and to the various Nonconformist bodies. Those chapels and churches swarm with people every Sunday, and surely it would be interesting, from a Census point of view, to know how many of those are resident in London? Why cannot we know? You find out how many English-speaking people there are in Wales, and why not find out how many Welsh-speaking people there are in England? I am sure it would be quite as interesting, if not more so, because everybody speaks English, which is the Lingua Franca of modern days. Liverpool is a Welsh city. The right hon. Gentleman the Irish Chief Secretary is, I believe, a native of it, and I have no doubt derives a great

  1251
  deal of that wit and sparkle, which we all so much admire, from his contiguity to the Welsh-speaking people of Wales. There are 100,000 Welsh-speaking people in Liverpool, or more than in Cardiff or Swansea or any Welsh city. Middlesbrough is the creation of Welshmen, and I think the English people do not appreciate how much they owe to Wales. There is here a very interesting field for inquiry, and since it would add very little trouble, and not nearly as much as that contained in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Denbigh, I would urge upon right hon. Gentlemen to substitute my suggestion as to the language. That would please the Welsh people much more, and would please scholars much more, and it is absolutely devoid of the elements of controversy. It would throw light on a matter which has escaped attention up to now, and, I submit, a matter which is well worthy of attention.
  Mr. CARLILE: I will not be tempted to follow the two last speakers into the very attractive subjects of a religious Census or of a language Census. Both of them have great attractions and both of them are extremely important. I think my hon. Friend has made out an extremely good case for a religious Census in Wales at the present time. I rise, notwithstanding what the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean has said on the subject of unemployment, to urge that information might be obtained for us, at any rate in one column, on the subject of unemployment. It would be quite simple, I believe, and I fancy some others would probably be of the same mind, to indicate in a single column that was to be filled up by those earning weekly wages with statistics which would guide us in forming an opinion as to the average number of hours per week worked by any operative in any part of the country. We want to know more and more exactly what the conditions of employment and unemployment are. That could be done in one single column. I know quite well—and I am fully in sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman—that everyone has his own particular fad, and cannot see why in the world the right hon. Gentleman cannot go on adding column after column in order that each fad and each particular subject on which the Member may be specially interested may be dealt with. But the right hon. Gentleman has increased the columns
  1252
  from twelve to sixteen. I noted one of the columns to which he made special reference was as to the duration of marriages. Although statistics on the subject of the results of marriage, to which he has referred, are naturally of great importance, yet I really do not think that it is necessary to have a column or two to indicate to us the duration of marriages. I cannot think any really important matter can arise from that unless the right hon. Gentleman wanted to furnish statistics to the Commission at present considering the subject of divorce. That I do not think to be at all likely since the information would be too late.
  If the right hon. Gentleman would allow one column for those parties who are in receipt of weekly wages to state either for the previous three months or the previous six months the average number of hours worked each week, then we should have before us very valuable information which cannot be obtained, and never will be obtained through Labour Exchanges. That is no part of the work they have in hand, yet it would guide us in the future as to our particular relations among our servants and with other countries, whether we are Free Traders or Tariff Reformers. It is not possible to obtain the information in any other way. Such information would guide us in the matter of labour legislation, and legislation dealing with the great subject of unemployment, which in every part of the House has now for years, and I fear for some years to come, is likely to remain the one thing on which we have concentrated our attention, and for the removal of which we desire to take any steps within our power. When the time comes, like my Friends who are interested in a religious Census for Wales and in a lingual Census for the United Kingdom, I shall venture, notwithstanding what was said by the right hon. Gentleman, to put-down an Amendment in this sense.
  Mr. SCOTT: I hope nothing will induce the President of the Local Government Board to add any additional columns to the sixteen we already have in this Census. It is easy to ascertain in any industrial centre the hours worked in any particular industry. They are known to us in the North. When the cotton trade is slack, or working on short time, we always know the number of hours worked, and so it is with other trades in different parts of the country, with the possible exception of the agricultural interest, where

  1253
  they depend very largely on seasons. I do not see that anything could be gained by a column of that kind.
  Mr. CARLILE: It is more especially with regard to casual and unorganised labour that the statistics would have their great value. Under that heading we have nothing to guide us now.
  Mr. SCOTT: That would not be of any service. A great deal of labour of that kind is labour that you could employ in no other way, and that you would get from that class statistics such as I suggested is something which is more than would be expected by anybody who has the work of getting these statistics up. I hope we shall have nothing to do with a religious Census. I well remember some fifteen years ago, when in the City of Manchester we had a great scandal amongst our police, I was surprised to find that a religious Census was taken even of policemen, and a column was provided in which the religion was recorded, and of a 1,000 men there was not a single one that was not down for some religion. I have a great respect for the policeman, but I do not quite believe that every policeman in the City of Manchester belonged to any particular religious denomination. I think you will find by any Census you took of that kind that men and women who are belonging to no religious denomination would much prefer to classify themselves with some religious denomination sooner than put down that they have no religious belief. I rose chiefly to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could see his way, having acquired all this information at great cost, to make a little more use of it than will be the intention. There will be in this Census information collected which will be very valuable to corporations who could make use of it, and save themselves considerable expense. It would be useful to education committees to know the age of children, and when they are liable to nave to attend in the schools.
  7.0 P.M.
  That is information which would save them a great deal of expense. There is also the question of overcrowding. Those who have had anything to do with the administration of municipal bodies know how difficult it is to get to know the number of people resident in certain houses, especially in slum districts. It may be argued that if this information is to be made use of people will not be so ready to give it. All the same, if the information is to be col-
  1254
  lected in this detailed way I think it is in the interests of the country generally that the best use should be made of it, and that it should be open to the municipalities who require such information in regard to their own towns. If the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to assist the municipalities in the manner I have suggested he will be conferring upon them a very great favour.
  Mr. KETTLE: There has been no opposition whatever in the course of the discussion to the suggestion of my hon. Friend (Mr. Boland). On the contrary, it has been supported in more than one quarter of the House, and I hope it will have the favourable consideration of the President of the Local Government Board. With regard to taking a religious Census in this country, I cannot understand why Ireland has been dragged into the Debate. Some hon. Members have been anxious to know why it is that you can take a religious Census in Ireland while apparently you cannot in Great Britain. The explanation is very obvious. It is simply that we in Ireland possess an intellectual courage which is entirely unknown in this country. There are many people in Ireland, as elsewhere, who get considerable comfort from tot practising their religion; but I have never yet met anybody in Ireland who wanted to conceal it. At all events, we have no difficulty in making a religious Census in Ireland. But I am anxious not to interfere in the matter, particularly as the Members who oppose a religious Census for Wales support Home Rule for Ireland, while those who support a religious Census in Wales oppose Home Rule for Ireland. Therefore I think they might well be left to decide this matter for themselves. But for anybody who wants to make an exhaustive study of a modern community, statistics of religious belief are absolutely indispensable. If you do not have official statistics, you will have unofficial statistics. We in Ireland do not regard the religious Census as a great grievance; we take it as a matter of course, and I think the Census would be altogether incomplete without it.
  I have risen, however, to say a word in support of the suggestion of my hon. Friend with reference to obtaining information as to linguistic conditions. There is a provision in the Bill for enumerating the speakers of Welsh and of English in Wales and Monmouthshire; there is a similar provision with regard to the

  1255
  speakers of Gaelic and English in Scotland. We have been told that there is in the City of London a large number of Welsh settlers and residents who still keep up Welsh as a living language. Within ten minutes' walk of this House you will find societies which exist for the sole purpose of preserving Irish as a spoken language amongst Irish immigrants in London, and of propagating the language amongst the younger generation. The London County Council has made provision for placing Irish upon its examination programmes. All this renders it of great interest to us to have accurate statistics as to the number of speakers of Irish, of Welsh, and of Scotch Gaelic in this country. It would not entail any additional expense; it means merely the addition of a column, which would attract only those whom you wish to reach. The man who speaks English only would take no interest in the column, while the bilingual speaker would take an interest in it, and make an accurate return. When the Census of Production Bill was before the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer consented the moment he was asked to include a separate record of economic conditions in Ireland. I am sorry to say that in that Census the information has not been given with so much detail in the Irish returns as in the returns of this country. As a matter of fact, a large volume of the Census of Production dealing with certain industries is absolutely worthless, because people say they could not give the facts regarding the industries without betraying the position of their firms to their rivals; but so far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer could he met us, and I hope the President of the Local Government Board will meet us in this respect.
  Captain COOPER: I so rarely find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Kettle) that I wish to support his remarks in this connection. In Ireland we do not regard the religious Census as any grievance whatever, and I hope the President of the Local Government Board will see his way to include it in the English Census. We have suffered from what an hon. Member from Wales described as "an intolerable presumption" for sixty years, and we have not even noticed it. In Ireland to whatever religious community we belong we are proud of the fact, and are glad to state it. A Welsh Member said that as in gaols, lunatic asylums, and workhouses, so in
  1256
  the Census, those who had no religion at all would describe themselves as belonging to the Church of England. But in this Census a man may state that he has no religion, or that he prefers not to give it. Only two per cent., however, take advantage of this provision in Ireland, and I think that in this as in other respects Ireland sets a precedent which might well be followed by the rest of the United Kingdom. It is no doubt a great blow to Nonconformists to realise that the Chief Secretary, who was at one time looked upon as the Moses who was going to lead them into the Church schools, is now to bring in a Bill actually imposing this so-called "intolerable presumption" on the whole population of Ireland. But it is not felt to be a grievance, although we have a tolerably sharp sense of grievances in Ireland, and I do not think it would be felt to be a grievance in England. I hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will accede to the suggestion, and add this column to the Census.

  CENSUS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry)The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry) moved, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  This is a Bill providing for taking the Census in Ireland next year. It is in precisely the same form as the measure of 1900, and as the Bill has been in the hands of hon. Members a considerable time, it would be wholly out of place for me to detain the House by making any further statement about it.
  Mr. BOLAND: According to the regulations enforced in previous Censuses in Ireland, on the question of illiteracy there was an extraordinary arrangement, by which the low age of five years was taken as the starting-point. The result of that is that, since a great number of children in the country districts do not attend school until they are six or seven years of age, the returns of illiteracy are swollen to an extraordinary extent, and do not give a genuine idea of the state of illiteracy in the country. I have brought the matter before the attention of the Chief Secretary, and I shall be glad if he can state that steps will be taken, when the

  1257
  regulations are drawn up, to see that an age of a reasonable character is fixed. In the United States I believe the age for illiteracy starts at ten. It may not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to say that ten years would be a suitable age at which to start in Ireland; but I am sure he will agree that five years is really too low. It may be that eight years would be a reasonable point at which to start. At any rate, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance that if ten years is too high, eight years will be taken as a starting-point instead of five.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): It is quite true that the hon. Member has called my attention to this point, and certainly I agree with him that five years is a very early age at which to stamp anybody with what some regard as a badge of illiteracy. Therefore I will consider the point, and see whether in our Instructions the age cannot be raised. I would point out, however, that it would be a hasty inference to draw that Ireland was an illiterate country, because five years is taken as the starting-point, inasmuch as in the analyses which are made from the figures the degree of illiteracy attributable to children of any particular age is shown, so that a little research into the results of the Census would at once explain the apparent illiteracy. While I agree that five is to low an age to begin with, I think that ten would be far too high; but I will consider whether we can find some age between the two which will relieve Ireland from an imputation of illiteracy which a little examination of the figures would show is not well founded.
  Mr. KETTLE: There are two points to which I would direct the attention of the Chief Secretary. In the particulars that are to be obtained as to the occupation of the persons enumerated in the Census very valuable information may be obtained. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the 1900 Census I think he will find that the figures given as to indefinite occupations are very large indeed. I hope there will be more definiteness in the returns on this occasion. I also should like to know—there may be a very good reason—what is the reason for the difference between Subsection 1 of Section 4 of the English Act, and Sub-section 2 of Section 2 of the Irish Act? The particulars which are to be obtained in England are considerably fuller than those to be obtained in Ireland. For instance, in taking the English Census,
  1258
  the enumerator is to find out in the case of any person so bold as to get married the duration of the marriage and the number of children born of the marriage. A provision of that kind does not exist in the Irish Act, although I should have thought that the children there were at least as important to the State as elsewhere.
  Mr. BIRRELL: We did make these inquiries at one time, but the information we got was of such an inaccurate and insufficient character as to the duration of the marriages and their fertility that we really felt it was no use making them. In England it is being adopted, and we will await the result of the experiment. The only reason why it was abandoned in Ireland was that after some years' experience we felt that the statistics elicited were not worth having.
  Mr. KETTLE: That explanation does not appear to me to be very satisfactory. The Chief Secretary is speaking at second hand. He had no experience of the last Census in Ireland. His observations suggest that bureaucratic supervision of which we know so much. I am very glad to have got from the Chief Secretary an official condemnation of the accuracy of the Census in Ireland. He seemed to be of another opinion on this matter in relation to the Old Age Pensions Act. The information could be obtained. There is this difference between the administration of the Census Act in Ireland and the administration of the Census Act in Great Britain that in the former country it is taken by the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary. It may very well be that members of the Royal Irish Constabulary do not appear in the necessarily somewhat unfavourable light that the civil enumerators specially appointed for the purpose in Great Britain do. [An Hon. Member: "They are more popular."] If they are much more popular the last vestige of the Chief Secretary's case disappears. I do not see why anyone in Ireland should refuse these particulars. Unless we get a better answer I do not think we can accept the explanation as satisfactory.
  Sir CHARLES DILKE: The words that have just been spoken illustrate what I said on the other Bill. But I will not go into that point, because I rose for the purpose of adding something, if I can, to what was said by the hon. Member opposite as to the need for caution in asking for more details in the matter of

  1259
  occupation. The right hon. Gentleman the former President of the Local Government Board on the opposite side knows the difficulty in this matter is that it is almost impossible to get the inquiries so made as to get a uniform interpretation of the words. In different parts of the country in the same trade the same word means something different. In New Zealand, if I may just give one example, they attach the greatest possible importance to finding out how many people are engaged in the licensed trade. They had a most elaborate inquiry on that point, tout it was found that brewer's labourers could not be got to return themselves universally otherwise than as labourers, and the difficulty of distinguishing between these classes made the details worthless as a base for scientific statistical information.
  Captain BRYAN COOPER: Just one point to the Chief Secretary. The President of the Local Government Board, in introducing the English Bill, said that he had obtained the sanction of the Treasury to the purchase of a new calculating machine which would enable the Census results to appear at a much earlier period than hitherto. I should like to ask whether the Irish Secretary has also seen the Treasury on that point, or whether the Irish Census will appear at a much later date? I think it is desirable that we should know this, so that another Irish injustice shall not be done. Reference has been made to the preference of the people of Ireland for the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary as enumerators instead of civil enumerators. I think that is quite right. The police they know. A civilian may be a stranger, and they do not know what awful horror he may portend. He may have come to vaccinate the baby—
  Mr. BIRRELL: Vaccination is not a horror at all.
  Captain BRYAN COOPER: They have quaint fancies, but I am quite certain that they could not have better and more competent men to make this enumeration than the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Mr. KETTLE: Five or six years ago there was a statistical department formed at the Board of Agriculture, and almost the first thing they found out was that the statistics collected by the police were entirely unreliable.
  Mr. BIRRELL: Well, for their purpose it required more technical knowledge.
  Bill to be considered in Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

  SMALL HOLDINGS (No. 3) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am very glad indeed that the Government has taken up this question, and I think every one interested in agricultural constituencies will agree with me. The compensation now proposed when farmers are going to be evicted to make way for small holdings, ought to have been, I think, in the original Bill. While I express gratitude to the Government, I should like to say I do not think their Bill goes quite far enough. If I may respectfully suggest an improvement, I hope that those in charge of the Bill will listen sympathetically to it. I should like, first of all, to ask the right hon. Baronet why it is, when the words are copied out of Clause 11 of the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1908, there is this omission. The words, "in addition to compensation, if any, to which he may be entitled for improvements," are left out. I do not know whether there is any object in leaving out these words. I should have thought, if he was still entitled to compensation for improvements, there would be no harm in putting it into this Bill. If he is not, I should like to know why he is not entitled to it. The other suggestion I should like to make, which was in my Bill which the Government have more or less copied, is the introduction of Section 23 of the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1908. They do not seem to have taken any account of that at all. That provides for compensation for "severance." Where a part of the farm is taken for small holdings it is quite possible that damage, quite out of proportion to the size of the ground taken, is done to the tenant of that farm. That does not seem to me to be provided for in the least in the Government Bill. What I suggest is that after the word "land" [Clause 1, Sub-section (1), "or farm stock on or used in connection with the land"] they should add—compensa-

  1261
  tion, of course—the words, "and also in respect of the depreciation of the value to him of the residue of the holding caused by severance, or by the use made of the part severed." That put the tenant who had to give up the land on account of a small holding in exactly the same position as a tenant under the Act of 1908 who was evicted by his landlord. I cannot but think that if it is the intention of the Government to do this it must be some oversight that they have not included ft in the present Bill. Perhaps the right hon. Baronet will tell me whether there is any hope for that Amendment. I do not wish to offer any fractious opposition to this Bill, but I shall be obliged to move this Amendment unless he can suggest some better way of arriving at the object I desire.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend has just said in expressing satisfaction that the Government have taken up this matter, and that they are prepared in this Bill to provide some compensation for those who have been dispossessed of part of their holdings through no fault of their own. But I cannot help expressing regret that on the face of it this Bill has not been made retrospective. It is difficult, indeed, to see why those who are hereafter dispossessed of part of their holdings for the purpose of carving out of them smaller holdings should be in a better position than those who, during the last two years, have been similarly dispossessed. I earnestly appeal to the hon. Baronet to show that he is willing to amend this Bill by making it retrospective by altering Sub-clause 3 of Clause 1, so that the Act shall not come into operation at the beginning of next year, but that it shall be deemed to have been in operation at the time of the enacting of the Act of 1908. Now, referring to this Clause 1, I fail to see any virtue in the words in the first line, "at the written request of a council." As that Clause stands at the present time, if a verbal request is made by the tenant's landlord to a tenant, the latter will not obtain the benefit to which he would otherwise be entitled under this Bill—that is to say, that, owing to the adoption of irregular machinery on the part of a person other than himself, he may be really deprived of the rights to which he would otherwise be entitled under this first Clause. I should like to have seen the last four lines of that
  1262
  Clause omitted altogether, and the Clause stop at the word "quitting," and other words put in to the effect that the compensation to which he shall be entitled shall cover all loss that is incurred in consequence of disturbance, not only loss in connection with the sale or removal of his household goods or his implements of husbandry or farm stock.
  There are many cases conceivable, and some have already occurred, in which a small portion of a larger holding has been taken for this purpose. A dairy farmer has been obliged to give up his dairy business and to go into another part of the country to start afresh on a new dairy farm, and has thereby not only lost his business on that particular farm, but has lost the goodwill of the business, which is an item of commercial value. In any case, I would suggest that the Government should amend that Clause either by letting it stop at the word "quitting," or by adding after the word "quitting" the words, "or incidental thereto," so that any loss a tenant may suffer through no fault of his own, but owing to the initiative of the county council, should not fall upon him, but that he should be compensated in respect of that loss. There is, undoubtedly, a distinction between disturbance by a landlord and disturbance by a county council. It may be said that the compensation for loss which is referred to under this Bill is exactly the same, and in respect of the same subjects as are included under the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1908. But may I point out that the position is totally different? The position of a tenant under a landlord who may be disturbed for unreasonable purposes by his landlord, and the position of a tenant who is disturbed by someone outside for purposes which he could not possibly have contemplated at the time he was taking his holding are entirely different.
  Take the case of the tenant who has obtained a lease from his landlord (and most far-sighted landlords when they see a prospect of obtaining a good tenant will urge him to take a lease); it is not likely that he will be dispossessed during the term of the lease. In the case of a county council the tenant, although in occupation under a lease, can be dispossessed in spite of the terms of his lease, and as a result may sustain loss for which this Bill in no way compensates him. The position is entirely different—the dispossession of a tenant by his own landlord and

  1263
  the dispossession of a tenant by the county council. It seems to me in the former case that the legal maxim caveat emptor will apply. The tenant is in a position to consider beforehand whether he would be likely to suffer any particular loss, whether he is about to hold under a good landlord or otherwise, but in the case of a county council he is unable to estimate beforehand whether he will be dispossessed by the operation of this Act for the purposes of a small holding. The position is totally different in the two cases, and I venture to hope that the hon. Baronet will see his way to make the compensation in this case cover the whole amount of the loss which may be suffered by the tenant through no fault of his own, and owing to the unforeseen intervention of the county council.
  Mr. VENABLES LLEWELYN: I cannot help thinking that this measure is one that will popularise the Small Holdings Act of 1908 very largely in the country. From my experience, I think the farmers disliked that Act purely because they were afraid of losing some of their land without compensation, and if this Bill is now passed, giving fair compensation in any cases that may arise where their land has been taken away from them, that fear will disappear altogether. There are one or two small points in which I think this Bill might be strengthened. Take the position of a small holder who is occupying his own land. I am not quite clear whether the Bill covers his position or not. I think it would be only fair to compensate him, even though he is occupying his own land, in the same way that a tenant farmer is compensated who is occupying some other person's land. This Bill seems not to extend to the case of allotments; not to grant compensation on the creation of allotments, although it does so in the case of small holdings. I think it should be established that what is sauce for the goose is sauce also for the gander, and if compensation is due in one case it should also be due in the other. I confess I liked better the Bill which was introduced by my hon. Friend near me the Member for the Oswestry Division, which I think would cover the case of loss by severance more clearly and definitely than this Bill does.
  I hope that when this Bill gets into Committee Amendments will be accepted by the Government to make it stronger in
  1264
  that respect, and if it is made stronger in that respect, and is amended so as to satisfy the doubts of agricultural Members in all parts of the House, then I cannot help thinking it will go a long way towards popularising the Small Holdings and Allotments Act among farmers.
  Mr. W. A. MOUNT: I desire to cordially thank the hon. Baronet opposite for this Bill, and at the same time I would wish to endorse the hope that has been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire. I can imagine the objections that may be advanced against making the Bill retrospective, but I think the objections are not very strong in this case. The Small Holdings Act is only in operation for a short time, and I do not think there will be very much difficulty in agreeing upon the authority that might settle the amount of compensation that might have to be paid in these particular cases. I venture to suggest that it is especially necessary in regard to this Bill to make it retrospective, because when you get a measure such as this you get in the first year a very large number of cases, whereas as the years go on there will be a very much smaller number of men who will be entitled to compensation under the Bill. In the Return issued a couple of days ago it was shown that over 38,000 acres were taken for small holdings, but a considerable portion of that, no doubt, was taken out of farms already occupied. I venture to urge very strongly that something might be done to bring within the four corners of the Act those farmers whose lands have already been taken, and who are as much entitled to compensation as those who will have their land taken this year. I criticise the Bill in no captious spirit, but I think if these Amendments were made the Bill would be rendered far more acceptable and useful.
  Colonel WARNER: I am thoroughly grateful for the introduction of this Bill, and I ask my hon. Friend on the other side, with whom I have worked for some time in trying to get this Bill passed into law, not to prolong discussion about some o; the details and thereby run the risk of losing the Bill altogether. It is very valuable as it stands, and although there are certain things left out that might be an improvement if they were included, and an this is a Bill we shall not get except with common consent, it is too much risk to run. Let me take one point about making the

  1265
  Bill retrospective. I doubt whether that is possible. Many of the things that have been done have already been completed, and the money has been allotted according to a certain bargain. If there was a claim for something more the bargain would fall through. It is quite true that you might allot money, but I think it would be very difficult to carry out in practice. I should like to see every farmer who is entitled to compensation get it, but I do not want to see this Bill lost for the sake of one or two farmers, and I believe there are only one or two who have been really affected in this way by the Small Holdings Act.
  Mr. STANIER: Lots of them.
  Colonel WARNER: There were lots that gave land, but whether they will be entitled to anything if this Bill were made retrospective is very doubtful. It is not a question whether the farmers gave land, but it is a question whether they were injured in doing so. I think it would be dangerous to try to make a lot of Amendments now. The Bill has been introduced by the Government, and I appeal to my hon. Friends on the other side not to press their point too severely or to endanger the passing of the Bill, which, if passed, will be a great protection to the farmers of the country.
  Mr. E. G. PRETYMAN: I did not intend to touch upon the retrospective question, and all I will say upon it is that if the hon. Member for Lichfield will consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer he will find out how it is possible to extract money retrospectively. That being so, surely it is possible to pay compensation retrospectively where a case of hardship has been established. Where injustice or hardship has been created, the fact that the number of such cases is very few is no reason why they should not have compensation. On the contrary, where a hardship only affects a few people that seems to me to be a strong case for compensation in retrospective cases. What I rose to point out was that the important question of severance has been entirely omitted from the Bill. This is a subject of the greatest importance. There are innumerable cases of farms of 400 or 500 acres where most of the land is light and of poor quality, but where what is called the eye of the farm, often consisting of about 100 acres, is excellent land. The county council are very likely to take that 100 acres from the farm. It is well known that you cannot farm the light land itself
  1266
  except under serious disabilities, and there is often a very large and serious depreciation by severance. Clause 23 of the existing Act provides that where a landlord parts with a portion of a farm and takes it away from the tenant for any of the purposes set forth in the Clause, he is obliged to reduce the rent in proportion. It was considered necessary by the Government to provide for compensation for severance in the existing Act against the landlord, and they cannot say it is not equally necessary to provide for severance where it is compulsorily brought about by the county council. There can be no possible ground for denying compensation in this case, and I hope the Government will introduce an Amendment to bring that change about, otherwise it will be necessary to introduce an Amendment in this direction from the Opposition side of the House. I wish to emphasise the great importance of this point, and I hope the Government will meet it. I am extremely glad that this Bill has been brought in. With reference to what the hon. Member for Lichfield has said, I do not; think it will be contended that reasonable Amendments of the kind I have referred to will endanger the Bill. Everybody is in favour of this Bill. It is absolutely non-contentious and it is overdue, and I suggest that it is not wise for the hon. Member to assert that reasonable Amendments will endanger this measure. I think the supporters of this Bill have a right to point out any flaws existing in the measure, and adopting this course will not endanger the Bill in any sense.
  Mr. WARNER: May I point out that the condition on which this Bill was introduced was that it should not be regarded as a contentious measure.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir E. Strachey): I need hardly say that I welcome the chorus of approval with which the introduction of this measure has been greeted. I am afraid some of the Amendments which have been suggested would be regarded as contentious. It will be within the recollection of the House that this Bill was only introduced on the distinct understanding that it should be regarded as non-contentious and as a measure practically agreed to by all quarters of the House. I believe only one hon. Member took objection to it the other evening, otherwise it would have been

  1267
  passed after eleven o'clock. It was only on the understanding that there would be practically no discussion that an opportunity before eleven o'clock was given. I only desire to say that if it is made contentious the conditions under which I was allowed to introduce the Bill cease to exist. With regard to compensation for severance, the hon. Member for Chelmsford raised the question of compensation in cases where a farm is injured by the county council acquiring the best land upon it.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: That is not the point at all. Under Clause 23 of the existing Agricultural Holdings Act there are certain definite reasons given under which, if land is taken, the tenant is entitled to compensation for severance and the taking of land for small holdings is not one of them. Therefore a tenant under the existing Act cannot obtain compensation from the landlord or county council if his land is taken away. The result is that the tenant can obtain no compensation, and I suggest that he ought to be able to obtain compensation for the land taken away from him, and it should be paid by the county council.
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The hon. Member cannot expect me to agree with him in that contention. I do not think the county council would be in a position different from that of a private landlord, but I am quite ready to look into this question, and I shall be willing to accept any reasonable Amendments which will not make this Bill contentious. As for making this measure retrospective, I have a great deal of sympathy with that proposal, but I wish to point out that it raises a great many difficulties. How are you going to bring in provisions in a Clause which states at the end that notice shall be given to the county council to enable them to have an opportunity of making a valuation? How can the county council have an opportunity of making a valuation if the measure is made retrospective? Again I say that if I can meet this point I shall be glad to do so. I do not need say anything more to assure the House that as far as I can accept Amendments which are not contentious and which will improve the measure, I shall only be too glad to do so. I hope the House will give the Bill a second reading in order that we may get to the next stage, when we shall have an opportunity of considering what improvements can be
  1268
  made which are not contentious, and which will be readily agreed to in all quarters of the House.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: I do not think there need be any alarm as to the passage of this measure being endangered by contentious Amendments. The Amendments which have been suggested are not far-reaching, and they are not numerous, but they are, nevertheless, Amendments which deserve the most friendly consideration of the hon. Baronet. With regard to the case of and taken compulsorily for the purpose of this Act, I understand the hon. Baronet has promised to look into this matter with the aid of his legal advisers, and if he is satisfied that a manifest injustice will be created by a passage of this Bill, he will be willing to insert an Amendment to meet this point. I feel satisfied that when the hon. Baronet looks into this, question he will find that the case is exactly as my hon. Friend put it. With regard to the retrospective principle, I do not think I have ever recommended before that a measure should be made retrospective, because, as a rule, that course opens up trouble and difficulty. I think, however, that this case is altogether distinct from any case which has ever come under my experience before. This Act of Parliament has only been on the Statute Book for two or three years, and under its operation only a limited number of cases have been dealt with. The hon. Member for Lichfield said there were only one or two such cases, but I think upon inquiry that he will find that he is mistaken. I am afraid there are a much larger number, but I do not think they are very numerous. Obviously it is necessary, in order that frauds should be avoided, that the county council should have a knowledge of the foundation upon which the claim rests.
  It is quite obvious the objection of the hon. Baronet is fatal to the suggestion made from this side of the House if precisely "the same procedure is to be adopted, but I submit the case would be met approximately, and that is all that Parliament could be asked to do now, if the Government were to be good enough to insert words in the Bill which would enable the Board of Agriculture, after satisfying themselves that the case is good and that the loss has been incurred, to pay something in respect of remuneration to the persons concerned. I think the House will agree, where a Bill is new, and where it has undoubtedly caused great injustice to

  1269
  a limited number of people, an injustice that has so impressed itself upon Parliament and the Government that they have already brought in a Bill to make its repetition impossible, that in fairness to those who have suffered, if it is possible to relieve them of their burdens, Parliament ought to do so.
  I may remind the hon. Baronet that during the short Debate no hon. Member opposite has risen to make an objection except the hon. Member for Lichfield, and he did not object to the principle, but only urged upon us not to imperil a Bill which we are all anxious to support in order to get something more than the Bill proposes to give. If we were asking that an addition should be made to the Bill, and that it should be carried further than its scone, then I admit that criticism would be fatal to our proposals, but the suggestions we make are really necessary if the Bill is to do justice all round. I believe their adoption would not give rise to objections from hon. Members opposite. There is nothing in the nature of money which could be called serious, and nothing in any way involving heavy expenditure. The matter is a small one in point of the number of cases and in the amount involved, tout it is a very serious one for the people themselves, and, whether there be one case or twelve cases, and whether the cost be £10 or £100, I am quite certain the Government are anxious that justice should be done, and they themselves will realise it is important in the interests of a measure for which they are responsible, and for whose success they are naturally anxious, that any injustice should be removed. I think the hon. Baronet will find that whether our requests are met favourably or not, there is no intention whatever on our part to offer anything in the form of opposition which will put him in a difficulty. All we ask is that a very few minutes' consideration shall be given to our recommendations, and, if the Government can see their way, as I believe they will, to accept our suggestions—though it may even be in some modified form, we shall be grateful to them. We really think the suggestions we have made are practical, business suggestions, and that their adoption is necessary if the Bill is to work smoothly and fairly. We have made them in this spirit, and I can assure the hon. Baronet that nothing will be offered by my hon. Friends but support, although it may be necessary for us to move Amendments in Committee if the hon. Baronet does not see his way to put them down himself. If
  1270
  he would allow two or three days to elapse between now and the Committee stage, and he would consult his colleagues, I am so satisfied that our suggestions are practical ones, quite within the power of the Government to meet, that I believe he would put them down on the Paper himself, and that further time of the House would be unnecessary.
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Of course, if there are any Amendments suggested which are not contested, and which will improve the Bill, I shall be pleased to accept them.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I agree that great injustice has been done to a very limited class. None the less, it is felt by that class, and I think it would be an improvement of the Bill if it were made retrospective. There is really one other provision in the Bill which might be considered by the Government. Provision is made for the payment of compensation under the Act of 1908, when a tenant has been disturbed. It is perfectly well known to those acquainted with the provisions usually contained in all landed agreements, that a tenant is not entitled to compensation for certain improvements unless he has the written consent of the landlord. In a large number of cases estates are vested in trustees or in tenants for life, and, so far as the estate is vested in one family, he will not be disturbed, and he will in consequence reap the benefit of his improvements. In North Wales it is common for tenants to put up buildings, and, in the ordinary course of things, that tenant would be permitted by his landlord to remain on his farm and reap the benefit of the money and labour he had expended upon it. If he is going to be disturbed, not by his landlord, but by the operation of the law, it seems to me that that tenant has a greater claim upon the county council than the mere legal claim which he is able to enforce against the landlord. I know that some of my hon. Friends will argue that the imposition of any further scale of compensation payable to the tenant by the county council will deter the county council from putting this Act into force, but I can only appeal to my hon. Friends to remember that the great difficulty experienced by county councils at the present time is the difficulty experienced with the farmers, and so long as the farmers feel, as they undoubtedly do feel, that this Act in its present form can only be put into force at their expense, and at the expense

  1271
  of very considerable injustice to them, I am quite sure that the Act cannot be enforced in such a way as to be a success. I hope the hon. Baronet will really consider the question of the position of the tenant who is not strictly entitled to compensation in accordance with the Small Holdings Act, but who, having made improvements, would, in the ordinary course of things, be permitted by the landlord to reap the benefit of them.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: I have only one observation to make, and it is in the direction of protecting the small holdings fund as much as possible in this matter of compensation. I think it might be possible to compensate in kind instead of in money, and the Bill might be improved if a provision were introduced enabling the county council to offer to the tenant if disturbed one of the most suitable holdings. There is a tendency for extravagant claims to be made when compensation is available, and it would be in the interest of small holdings if there were a provision inserted in the Bill enabling the county council to make one of the holdings available for the tenant. If the tenant had the option of taking that holding and did take it, it should free the county council from giving anything by way of money compensation. There is one other provision which might protect the funds and at the same time improve the Bill, and that is that no compensation given should exceed the amount of compensation which the tenant could claim from the landlord because of disturbance. A tenancy might be expiring in three or six months; and very little compensation might be due in consequence of a breach of contract. In no case should the compensation given under the Act be greater than the compensation that a tenant could claim from the landlord for breach of contract. These two provisions would protect the funds and improve the Bill.
  Mr. STANIER: The hon. Member for Carnarvonshire seems to believe that the money paid for this compensation would add to the price of the holding and therefore make against the buying of the holding. The money comes from the Board of Agriculture and not from the county council, and will not raise the price.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I did not say that at all. I said that some of my friends would argue that the giving of compensation under the circumstances I described
  1272
  would make it more difficult to carry out the Act.
  Mr. STANIER: I am glad the matter is cleared up. At this late hour I will not detain the House longer. I will merely congratulate the hon. Baronet on bringing forward the Bill.
  Motion made, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."—[Sir E. Strathey.]
  Question put, and agreed to; Committee to sit upon Monday, 20th June.

  MILK AND DAIRIES BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—[Mr. G. Courthope.]
  Mr. J. W. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury): There have been many Bills in connection with this subject, and, in the absence of the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. John Burns), who is a very well-known expert on the subject, I think it would scarcely do to pass its Second Reading without discussion. The hon. Member has not told us what the Bill proposes to do. I am sorry he did not give us some information about it, but we all know it is a very controversial subject. There have been one or two discussions, especially with regard to the milk supply of London, and I think until we have some fuller knowledge of the subject it is only right that we should not give a Second Reading to this Bill.
  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.

  MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL.
  Order for consideration read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
  Mr. MORTON: I beg to move as an Amendment to leave out the word "now" and at the end of the question to add the words "upon this day three months."

  1273
  I regret very much to have to trouble the House again with this question of third-class "sleepers" on trains. I have no desire to make any special attack on the Midland or any other railway company.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): If the hon. Member proposes to raise the question of third-class sleepers it is not in order at this stage of the Bill.
  Mr. MORTON: Up to the present time we have always been allowed to raise this question on the Motion that the Bill be read a second time, and I have repeatedly done so. Of course, I do not want to dispute your ruling.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: On the Second Reading of the Bill it is possible to raise the broad point, but we are now on the Consideration stage.
  Mr. MORTON: Can it be done on the Third Reading?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I may not be in the Chair on Thursday evening, and the hon. Member can raise that question then.
  Mr. MORTON: I am very sorry I cannot raise the question now, but I beg to give notice that on the Motion for the Third Reading I will do so. I have always understood that this House has a right to refuse a concession to any company until we have had an opportunity of raising grievances.
  Bill, as amended, considered.

  Clause 25.—(Power to Company to Acquire Golf Course.)
  In addition to the other lands which the Company are by this Act authorised to purchase and acquire, they may purchase or acquire by agreement or take on lease and use for the purposes of a golf course and let on lease or otherwise to any club, company, body, or person, lands in the parishes of Ballywillin and Dunluce, in the county of Antrim, now occupied and used for the purposes of a golf course, and known as the Portrush Golf Links, and any lands necessary or desirable for an extension or alteration of the said golf course, and the company may upon such lands, or any part thereof, form, alter, maintain, regulate, manage, and use a golf course, with all proper and convenient houses, pavilions, shops, works, buildings, and conveniences, and may make charges for the use thereof, as they think fit, and the company and the owner, or owners of, and all other persons interested in the said
  1274
  lands, or any part thereof, or the Royal Portrush Golf Club, or any other company, body, or person may enter into and carry into effect agreements with respect to all or any of the matters aforesaid.
  Mr. KERR-SMILEYmoved to add at the end of the Clause the words, "Provided that golf shall not be played on such golf course on Sundays without the consent of the Portrush Urban District Council."
  May I state at once that I have no wish to show hostility to the Bill or to hinder its passing. I only have to deal with Clause 25, which deals with the acquisition by the Midland Company of what is known as the Portrush Golf Club. The Midland Company own a large hotel in Portrush, and naturally they are anxious to make it pay. Of course, their object in wishing to acquire Portrush Golf Club is to attract week-end visitors from Belfast and other centres, and if this Clause were allowed to pass as it stands there would be nothing to prevent the railway company from opening the links on Sunday. The people in the town of Portrush and neighbourhood will have absolutely no remedy, although it is well known that, by an overwhelming majority, they are opposed to it—indeed, the whole Protestant population of the North of Ireland are strongly opposed to the opening of the golf links on Sunday. There is no doubt about this question. Last autumn a proposal was made to open the links on Sunday, and it caused a great deal of indignation in the neighbourhood. I can bear testimony to that fact, because I happened to be staying there at the time, and it was shown very clearly that there were only a few members of the golf club in favour of the innovation. On that occasion a memorial was sent in by the ratepayers, representatives of the merchants, and householders of Portrush, protesting vigorously against any attempt to introduce golf on Sundays, and I should like to read the protest which was presented by the town clerk at a special meeting of the club that year:—
  "He said the nineteen sheets which formed the protest bore 401 signatures, including 3G0 householders and residents of Portrush, and forty-one residents in the immediate neighbourhood. Ten of the eleven urban district councillors at present in Portrush were strongly in favour of the protest. Four ministers of the town had signed it, as well as over 340 of the general ratepayers, representing practically the merchants and inhabitant householders of Portrush. The protest was not, for obvious reasons, presented to visitors at present occupying the houses in the town. The protest was simply presented for signature only to householders, and the committee met with not more than twelve refusals."

  1275
  I should think that this proves conclusively to the Members of this House that the residents in the district are absolutely against golf being introduced on Sundays, and I am quite certain that they are against having the Sabbath broken by the incursion of golfers from Belfast and other places. It may be difficult for some Members of this House to understand our attitude. I hope, however, they will respect the feelings of the people of Portrush in this matter. They are absolutely sincere, and I think they are entitled to the consideration of the House. You are bound to respect the feelings of the majority in a matter of this sort. If this Clause be allowed to pass the railway company will be able to ignore the opinion of the people, and to outrage the feelings of thousands of the inhabitants of Ulster. There would be no remedy. It will be impossible when the railway company get control of the links to prevent them doing what they desire in the matter. I hope the Members of this House will consider the feelings of the people in this district, and that the Clause which we are now discussing will be amended in such a way that the company will not be allowed to introduce golf on Sunday without the consent of Portrush Urban District Council.
  Mr. HUGH BARRIE: I desire to second the addition to Clause 25. I have the honour to represent a suburb of the locality affected by this proposal, and I wish to emphasise, in the first place, what my hon. Friend said to the effect that we are not animated by any hostility to the Bill, but we are only anxious that the strong expression of opinion of this district should be respected by those responsible for this Bill. The position briefly is that for many years past we have had a very prosperous golf club at Portrush, run entirely as a private concern and rented from Lord Antrim. When the original lease, which I think was for twenty-one years, expired there was demanded what in the eyes of the members of the golf club was an extortionate rent. They were not able to come to terms with Lord Antrim, and proceedings were carried forward a considerable way in the direction of acquiring other grounds with a view to opening a rival golf course. At that time the railway company, animated, I fear, purely by the commercial aspect of the question, stepped in and took a lease of the original golf links belonging to Lord Antrim, and
  1276
  they have sublet the golf course, as I understand it, or at least they have made a provisional arrangement with the golf club to let it for a shorter term. The council which controls that club has a considerable number of the friends of the railway company upon it, and one of their first acts was to raise the ordinary membership fee to double what it was before. The result was that we had a large number of resignations, and those of us who have looked askance at the policy of the railway company have come to the conclusion that they obviously wished to get rid quietly of the ordinary private golfer, and run this golf course only as an annexe to the railway and the railway hotel, which is well known in Portrush. We know that a railway company is apt to look at the commercial aspect of the matter only, and the directors of a railway company, regulated from England, are not likely to be closely in touch with local feeling or sentiment.
  Of course, those who support the Bill say the railway company have no intention of running counter to local feeling; but I desire to say that we have refused to accept that statement when it is made, and we have appealed to the facts as they present themselves to us. Last year the council of the golf club, set in motion, we believe, by the railway company, called a meeting of the ordinary members of the club with a view to getting the premises to open on Sunday. They expected to carry that by a majority, and every facility was given for the attendance of those who supported Sunday golf. The meeting was called for a Saturday afternoon when cheap week-end trains were being run and also Saturday afternoon excursions. I am glad to be able to say that the proposition failed by a majority of two to one, and we did think that the railway had accepted that decision, and that they would not be likely to proceed further in that direction until some evidence could be produced of an altered state of local feeling. May I say here that we have got another piece of evidence of what the intention is. While it has become necessary to double the ordinary membership subscription, the railway company have come to terms with the council of the golf club and insisted that the charges to the visitors to the hotel at Portrush are not to be altered. Everything points to the fact that the policy is to make this purely a department of the railway company, run for profit regardless of local opinion. We had still further proof of that last year when a skating rink

  1277
  was erected on the railway company's property adjacent to the station, the capital of which was largely held by the railway company, although for the most part in a private name. We found that within a few weeks of the opening of the skating rink that the railway company were actively supporting the management of that rink in a series of Sunday concerts. Excursion trains were run from all parts to Portrush, and the Sunday while those excursions lasted was turned into a fair rather than the quiet day which we have the privilege of enjoying in that part of the country.
  I do not think it is necessary to add much more except for the purpose of telling hon. Members who have no knowledge of Portrush that this is not a case of a golf course situated at some distance from a populous centre. The golf course at Portrush is situated in the centre of the market, and in course of time buildings have been erected on three sides of that course. If, therefore, we are to have Sunday golf there, the play will be distinctly seen from the town, and local feeling is offended in a way which it could not be if the links were away from the town. I think that the mild proposal which my hon. Friend has made to leave this matter to a popularly elected body is equitable, and should have the support and sympathy of this House. If the time does come when local feeling changes, then we may rely upon it that the electors will see that their representatives on that board properly represent local opinion, but we do not know that at the present moment local feeling is hostile to it. A writer in the "Irish Times" newspaper said the attitude of the Portrush people was unaccountable, and if they were as hard-headed and as commercial as it was thought, they were warned in a leader of that Dublin paper that if they persisted in asking their Members to move this Amendment they were going to lose thousands of pounds per annum. The answer of the people of that locality to that important organ of public opinion is, that since the article appeared the urban council have again passed a unanimous resolution against these golf links passing into the hands of the railway company, and they are prepared to make any necessary monetary sacrifice because they feel that those they represent wish to have the Sunday observed as it is at present, and they look to the House to help them in resisting the proposal which is now made.
  Viscount MORPETH: I think it is rather unfortunate that the time of the
  1278
  Imperial House of Commons should be taken up in discussing the internal politics of the Portrush Golf Club. It is more unfortunate, because if this matter had been as important as is represented by hon. Members, they might perfectly well have raised the question in Committee, when evidence could have been taken, where both sides could have been heard, and where the matter could have been settled rather than in this House.
  Mr. HUGH BARRIE: We had no notice that such a clause was in the Bill.
  Viscount MORPETH: The Bill was printed before the Second Reading, and nobody could have made any mistake about the matter. Clause 25, which is a long clause, contains this proposal, and could not have escaped the vigilant eyes, of the hon. Members for Ulster. My hon. Friend said he was afraid the railway company were animated by the purely commercial aspect of the matter. The railway company naturally goes to Port-rush in the expectation of traffic and of serving the needs of the district, for which they hope to receive a due return in the shape of profits. I do not think it is necessary to apologise to the railway company for having pushed enterprise in this direction, and I should have thought that the inhabitants of Portrush would have welcomed the railway, which is well known to serve to the best of its ability those districts in which it runs. The hon. Gentleman let drop, in the course of his speech, that the Railway Hotel is admirably conducted. I should have thought that, knowing that the railway company conducted their hotel in such a way as to give satisfaction to the inhabitants of Port-rush, they might have trusted it with regard to the golf course. Other railway companies have golf courses, but I never heard that there has been any difficulty, and I do not imagine that there would be any difficulty in the future in regard to this special case, even if the Amendment is not carried.
  At the present time there is no golf played at Portrush, but I have no doubt that if Lord Antrim or the president of the club chose to have golf in Portrush on these links, which are private links, the urban district council would not be able to prevent them, therefore this attempt on the part of my hon. Friend is to put the new owner of the golf course in an entirely different position from the present owner. The Midland Company

  1279
  have only acquired this course for the benefit of the town, because there was some danger of it being closed altogether. I have seen some of those who are responsible for the policy of the railway company, and they wish the House to be informed that it is not their intention to fly counter to the wishes of the inhabitants, nor to have golf unless there is a general wish that it should be so. The management of the links will be in the hands of a local committee, as at present, which will lease it from the railway, as they now lease it from Lord Antrim, but they are not prepared to have an absolutely unprecedented Clause put into the Bill which will tie their hands and which will place the control of their property and the management of the links in the hands of the urban district council. They contend that it would be impossible to manage their property and the company as a whole if they were to be made subject throughout the whole length of their system to the varying demands and requests of every local authority through which they pass. They think this would introduce so dangerous a precedent and would be so inimical to railway working that they are not able to accept the Amendment, although it is their intention to carry on the links as far as possible on the same lines as they have been carried on in the past. I have no doubt that if the House will put this power in their hands Portrush has nothing to fear from the management of the course.
  MARQUESS of HAMILTON: Can the Noble Lord give a guarantee that golf will not be played on Sunday? If so, probably my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment.
  Viscount MORPETH: I understand it is not the intention of the railway company to start golf unless it is generally desired by the people who use the links, but obviously they cannot bind themselves for all eternity, because the opinion of Ulster may change and in a few short years the harmless golf may be played even in North Ireland as it is in many other parts of the United Kingdom.
  Captain CRAIG: I am very sorry that the Noble Lord has not accepted the suggestion of his Friends and given a guarantee on behalf of the company on this important point. The question is not one which rests with the players of golf, but the objection is entirely with
  1280
  the local people, who object to people coming in from a distance and playing golf to their annoyance. After all, it is a matter which has aroused very great interest and considerable feeling in the locality. The Noble Lord said it is not their intention to fly in the face of local opinion. That is the whole point. My hon. Friends have only asked that there should not be golf on Sunday. Why, therefore, cannot the Noble Lord give a guarantee that this very reasonable demand should be acceded to? The Noble Lord complains that the proper time was when this Bill was in Committee. On these private Bills, especially railway Bills, it is extremely hard for any hon. Members to follow them in Committee upstairs, and, therefore, the local people look to their Member to keep them right, and do not always instruct those who are learned in the law to appear before the Committee. The proper time for hon. Members to object to the Bill is when it actually comes to the House. The local people have said it is not a question with them of monetary considerations. They have made up their minds that they do not want this particular game played in their neighbourhood on the Sabbath Day, and they are not, therefore, going to be browbeaten by threats from the railway company that if they do not give in they will suffer financially all the other six days of the week. The railway company has always had the very highest name in that part of Ireland. The Midland Railway Company, or what we know more familiarly as the Northern Counties Railway Company, have been pioneers in the north of Ireland, and they are noted for their courtesy and good management all through. Therefore it is with no feeling of animosity to the railway company as a whole that I speak. I only hope that pressure may be brought to bear on the Noble Lord to give way in this matter until a change of sentiment takes place in the locality, and the local authority said, "Well, there has been a change in the times, and we will not object to have golf."
  Sir J. COMPTON-RICKETT: I should like to say, as the Chairman of the Committee which dealt with the Bill, I quite agree that the House of Commons appears to be like a steam' hammer—it can flatten out a bar of iron or crack a Barcelona nut. In this case it is the Barcelona nut. This is an omnibus Bill, and amongst other matters it concerns

  1281
  the town of Bradford very largely; it provides for the abandonment of certain lines in order to make way for a large scheme connecting the Midlands by a new route with Scotland; it also affects the City of Halifax, and the Midland Railway Company have come to terms with that city on the suggestion of the Committee. At the fag end of the Bill there is the power to acquire links at Portrush. Counsel appeared in regard to other points, but not a word was said about golf. It seems to me—and I have had some experience of Committees—a very unusual thing that is now proposed. I know of no case of putting upon a company the necessity of applying to a local authority to use the property confided to them by Act of Parliament. I should think it would be a very undesirable thing for the House of Commons to initiate, and I strongly advise them not to do so, for it would be better to strike out the Clause altogether. I do not myself indulge in golf on Sunday, but at the same time I do not believe in restricting the action of individuals by Act of Parliament in the interests of the keeping of Sunday. I should hope that the House will see their way to pass the Bill in the form in which it passed through Committee.
  Sir J. MARK STEWART: Although I am not an Irish Member I live near Ireland part of the year, and I know the feelings of the people there as well as I know the feelings of my own countrymen. I know that the Glasgow and South Western Railway Company are closely allied with the Midland Railway Company, and I know what they have done in a somewhat similar case at Prestwick. There they have a large hotel and good links for golf. The consequence of that is that a great many strangers come and avail themselves of the links to the disgust of many in the community. I think this is just a case where the local people ought to have something to say. They are not dependent on any particular railway company and the making of money for the shareholders. They view this affair in a very different manner from certain hon. Members. They look upon Sunday as a day for rest and worship, and they do not like to see strangers they have never heard of or seen before coming down to enjoy their game of golf at the expense of many people who have not their rest, for there are many employed on such occasions.
  1282
  Refreshments have to be made ready, and caddies have to be got hold of. The boys who act as caddies do not learn very much on Sunday. What has done Scotland far more harm than anything else—I am speaking religiously—is the invasion of shooting tenants who come down to certain places and amuse themselves. It is possible that the railway companies may make a great deal out of it. That is not what the country wants. A railway ought to be used mainly for the benefit of a whole district, and if a district does not favour golf being played on Sunday, this Clause ought to be dropped. I hope those who oppose the playing of golf on Sunday will see that the Clause is cut out. I know it is a difficult thing to allow it to be cut out at this stage, but this is the only way in which private Members can make their voices heard on such an occasion as this.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: I hope the House will not be influenced to a great extent by the Chairman of the Committee before which the Bill was considered. I contend that this particular point is essentially one for the House and not for the Committee. It is a question whether in a matter where local feeling is touched, especially, as in this case, from the religious point of view, with respect to the observance of Sunday, the House ought to deal with it rather than the Committee upstairs. I would remind the House that the acceptance of the Amendment will not in the slightest degree hurt the remainder of the Bill. I submit that on a question of this kind, if local opinion in any district is very strong, as in this case, the Amendment ought to be accepted, because, in spite of what the Noble Lord (Viscount Morpeth) has said, the railway company will be able, if the Clause remains in the Bill as it stands, to force Sunday golf on the inhabitants of Portrush. I say that is an unusual state of affairs, and one that should not be allowed. The Noble Lord said you could leave this matter entirely in the hands of the railway company. We say that you could equally well leave it in the hands of the local authority of Port-rush. As soon as that local authority comes to the conclusion that Sunday golf will be a good thing for Portrush, you may be perfectly sure they will communicate that to the railway company. At the present moment the people of the district are very much opposed to playing Sunday golf. So long as that is the case, it would

  1283
  be very wrong for the House of Commons to allow any outside body, such as the railway company, to impose on the people something to which they are very much averse. I hope that, under these circumstances, the House will agree to the Amendment, which is not one that will put an end to the Bill, but will have a most infinitesimal effect on the railway company while giving the greatest satisfaction to all those residing in or near Portrush.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH (Lord of the Treasury): In consequence of the serious illness of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. H. J. Tennant), I have been asked, at very short notice, to attempt to fill his place, however inadequately I may be prepared to do so. I am quite sure that the House will be glad to hear that my hon. Friend is on the road to recovery, and will soon be with us once again. We have had a very interesting discussion, and the speeches of the Mover and the Seconder, as well as others, have been marked with dignity and sincerity and force. I take it that the only objection which is urged to any part of this Bill is the Amendment which has been moved, and which raises the question of Sunday golf—a very interesting ethical proposition, which, in my humble judgment, is one which each individual should decide for himself. It is a subject on which I have no intention of embarking to-night, because the Board of Trade happily is neither a censor of games nor of morals, and I think this is a matter which should be pre-eminently left to the judgment, wisdom, and good sense of the House as a whole, without any reference to party Whips or matters of pressure of that kind. But I would like to add this: I think the view, and the obvious view—at any rate, one which commends itself to my mind—is that if the public of Portrush desire to have golf played on Sunday golf will be played, and if they do not so desire it the links will remain closed. I am supported in this view by the absolute assurance of the promoters of this Bill that they have not the slightest intention of taking any step which would not meet with the general approval of the district of Port-rush; and I would also like to add this grave warning, if the House cares so to take it, that the promoters of this Bill view with the gravest apprehension the very novel principle, which might be taken
  1284
  to form a precedent for future Bills, that in dealing with the thousands of local authorities which the Midland Railway Company has to deal with the power which has been given by Parliament should not be fully exercised without the consent of local authorities. Those Members who are supporting the Amendment, and therefore are opposing the Bill, have had an opportunity of impressing the House and the country generally, and the railway company in particular, that there is a great body of opinion in the district which is strongly opposed to golfing on Sunday, and I hope, therefore, that they will not take the extreme course of dividing on this Amendment, but will rest satisfied and trust to the community of feeling between the company and by the inhabitants of Portrush as a whole.
  Mr. BRUNSKILL: I have listened to the speech of the Noble Lord on the Front Opposition Bench and the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench, and it seems to me that this is a very reasonable Amendment. It provides that golf is not to be played on the golf course on Sunday without the consent of the local district council. It has been argued here that this is an unprecedented course, and that powers which are given by Parliament should not be under the control of or dealt with in any way by a local district council. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment would be quite ready to alter it so as to leave out altogether any reference to the consent of the local district council and to provide simply that golf should not be played on Sunday. If this were done golf could never be played on that course on Sunday unless the company got a new Bill through this House, and it is entirely in ease of the Midland Railway Company that if local opinion should change in Portrush, and the Portrush people were to elect to the urban district council people who wished to have the town filled with trippers from other towns to play golf on Sunday, the railway company should be able to take advantage of that change in local opinion, and go to the urban district council and get authority to play golf on Sunday instead of having to come to this House to pass a second Bill. I think it is perfectly plain from what the Noble Lord said from the Front Opposition Bench that if the company do not want to annoy local feeling they, might very well accept this

  1285
  Amendment, which will show that they are ready to meet local feeling on this point, and then, if local feeling changes, all they need do is ask the district council to pass a resolution, while as long as the local district council is against them, if they do not want to annoy local feeling, this Amendment cannot do the railway company any harm.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: As one who is always a supporter of local authorities, I desire to say I cannot see any reason why the Government should not accept this Amendment. Apparently the sense of the House is in favour of the Amendment. I am in favour of it myself, though I am sorry that I am not allowed to play on Sundays. I am one of a golf club, every member of which desires to play golf on Sundays. The local authority in the district desires that the golf links should be open on Sundays, yet, at the same time, against the desire of those who are most concerned, and against the desire of the local authority in the district, we are prevented from playing on Sundays because, unfortunately, if I may use the word, our landlords are the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Nevertheless, although I have a personal grievance in that respect, I support the Amendment because I am also a supporter of local authority, and I am quite in agreement with the hon. and
  learned Gentleman who has just sat down, in pointing out that it is quite easy under the terms of this Amendment for the people of Portrush in the North of Ireland —and I am from the South of Ireland, where they also have a great respect for the authorities of local bodies—to decide this matter. The only way in which the people of Portrush can express their opinion in regard to golf being played on Sunday is through the Urban District Council. And how can there be any objection on the part of a Liberal Government to accepting the expression of the peoples' will through their locally-elected body? I was very much surprised at the Under-Secretary pro-tem. standing by the terms of this Bill, which evidently are not consonant with the views as expressed in this House by the cheers that have come from the other side in support of expressions of opinion on this side of the House. Therefore, I feel it my duty, first of all as a Member with a grievance, and secondly as a man who desires to maintain the authority of local bodies, to say that the Amendment has my most enthusiastic approval, and if those who propose it press it to a Division, I shall certainly give them my vote.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided: Ayes, 94; Noes, 59.

  Division No. 73.]

  AYES.

  [9. 10 p.m.

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

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Poilock, Ernest Murray

  Adam, Major William A.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

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

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Proby, Col. Douglas James

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Robinson, Sidney

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Barnes, George N.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Seddon, James A.

  Barnston, Harry

  Hodge, John

  Shortt, Edward

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Hooper, Arthur George

  Snowden, Philip

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkcudbrightsh.)

  Brace, William

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Sutton, John E.

  Brunskill, Gerald Fitzgibbon

  Hudson, Walter

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Johnson, William

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Chappie, Dr. William Allen

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Clough, William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  dynes, John R.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Joyce, Michael

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Keating, Matthew

  Twist, Henry

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Leach, Charles

  Verrall, George Henry

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Wardle, George J.

  Crossley, Sir William J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  White, Major C. D. (Lancs. Southpart)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Marks, George Croydon

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Fenwick, Charles

  Millar, James Duncan

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

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Mond, Alfred Moritz

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Foster, Harry S. (Lowestoft)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Winfrey, Richard

  Gibbins, F. W.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Wing, Thomas

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Ogden, Fred

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Kerr-Smiley and Mr. Barrie.

  Guiland, John William

  O'Malley, William

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Pointer, Joseph

  NOES.

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

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

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

  Salter, Arthur Claveil

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

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

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

  Birreil, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

  Shackleton, David James

  Boyton, James

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

  King, Joseph (Somerset, N.)

  Soares, Ernest Joseph

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Strauss, Arthur

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Cave, George

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Martin, Joseph

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Crosfield, Arthur H.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

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

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Muspratt, Max

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Alters-

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Perkins, Walter Frank

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

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Elibank, Master of

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount Morpeth and Mr. A. Williams,

  Fell, Arthur

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Forster, Henry William

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Words accordingly inserted. Bill to be read the third time.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Master of Elibank.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen minutes after Nine o'clock.

FINANCE ACT.
  INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT (BREWERY COMPANIES).
  INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT (BREWERY COMPANIES).
  STAMP DUTY ON LEASES.
  STAMP DUTY ON LEASES.
  Deaths from Use of Firearms (Ireland).
  Deaths from Use of Firearms (Ireland).
  Agrarian and Non-Agrarian Outrages (Ireland).
  Agrarian and Non-Agrarian Outrages (Ireland).
  Murder of Constable Goldrick.
  Murder of Constable Goldrick.
  Conspiracy to Boycott (Longford).
  Conspiracy to Boycott (Longford).
  Cattle-Driving in Ireland.
  Cattle-Driving in Ireland.
  Publication of Intimidatory Matter.
  Publication of Intimidatory Matter.
  Lands of Coronea.
  Lands of Coronea.
  Estate of Hon. Clara Annesley (Cavan).
  Estate of Hon. Clara Annesley (Cavan).
  Boycotting Cases (Ireland).
  Boycotting Cases (Ireland).
  Labourers' Cottages in Ireland.
  Labourers' Cottages in Ireland.
  Registration of Electors (Ireland).
  Registration of Electors (Ireland).
  Heavy Batteries in India.
  Heavy Batteries in India.
  Military Barracks, Belturbet.
  Military Barracks, Belturbet.
  Territorial Force (Government Departments).
  Territorial Force (Government Departments).
  Royal Garrison Artillery.
  Royal Garrison Artillery.
  Ceylon Legislative Council.
  Ceylon Legislative Council.
  Clifton Post Office (Bristol).
  Clifton Post Office (Bristol).
  Post Office Supplementary Clerkships (Examinations).
  Post Office Supplementary Clerkships (Examinations).
  Army Remounts (Montgomeryshire).
  Army Remounts (Montgomeryshire).
Preamble
Several Lords Several Lords—Took the Oath.

QUEEN-MOTHER'S ANSWER TO MESSAGE OF CONDOLENCE.
The Lord REAY reported that the Duke of Northumberland, the Marquess of Bath, the Lord Bishop of Winchester, the Lord Bishop of Ripon, the Lord Brassey, and the Lord Welby had waited upon Her Majesty the Queen-Mother with the Address of this House of the 11th of May last, and that his Lordship had attended Her Majesty this day and received the following reply thereto, viz.:
"I thank you with all my heart for "the message of condolence which you "have presented. I am deeply sensible "of the warmth of your sympathy in "my irreparable loss, and the assurance "which you give me of the unalterable "affection of your House and the Nation "will help to sustain me in my great "grief."

MESSAGES FROM THE KING.
A REGENCY.
Message from the King delivered by the Lord Privy Seal (E. Crewe), and read by the Lord Chancellor, as follows:
"GEORGE REX.
"The uncertainty of human life and "a deep sense of my duty to my people "render it incumbent upon me to recommend to you to consider contingencies which may hereafter take "place, and to make such provision as "will, in any event, secure the exercise "of the Royal Authority."
"I shall be prepared to concur with "you in those measures which may "appear best calculated to maintain "unimpaired the power and dignity of "the Crown, and thereby to strengthen "the securities which protect the rights "and liberties of my people."
Ordered, that the said Message be taken into consideration To-morrow.
THE CIVIL LIST.
Message from the King delivered by the Lord Privy Seal (E. Crewe), and read by the Lord Chancellor as follows:
"GEORGE REX.
"His Majesty being desirous that "competent provision should be made "for Her Majesty the Queen in the "event of her surviving him, for His "Majesty's younger children in the "event of their respectively attaining "their majority or marrying, and for "the Duchess of Cornwall in the event "of His Royal Highness the Duke of"Cornwall marrying, relies on the attachment of the House of Lords to his "person and family to concur in the"adoption of such measures as may be "suitable to the occasion."

GLASGOW GAS CONSOLIDATION BILL.
Witnesses ordered to attend the Select Committee.
RAILWAY PASSENGERS ASSURANCE COMPANY (TRANSFER) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported, without Amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
WORKSOP URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
EGREMONT URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (GAS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Stoke-on-Trent Borough (Amendment) Bill [H.L.] and other Bills, do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Great Western Railway (General Powers) Bill; read, and agreed

875
to: All Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.

LICENSING (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
The evidence taken before the Joint Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered except to Members of the Committee, and to such other persons as the Committee shall think fit until further order. (No. 55.)

SUPER-TAX ASSESSMENT.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW*THE EARL OF ONSLOW rose to call attention to the form issued by the Special Commissioners for the assessment of Super-Tax, and to their requirement that the returns shall be furnished to them at a date prior to the date (31st July, 1910) fixed in the Finance Act, 1909–10, as that on which persons chargeable with the Super-Tax must give notice that they are so chargeable; and to inquire whether the "regulations" referred to in Section 72, subsection (2) are not regulations made by Commissioners under the Act, which by Section 93 are required to be laid before Parliament.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I fancy that there must be a considerable number of your Lordships who will find yourselves some difficulty to comply with the return which has been requested, I may say which has been demanded, by the Special Commissioners of Income Tax. I do not know whether my case is a peculiar one or whether it is shared by a number of those whom the Commissioners imagine to be liable to the Super-Tax. But at any rate I received a communication on May 4—I found it on my return from abroad, when, in common with many of your Lordships I returned to this country to pay the last homage and respect to my late revered Sovereign—from which I found that I was expected, within twenty-eight days from May 4—that is, on the 1st of this month—to make a return of my total income for the year 1908–09, giving full and detailed particulars of every separate holding, tenement, and hereditament, with the amount of the rent received and the name of the occupier. I wrote to the Commissioners, and they were pleased to inform me that the period might be extended to
876
the fifteenth of this month; but I venture to think that such a period is wholly incommensurate with the immense amount of labour necessary to comply with the requirements of the Super-Tax Commissioners. I think that when the Finance Bill was passing through this House none of us could have supposed that we should be called upon for these elaborate returns before anybody need make the declaration whether or not he is chargeable for the Super-Tax.
It may be that my noble friend opposite who will reply to me will say that this has something to do with the action taken by your Lordships in regard to the Finance Bill. I have looked into that point. I find that the Finance Bill was presented to your Lordships by the noble Earl the Leader of the House on November 22, 1909, and that measure proposed that notice of chargeability should be given on the 31st of the following December—that is, thirty-eight days after the Second Reading of the Bill, supposing it to have passed through all its stages and received the Royal Assent the same day. But in the Bill which has now become an Act, which was read the second time in your Lordships' House on April 28 of this year and received the Royal Assent on April 29, the date upon which notice must be given of chargeability for Super-Tax is July 31, or ninety-two days after the passing of the Bill—ninety-two days as against thirty-eight days in the original measure. Therefore I do not think it can be said that it is owing in any way to the action of your Lordships' House that this extreme hurry is being pressed on by the Super-Tax Commissioners.
The Act provides that a return shall be made of the total income from all sources, estimated as for purposes of exemption under the Income Tax Act; and, further, by Section 72 every person is required to make a return of total income from all sources in the form and within the time required in the notice given by the Commissioners. I do not for a moment suggest that the Commissioners are not within their legal rights in demanding the return in such a form and at such a time as they may think fit, but I do venture to say that to call upon a large number of persons whose income is between £4,500 and £5,500 to make this return before they are obliged to say whether they are or are not liable to

877
the tax at all is to inflict a very great hardship upon those people. I have looked at the form under which exemption may be claimed. It is a short form, and amongst other particulars of income is that from property, including the value of the property owned and occupied by the person making the return. But that differs materially from the return now demanded by the Commissioners of Super-Tax, who require that the particulars of the income arising from the ownership of land, tenements, or hereditaments should state the precise situation of each property, the name of the occupier, and the rent or annual value, including in it a statement of particulars of any house occupied by a person liable to pay Income Tax. I thought possibly this might be meant to apply to larger parcels of land and that it would not be necessary to return every cottage upon an estate, but, on inquiry of the Super-Tax Commissioners, I was informed that they would be unable to dispense with such a return, and that it would be necessary to make it for every acre of land down to, I imagine, even an allotment. We heard during the debates on another subject that the Great Protector spoke of the "horridest arbitrariness." I think this is the horridest arbitrariness in the matter of tax collection I ever heard of.
I cannot help suspecting that there must be some ulterior object in demanding this return, and that it is not wholly unconnected with the valuation clauses of the Finance Act. I am given to understand that, so far as regards personal property at any rate, there is no objection to the return being made in the aggregate, without describing every stock and share from which the income is derived. Up to now persons engaged in trades or professions have been required to make a return of their net profits. They have not been asked to give all these intricate details. And the penalty has been a severe one, but a light one compared with the penalty imposed by the last Finance Act. The penalty for making a wilfully false return is not less than six months hard labour. I should have thought that that would have been a sufficient deterrent even for such hardened criminals as those who are in the enjoyment of over £5,000 a year, and that they might have been relied upon to make a true and accurate return.
It is not only a return of our income
878
from land that we are called upon to make; it is not only a return of our income during the present year, but it is a return for the year 1908–09; so that the whole of the old past must be dug up. We must find out how much our bankers have charged us for our overdrafts, and how much they have allowed us in interest on sums which may have been placed on deposit. I hope that the latter may be considerably in excess of the former. But, at any rate, all this has to be done, and to be done within twenty-eight days from May 4. My Lords, it is a ridiculous and absurd proposition. I am bound to admit that I have had most courteous replies from the Commissioners of Super-Tax, who have assured me that they desire to avoid the preparation of statements involving the separate consideration of each property, but how that is to be done consistently with a truthful and accurate return, I do not understand.
Section 93 of the Act provides that all regulations and rules made by the Treasury or by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or the Commissioners of Customs and Excise shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty that which usually happens takes place in such a case. I have made diligent inquiry as to whether these regulations are available, and I am told that they have been laid on the Table of the other House of Parliament but have not been printed. They certainly are not available, and I do not think that any of your Lordships or any Member of the other House has had an opportunity of perusing them. Perhaps the noble Lord who will answer this Question will give us some explanation of how we may make ourselves acquainted with these regulations, because it appears to have been the undoubted intention of Parliament that they should be laid on the Table of the House before they were acted upon.
The effect of all this is to duplicate the complicated machinery of the return for Income Tax. There is to be, as there always has been, a collection of Income Tax at the source, and, in addition, there has to be the compilation of the results of the Income Tax after it has been paid by other parties. That is to say, there is taken away from the Income Tax payer all the advantages—and they are great

879
advantages—of receiving his income after the tax has been deducted, and in lieu thereof there is thrown upon him an additional burden which he has never had to suffer before. I sincerely hope that the Treasury will take these difficulties into consideration, and, remembering how heavy is the additional burden which has been placed upon the Income Tax payer, that instructions will be given to their officials to do everything in their power to lighten the burden and expense of making these returns.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, when the noble Lord opposite answers the Question which Lord Onslow has addressed to His Majesty's Government, I should be much obliged to him if he would tell the House whether the abatement of twenty-five per cent in respect of agricultural property—an abatement on which great stress was laid by His Majesty's Government when they brought forward the Finance Bill—is or is not to be allowed in the return for Super-Tax in respect of the year 1908–09. The instructions that have appeared on the form sent to us by the Special Commissioners leave that matter entirely in the dark, and as there is great diversity of opinion on the subject I am sure the House would be indebted to the noble Lord if he could give any information on that point.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, there is one question I should like to put to him. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has assumed that the inquiries which have been made by the Government officials are all in accordance with the Act, but there are many of us in the City—in fact I might say most of us in the City—who have not been able to see in the Act any authority for the inquiries which have been made. The Act requires every person on whom notice is served to make a return of his total income from all sources, and it is quite true that in the latter part of the clause it is provided that this is to be done in the form required. But surely these later words are governed by the earlier ones. I certainly was under the impression when the Bill was being discussed that the return which had to be made was a return of the total income. But the return which is demanded is an entirely different one. The return asks for all particulars of the income. I cannot speak as a lawyer but only as a layman,
880
but I distinctly understood—and I know that many if not most of my friends in the City understood—that the duty imposed upon us under the Act was to make a return of our total income. Perhaps my noble friend, when he replies, will be good enough to give us some elucidation on that point, and explain how it can be made out that when we have the obligation of making a return of the total income we are also required to go into all the particulars which make up the total income. The task is rendered more difficult because the returns do not refer to the present year but demand particulars of a great number of incidents which when they took place we had no idea we should be called upon to set out, and which it is most difficult at this period of time to recover from the past. Take, for instance, Income Tax which has been deducted from dividends. We, of course, can all get the amount received in dividends, but it would involve a vast amount of trouble to make inquiries as to what particular amounts were deducted by the companies before those dividends were paid. The special question which I wish to put to my noble friend is—By what right are all these particulars demanded when the return we are bound to make under the Act is not a return of all these incidental particulars but a return of the total income?
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I have also been struggling with a Super-Tax form, and I entirely sympathise with what the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has said about it. It is a very difficult thing to get these details. They are, so far as one's ordinary business aspect of accounts is concerned, more or less fictitious details. They are not the amounts you have actually received, but the amounts which existed before the tax was deducted; and then you have to ascertain all sorts of Income Tax returns and annual values in connection with land. I confess I had not noticed that the return was required in twenty-eight days. I took it for granted that July 31 was the proper time.
I wish to take this opportunity of raising a kindred question, and if the noble Lord is not able to answer me without notice, which I am sorry to say I have not given him, perhaps he will allow me to ask it later. There is another class for whom it was understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a tenderness—the class who

881
pay a tax of 9d. on earned incomes. This, I understand, survives for all people whose income is under £2,000; but I cannot discover from the present Finance Act or from any other Act when and how they are to claim it. I understand that those who have claimed have been told that they are out of date. Apparently the suggestion is that they ought to have claimed at some time or other before the Finance Act became law. I think the date suggested is September 30, 1909. I do not know whether it is seriously contended that people who are entitled to that abatement should have claimed it seven months before the Act was passed. That surely is a Gilbertian state of affairs. I should like to ask what is the date at which that exemption should have been claimed by those who are entitled to it, and, if the legal date was in fact a date that expired before the Act came into force, whether His Majesty's Treasury intend to insist on their pound of flesh, or will treat these people fairly and give them an opportunity of claiming the rebate to which Parliament understood they would be entitled.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, raised another question, to which I was also going to call your Lordships' attention, as to the laying of regulations on the Table. The particular regulations to which I refer are those made by the Treasury under this Act relating to the horse-power of motor cars. According to your Lordships' Minutes they appear to have been laid on the Table of this House some time ago—May 11, I think, was the actual date. I tried a fortnight ago, and again to-day, to get a copy of these regulations from the Printed Paper Office of your Lordships' House. They are not available, but, as I understand, the forty days during which this House is entitled to disapprove of or comment upon those regulations are still running. A great deal may be said as to the power of this House in matters of finance, but here an Act of Parliament has expressly given this House the power to present an Address adverse to any of these regulations. It is a tall order to say that the regulations are to be laid in dummy, and that the period fixed in the Act is to lapse before you have any chance of perusing them, and that at the end of the time you are to be told that the forty days have expired although you have never had an opportunity of obtaining a copy of the regulations. I venture to
882
think that such a state of things ought not to occur, and that if a period of time is running as against your Lordships' House such regulations as are open to comment should be available. If my question about the 9d. tax cannot be answered to-day I will put it down for a subsequent date.
LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, I should like to say a word on one point on which Lord Onslow dwelt—I mean the conditions laid down for the returns with regard to land. It is an absolute impossibility for the returns to be made out within the time allotted, and even if a longer time were given I should think they would be unnecessary and useless to the Treasury. I pointed this out, and in reply the Commissioners told me they would be very glad to receive in total amounts the returns of any person who had to pay the Super-Tax, with a promise that when required schedules of the whole of the property would be sent in. That referred to agricultural property only. They admitted that with regard to town property it would be rather hard to ask the owner to send in a return of every small ground rent, and they thought that these might be given in larger sums provided they could be identified. It is with regard to that answer that I want to say a few words.
In the first place, you are asked to make a return with regard to your income from property in land. You make that declaration upon oath, or at any rate upon your honour, and then the Commissioners ask you to supply them with information the only purpose of which can be to convict you for bad arithmetic in your own return. That appears to be an absurd proposal. Either you have done your best to make your return from the details at your command, in which case your return is probably right, or, if you have made a mistake, it is rather hard that you should be convicted out of your own mouth. What object can the Commissioners have in asking for these returns? I think the arithmetic which is at the command of any noble Lord who happens to be an owner of property is probably as good as that of the gentlemen who are being appointed Assistant Commissioners. Any one who has had experience of dealing with the supervisors of the Treasury, or who has been for any length of time a chairman of Income Tax Assessment and Appeal

883
Committees in the country, knows with what care and courtesy the officials concerned always deal with every case. But the gentlemen who are to deal with this Super-Tax are not the courteous and painstaking members of the Civil Service with whom we have all had to do for years, but men specially appointed for the purpose. What their qualifications may be we none of us particularly know.
Why is it necessary that you should send in the name of every tenant on your estate, the size of his occupation, and the amount of his rent? The next year his occupation may be changed, the size of his farm altered, or his rent varied. Agricultural labourers—it certainly is the case in Lincolnshire—are very fond of flitting, and a man on one farm one year may be found on a neighbouring farm the next. What possible use can it be to put a landlord to the trouble of supplying all these details when they can be of no value to any one, and when they must involve a great deal of expense? When you come to the question of ground rents in towns, it is ridiculous and absurd. Ground rents in towns, in the case of leasehold property, are very small amounts, and to send in all these details would entail an enormous amount of Work. I know pretty well what it is with a small estate, and I cannot imagine that it can be done in anything like the time, even if extended to July 31, in the case of some of the large estates I know of. And when the Commissioners have obtained these returns, how much better off will they be? They will not be able, except on the point of arithmetic, to amend or alter the return sent in. Therefore why is it necessary to put this vast amount of trouble and throw this useless expense on landlords when it is not of the slightest use to the Treasury and can only delay the very return which they want? If we are to be liable to six months imprisonment for making a wrong return, it is only fair that we should be given as long a time as possible in which to make the return; and nobody can possibly make a return giving all these details within at least the next six weeks or two months.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I should like to say a word on one point which has been raised. I submit that when any paper or form has to lie on the Table of either House for a certain period
884
in order to enable objection to be raised, that paper or form should be bona fide laid and printed, and should be accessible to everybody. I remember that in the case of the Education Code the rule was that it should lie on the Table for forty days, during which time objection could be taken to it; but the Board of Education were in the habit of laying it in dummy, and I think Mr. Speaker in the House of Commons ruled that the time for objecting should run from the time when the document was accessible and not from the time when it was laid on the Table in dummy—a most important principle to insist upon.
This is not a question of politics at all; it is a question of the right of the public, through their representatives in Parliament, to have the full time granted to them by Statute for the examination of these documents. There are other persons interested besides members of the House itself. There are the other persons who come under the operation of this Super-Tax, and they might desire to communicate with noble Lords who are their friends or with Members of the other House of Parliament. It is essential, where Parliament gives a right of criticism of official documents before they become law, that this should be carried out in the fullest good faith; and I think it is merely trifling with the obligation to say that a document has been laid in dummy on the Table. I do not think it is enough even that the document should be laid in manuscript; we are entitled to have it printed.
I saw complaints in the newspapers that for a time apparently the officials at Somerset House were setting up a claim to withhold this document regarding the Super-Tax except on an assurance from the person applying for it that he admitted his liability. That seems to be waived now. I have had two of these documents myself. Therefore I do not complain of not receiving the necessary notice; but we are not concerned with ourselves now, but with the general rights of the public, and I think we ought to safeguard those rights as against the Civil administration of the country. In my opinion the period of time allowed should run from the production of the document in an accessible form.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has called attention

885
this afternoon to the form issued by the Special Commissioners for the assessment of Super-Tax. As far as my own experience goes, I am bound to say that it is no easy task to give all the information which the Commissioners desire in the forms they have sent out. But I can assure the noble Earl that there is no ulterior motive on their part or on the part of the Government in asking for this information. It is really necessary for the Commissioners to have the information in order to make a fair assessment. I believe that the experience so far has been that people have shown every willingness to give the information and every anxiety to make correct returns; but it is possible that there may be people who would desire to evade the payment of the tax, and it would obviously be unfair to those who have paid the tax if such people were given a loophole of escape. The Commissioners must have the right to inquire into the details of individual incomes, in justice to themselves as well as to those persons whose incomes are to be taxed. This form follows as nearly as possible the ordinary forms used by taxpayers who claim exemptions or abatements from Income Tax. Persons liable to Super-Tax are required by the Act to make their return of income in the same manner as income is estimated for purposes of exemptions and abatements.
Then complaint was made by the noble Earl of the date on which the return has to be made. Subsection 2 of Section 72 gives the Special Commissioners power to require the return and to specify the time within which it should be rendered; but if in a particular case the time allowed is not long enough and the person can show reasons for delay the Commissioners will consider whether an extension of time can be given. Then Lord Onslow raised a point as to the regulations. These regulations were laid before the House of Commons on the 8th of this month. I believe they were ready some weeks earlier, but the meeting of Parliament on the occasion of the death of the late King was not considered to be an appropriate time for laying them on the Table.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: May I ask whether copies of these regulations can be obtained, and, if so, how?
LORD DENMAN: As they have been laid in the House of Commons I imagine
886
that it is perfectly easy to obtain copies of them. [Several NOBLE LORDS: No, no.] I will make inquiries on the point. Indeed, I now understand from the Clerk at the Table that they have been laid in this House as well. Lord Hylton has raised the question of the abatement of Income Tax which was given in the Finance Act of last year. I think that point is met by the note on the form.
LORD HYLTON: I know there is a note on the form, but it is not at all what was said by His Majesty's Government when the Finance Bill was brought in. Not only were we told that there would be no extra taxes on agricultural land, but we were to have a remission of twenty-five per cent. instead of the abatement hitherto allowed. But if we are to have the Super-Tax on agricultural land without the abatement of twenty-five per cent., that blows to the wind entirely the allegation of His Majesty's Government that no extra taxes were to be placed on agricultural land.
LORD DENMAN: It is a little difficult for me to give definite answers to all the points that have been raised, as I have no official connection with the Treasury. But I believe it is the case that on application any person liable to the Super-Tax will be able to obtain the abatement to which the noble Lord refers. My noble friend behind me (Earl Russell) asked a question with regard to the date up to which the 9d. on earned incomes may be claimed. Again I must guard myself against giving an absolutely definite answer, but I believe that date is September 30 of this year.
EARL RUSSELL: Several people who have made a claim have been told that they are now out of date.
LORD DENMAN: Perhaps the noble Earl will kindly give me notice of the question on a future occasion. With regard to his other point concerning the regulations in respect to motor cars which is, perhaps, scarcely relevant to the question before the House, I will see that they are available at the earliest possible opportunity.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I should like to ask whether an undertaking will be given on behalf of the Government that the regulations in regard to the

887
Super-Tax will not only be printed immediately, but that the forty days during which they are to lie on the Table shall run from the time when they are available to the House in a clear and intelligible form.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the noble Lord who spoke for His Majesty's Government towards the close of his observations made something of the nature of an appeal for indulgence to the House upon the ground that he was not himself officially connected with the Treasury. I am quite sure that noble Lords on this side would not desire to press the noble Lord unduly, for he, no doubt, was not prepared for the somewhat extensive catechism of questions to which he was asked to reply. But he must expect, and His Majesty's Government must expect, to be pressed for full explanation upon the points which have been raised this evening. I am sure I do not misinterpret the feeling of the House when I say that, however much we may disapprove of the taxation now under discussion, it is our genuine desire to facilitate the task of those officials who are entrusted with the duty of collecting it, and that nothing is further from our thoughts than to create vexatious difficulties in their way. But if that is our feeling, we have a right to expect that we shall be treated on the one hand legally, and, on the other hand, with all the consideration which the circumstances admit; and I must say that this discussion does seem to me to show that in both these directions there have been very considerable shortcomings on the part of the Department entrusted with this special work.
First, as to the question of legality. My noble friend Lord Avebury raises specifically the question whether these particular demands with which we have all been supplied are of a nature which is fully authorised by the text of the Finance Act. He has been advised that that is not so, and I trust that we shall be told from the Bench opposite whether that point has been fully considered. But, my Lords, there is another point as to which there is no doubt whatever, and that is the very grave—I would almost say scandalous—omission which has taken place in the failure to supply us with the regulations which, under the terms of the Act, we were entitled to have laid for forty
888
days on the Table of this House. We are told that they have been technically laid, but beyond all question they have not been accessible to noble Lords who might desire to inspect them, and, if necessary, call attention to them. The result is that a considerable part of the time allowed us under the Act has passed, and that we have to that extent, at all events, lost the opportunity we might have had of challenging the regulations.
May I refer particularly to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Heneage—I mean the demand that we shall supply particulars, not only of our total income from property, but of the income derived from every single plot and parcel, no matter how insignificant, upon our estates. There is no doubt that that is what the document on the face of it asks us to provide; that is clearly stated. The noble Earl who is going to reply to me must realise as fully as we do what an extraordinarily vexatious demand this is. I am tempted to mention my own case. I have a considerable amount of property let in allotments of half an acre and an acre in Great Britain. In another part of the United Kingdom—in the West of Ireland—I have a great number of extremely small tenancies. Now the work of compiling a return in which every scrap and shred of a holding, every dwelling-house, every tenement, no matter how minute and insignificant, is included, is a work of the most formidable and onerous description, and a work which one naturally hesitates to throw upon the gentlemen who are employed in connection with the management of these estates.
And may I mention one other little point bearing upon this. We were each of us supplied with a single copy of the form on which this demand is made. When I received my form I very naturally wrote to my representatives in different parts of the country. I referred them to the number of the form, and told them that I wished as soon as possible to be supplied with all the materials for filling my form up. But, my Lords, they one and all gave me the same answer: there was not a form to be had. They were told that these forms were not to be issued except to people who were themselves called upon to pay Super-Tax, and I saw the same statement made in a letter to The Times the day before yesterday. A

889
gentleman there gave a graphic account of the manner in which he pursued and eventually ran to ground the responsible official, living in some remote office, by whom he was, apparently, not received genially. I do not wish to be too exacting in this matter. This is all new machinery which will not work at first without a certain amount of creaking, but I do hope that every effort will be made by His Majesty's Government to make matters as easy as possible for the parties concerned.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Marquess for what he said with regard to the difficulty which my noble friend behind me has to encounter in answering a number of questions on this intricate subject. As the noble Marquess knows very well, it always happens here, by the nature of the case, that there is nobody who has first-hand knowledge of Treasury work, and therefore it is always difficult for the Government spokesman, whoever he may be, to deal with the question as fully as other questions can be dealt with by those who are conversant with the work of the different Departments. Consequently my noble friend has found it necessary to ask in one or two instances for further notice of questions put to him.
The point brought forward by Lord Avebury, which had not come within my cognisance before, no doubt raises an interesting legal question. I understand the noble Lord to argue that the demand for any details of income is, or may be, ultra vires, according to the wording of the Act. I cannot express an opinion on that point, and, of course, this House cannot as such, except finally in its legal capacity, express an opinion on a matter of that kind. I imagine it would be open to anybody to refuse to supply details, and, if he desired, to take the question to a Court of Law; but personally I will not venture to express any opinion upon it, although I should be as much interested as the noble Lord to know what high legal authority would say on the subject.
With regard to the general question of the laying of regulations, I have no hesitation in saying that there cannot possibly be two opinions that when it is provided in an Act of Parliament that regulations
890
should be laid upon the Table of either House or of both Houses during a fixed time, that period should be a real period, and that the regulations should be available during the whole of it. In this particular case I understand that these regulations were laid on June 8—to-day is the 14th—and if they are not available to noble Lords generally I can only say that I personally regret it, and I will make inquiry as to how it occurred. Noble Lords will realise that the Departments have been working under great pressure in this matter; and before he sat down the noble Marquess admitted that machinery of this kind could not be brought into perfect operation in the first year—that it could hardly be expected that its operation would be quite perfect. But, as I have said, I will inquire as to how this has happened. I am certain, if there has been a lapse from what we all agree should be the usual practice, that it was unintentional, and not in any sense malevolent.
As regards the question of the noble Marquess as to the necessity for supplying the great number of particulars which are asked for on the form sent out to those who are presumed to be liable to Super-Tax, I have not had the opportunity, I frankly confess, of going into this matter with the Treasury officials, but it occurs to me that the difficulty with which they were confronted was probably this. Either they had merely to rely on a general statement of income without any details whatever, or else they had to get a complete set of details; and, if noble Lords come to think of it, as regards land there seems to be no middle course between taking a man's single statement of his total income from land or adopting the course which has been pursued of asking for each individual holding. At least, speaking without preparation or having thought out this matter, it is very difficult to devise any middle course which would afford an assurance to the Revenue authorities that the facts had been carefully looked into by the person liable, and that he was not merely making a sort of general statement of what he believed to be his income—a middle course between that and the demand for all these particulars, which I frankly admit, speaking as an individual, do seem in some degree needless. I am quite prepared to admit that it is a vexatious thing for a landowner to have to go

891
through the process which the noble Marquess opposite has mentioned with regard to every allotment; yet I expect the Treasury answer would be that they either have to take a man's statement that his land brings in five, ten, or twenty thousand a year, or else ask for these details.
Should the matter be raised again, as seems likely, I have no doubt my noble friend behind me—and I will do the same myself—will take care to be furnished somewhat more fully with the reasons which have actuated the Revenue authorities in asking for these particular returns. I will also inquire as to the other point which was raised by the noble Marquess, as to the difficulty of supplying a number of forms in cases where, for instance, there are a number of scattered properties under different management, or where different sources of income may be looked after by different persons. I have dealt, so far as I can, with the various points raised, and, as I say, I think it very likely that we shall hear more on the matter from noble Lords on a future occasion.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Earl for his promise with regard to a future occasion, and I have no doubt opportunity will be taken to put further questions to the Government. But I only rose to ask one question as to regulations being laid in dummy on the Table and not being available to noble Lords in accordance with the evident intention of the Statute. Nothing could be more complete than the noble Earl's apology for any failing in this respect which has arisen under the administration of the Finance Act. He told us that, in his opinion, the forty days ought to run, not from the moment when the regulations are laid in dummy, but from the moment when they become available to your Lordships. This is a very old grievance, as was pointed out by the noble Lord opposite, Lord Sheffield. I have been familiar with it in both Houses for many years. There is a tendency on the part of Government Departments not to follow out the spirit of Acts of Parliament, but to lay regulations in dummy, and so curtail, or deprive Parliament of altogether, the period during which regulations may be called in question. The noble Earl has expressed complete concurrence with our view, but he ought to have gone
892
further. As we have lost a certain time through the regulations being laid in dummy, will be give those days back to us? The noble Earl must feel that, whether in this House or the other, the complete remedy is not an expression of regret from the Government, but what is in their power—an extension of the time, so that the period of grace shall be the real one intended by Parliament.
THE EARL OF CREWE: By the indulgence of the House I will endeavour to answer the question of the noble Marquess. I understand that, as a matter of fact, the regulations were laid in full, but for some reason they were not ordered to be printed. As regards the question of further extension of time, I should be quite disposed to admit that that would be reasonable if it could be shown that within the period still lasting for the discussion of the regulations it was for some reason or other really inconvenient for the House to consider them—that is to say, that an extension of time was seriously demanded for practical reasons. I am bound to say that I think if that could be shown there would be a good case for extending the time. I do not know how far it would be legally possible to do so. That is a question which perhaps the noble Marquess would consider. The Act of Parliament says forty days, and I do not know whether it is in the power of the Government of the day to extend the time.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Treasury can lay fresh regulations.
THE EARL OF CREWE: On the merits of the case I take the view I have explained—that if it could be shown that the curtailment by a certain number of days had rendered it impossible or difficult to discuss the regulations there would be a strong case for the course suggested.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I venture to think the point before us has reference not merely to the particular case to which attention has been called. The point is, What does Parliament mean when it says that regulations are to be laid and to remain on the Table for forty days before they become law? and therefore any interpretation adopted on this occasion ought necessarily to apply to all similar cases. As to what is legal in the matter, it really is what is the interpretation

893
which is placed on the wording of the Statute. Surely Parliament, when it said that the regulations were to lie on the Table for forty days, did not mean that they were to be merely laid in dummy and not printed, and that the days on which the regulations had so lain in dummy on the Table were to be included as part of the forty days contemplated by the Act.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: We have not yet seen these regulations. Surely we should have some assurance that they will be printed, and that we shall have an opportunity of seeing them.
EARL RUSSELL: I think the noble Earl the Leader of the House could meet the suggestion of the noble Marquess opposite by withdrawing those regulations and laying them again. I cannot help feeling that unless something of that sort is done you rather encourage the Departments in thinking that Parliament can be treated in this way. I trust the noble Earl will see his way to comply with the suggestion.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I should like, with the permission of the House, to say a word before the debate closes. I think a good deal of useful information has been elicited from His Majesty's Government, and the promise from the Front Bench opposite that further consideration will be given to the points raised this evening which have not been answered will materially satisfy those who are interested in the matter. The noble Earl the Leader of the House said he could not see that there was any via media between a man returning his total income from all sources and returning a detailed statement of every separate holding that he possessed. I would like to call the noble Earl's attention to the form which is issued to those who wish to claim a rebate of Income Tax, because that is the form which governs the method in which the return for Super-Tax is to be made. As to income derived from real property, the return has to be sent in with the precise situation of all such property. I would suggest to the noble Earl that it might be quite sufficient to require that the parish, or possibly even a larger area—the district or the county—should be stated; and the reason I throw out that suggestion is, of course, this—that the
894
Income Tax return is based upon the assessment for Income Tax. The assessment for Income Tax is something quite different from the total rent payable. Obviously if you cannot be made liable for Income Tax you cannot be made liable for Super-Tax, and therefore the amount on which you have to pay is the assessed value. If there is any suspicion in the minds of the Income Tax Commissioners that a return has been improperly made, the whole of the facts and figures are in the possession of the local authority, and all they have to do is to write down to the district where the property is said to be situated to ascertain whether or not the individual has made a correct return. One word as to what fell from Lord Hylton. If he referred, as I think he did, to the special allowance which is to be made under the Finance Act in the case of an outlay for the purposes of repairs and maintenance, I would point out to him that that allowance only conies into operation after the passing of the Finance Act—namely, in the current year. The returns which are being asked for by the Commissioners are in respect of the year 1908–09, to which year the allowance does not apply.
LORD HYLTON: That, I believe, is not in accordance with what was said in another place and also here by representatives of His Majesty's Government when the Finance Bill was brought in.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I was speaking only from a perusal of the Statute, and not with reference to anything that was said while it was passing through Parliament. In any case I welcome the announcement made by the noble Earl the Leader of the House that the matter will be more carefully inquired into, and that instructions will be given to the Commissioners of Super-Tax to ease, so far as may be, what I venture to think is a very heavy and unexpected burden put upon all owners of real property.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Six o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.