Sitting of 23 February 1911

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Chichester Gas Bill.

Upper Medway Conservancy Bill.

Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Acton District) Bill (by Order),
Metropolitan Railway Bill (by Order),
London Electric Railway Bill (by Order), Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Bill.
"To authorise the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Company to acquire additional lands for road widenings and improvements in connection with their authorised tramways; to revive the powers and extend the time for the purchase of lands and for the construction and completion of certain tramways and works authorised by the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Act, 1903; extension of time for the purchase of lands for the further tramways and works authorised by the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Act, 1908; abandonment of certain tramways authorised by the Act of 1903, and for other purposes," presented, and read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

BRITISH MUSEUM.
Petition of the Trustees of the British Museum, for Grant-in-Aid (King's Recommendation signified); Referred to the Committee of Supply.
Account ordered, "of the Income and Expenditure of the British Museum (Special Trust Funds) for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911; and Return of the number of Persons admitted to visit the Museum and the British Museum (Natural History) in each year from 1905 to 1910, both years inclusive; together with a Statement of the progress made in the arrangement and description of the Collections, and an account of objects added to them in the year 1910."—[Sir. William Anson.]

ELECTIONS (IRELAND).
Return ordered, "of the Expenses incurred by each county council in Ireland in connection with the county and district Elections held in 1908, such Return to show the number of county and district electoral divisions in each county and also the number of contested returns for each county and district division."—[Mr. Hugh Barrie.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Portuguese West Africa (Lobita Railway).
  Mr. ESSEXasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Railway from Lobita Bay, in Portuguese West Africa, is in operation, and, if so, for what distance; and whether it is contemplated to bring it, in the near future, into connection with the Rhodesian Railway system?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): According to a report from His Majesty's Consul at Loanda, dated 30th November last, the railway had then reached 320 kilometres, and was expected to be open to traffic for that distance very shortly. I have no later information, and till the railway has reached the Congo territory I do not see how it can be connected with any other system of existing railway.

  Bagdad Railway.
  Mr. DAVID MASONasked whether the conversations on the subject of the Bagdad Railway which have taken place with both

  2053
  Turkey and Germany at various intervals in the last few years are likely to lead to a definite conclusion at an early date?
  Sir E. GREY: No concrete proposals are at present before His Majesty's Government, and as this is a matter in which the initiative necessarily rests with one or both of the Powers named in the hon. Member's question, I am unable to express an opinion.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: May I ask is it the case that according to a "Ceneral News" telegram Sir G. A. Lowther, the British Ambassador to Turkey, stated to the Porte that Great Britain could not enter upon negotiations respecting the Bagdad Railway so long as Turkey failed to recognise the British Protectorate of Koweit?
  Sir E. GREY: We have made no statement of the kind. What we have said is that we are prepared to consider proposals whenever proposals are put before us.
  Mr. FELL: If there are any maps or plans of the proposed Bagdad Railway showing how it is constructed, perhaps it would be possible to display them in the tea room or elsewhere?
  Sir E. GREY: I will look into that. I must remind the hon. Member that the Bagdad Railway is a German concession in Turkish territory, and I cannot say what plans there are.

  Public Health Department of Egypt (Resignation of Drs. E. H. and H. C. Ross).
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked whether, with reference to the resignation of Drs. E. H. and H. O. Ross from the Public Health Department of Egypt. Sir Horace Pinching, the late Director General, was consulted upon the question of what offers he mad" to the Drs. Ross which induced them to surrended positions in the Navy in order to join the Egyptian service; whether Sir Horace Pinching has, or has not, admitted that he offered them permanent appointments in the Egyptian service; and whether the Government proposes to accept responsibility for the actions of its responsible officers and accredited agents in Egypt?
  Sir E. GREY: Dr. E. H. Ross held an appointment on the permanent staff of the Egyptian Public Health Department until his resignation, which, it is understood, took effect from the beginning of this month. From a letter addressed by Sir
  2054
  Horace Pinching to Dr. H. C. Ross (dated 25th May, 1906), a copy of which has been communicated to me, it is evident that this gentleman's appointment was temporary. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I returned to his question of 25th May, 1909. The reply to the last part of this question is in the affirmative, but I must point out that officials of the Egyptian Health Department are in the service of the Egyptian, and not of His Majesty's Government.

  Cairo Water Supply.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether his attention had been drawn to the proposal of Dr. Graham, the Director-General of the Public Health Department, Cairo, to take the water supply for the town from a point in the Nile below the town; whether the Foreign Office had any power to prevent the carrying out of this scheme; and whether it was possible for the Foreign Office to consult the previous directors of the Public Health Department, like Sir Horace Pinching, on Dr. Graham's proposal?
  Sir E. GREY: I would refer the hon. Member to pages 34 and 35 of the Report from His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General at Cairo for the year 1909, where the subject is fully dealt with. His Majesty's Government do not propose to address the Egyptian Government with regard to this question, which, as the hon. Member will see, has been so thoroughly investigated by the most competent experts in Egypt.

  Clarke Estate, Borrisokane, County Tipperary.
  Dr. JOHN ESMONDEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he would ascertain from the Estates Commissioners when the settlement of the Clarke estate, at Borrisokane, county Tipperary, will be carried out?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Estates Commissioners are not at present in a position to deal with this estate, as there are a number of other estates in priority to it on the register of sales to the Commissioners; but when its turn is reached it will be dealt with as rapidly as possible.

  Irish Tobacco Growers' Association.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary if he had received a memorandum from the Irish Tobacco Growers'

  2055
  Association, and whether he would bring it under the notice of the Development Commission?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have received the memorandum referred to, and have forwarded it to the Development Commissioners.
  Mr. W. REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will bring under the notice of the Department of Agriculture the strong desire in Ireland amongst tobacco growers to give some evidence before the Development Commission?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, they will have the opportunity of doing so.

  Housing of the Working Classes Act (Ennis Scheme).
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary whether he would take such steps as may be within his power to expedite the sanctioning of the scheme, now for some time under consideration, for providing, under the Housing of the Working Classes Act, suitable homes for the artisans and labourers of the town of Ennis?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The arbitration award was lodged on the 15th inst., and the case is receiving prompt attention from the Local Government Board.

  Death in Waterford Gaol (Mary Kehoe).
  Sir THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Chief Secretary if his attention had been called to the case of the late Mary Kehoe, a prisoner committed for trial to Water-ford Gaol, who died in the ordinary cells on 1st February last, after several days' illness; and if he could state why she was not sent to the prison hospital previous to her death?
  Mr. BIRRELL: My attention has been called to the case referred to. Mary Kehoe died on 1st February in an ordinary cell in Waterford Prison. She had been in fair health since her committal to prison on 25th November, 1910, but on the evening of 30th January complained of toothache and a pain in her chest. The acting medical officer visited her that evening and prescribed for her. The next morning the medical officer visited her and found her very much better, and did not think it necessary to send her to the hospital. Her death resulted from a sudden and unexpected attack of angina pectoris.

  Cattle Drives (Castlelacken, County Mayo).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that on the night of the 12th February cattle were driven from grazing land at Castlelacken, on the estate of Colonel Knox, over the cliffs, and were badly injured on the rocks below; and whether any persons have been arrested for this offence?
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIGasked whether he is aware that on Tuesday, 7th instant, a cattle-drive took place on Castlelacken demesne, near Ballycastle, county Mayo, the property of Colonel Knox, and that twelve head of cattle were driven along a pathway towards the sea, and were beaten and forced to walk over a cliff from twenty-five to thirty feet high into the sea; whether bunches of hair and pieces of skin were found on the rocks from which the cattle were precipitated, indicating that they had been brutally treated in the endeavour to force them over the cliff; whether a cattle-drive took place in March last on the same lands; what steps were then taken to prevent a repetition of the offence; what arrests have been made in connection with the present case; and what steps are being taken to prevent a recurrence of this kind of outrage in the neighbourhood?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Inspector-General informs me that the occurrence took place on the night of the 7th instant, and that the facts are substantially as stated-Tufts of hair were found on the rocks, but no pieces of skin. One beast was badly injured, and another is missing. In March last fifty-two head of cattle were driven off these lands, but were not injured. The police have been doing, and will continue to do, all that is possible to prevent a repetition of the offence. No arrests have been made.

  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that William Pawley of Canary, county Armagh, who is in receipt of an old age pension of 2s. per week, has been incapacitated from work owing to an accident in July last, and that consequently his yearly means have been so reduced as to entitle him, in the opinion of the Armagh North rural pension sub-committee, to an increase of his pension to 5s. per week; whether the Local Government Board, on appeal, have vetoed the increase; and whether he will

  2057
  lay upon the Table all reports and evidence laid before the Local Government Board in their consideration of this case?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The pension sub-committee, on a question raised by William Pawley, increased his pension from two shillings to five shillings per week, as they considered that his yearly means had been reduced owing to his having become incapacitated from work. The Local Government Board, however, after careful local investigation by an inspector, who visited Pawley's farm and heard what he had to say in support of his application, came to the conclusion that he was not entitled to the proposed increase. The papers and reports in this case were intended for the confidential use of the Board and cannot be laid on the Table.
  Mr. LYNCHasked whether, in the case of Mrs. Bridget Halloran, of Moyfadda, near Labasheeda, West Clare, who was born in 1836, and who was now bed-ridden, an old age pension of 4s. which had been granted to her was disallowed by the Local Government Board on the ground that the claimant had sufficient means; whether she possessed only ten acres of inferior land which by unremitting industry and care had yielded a bare subsistence; and whether the decision of the Local Government Board would be reconsidered?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The acreage of Mrs. Halloran's holding is as stated, and the Local Government Board upheld the pension officer's appeal on the ground that the claimant's means exceeded the statutory limit. It is not open to them to reconsider their decision.
  Mr. LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note particularly that there is in this case an element of thrift?
  Mr. BIRRELL: If a person has through thrift more than the income stated in the Act he cannot have both thrift and pension.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Mrs. Kate McGrath, of Carrowbloughmore, Farrihy, West Clare, was in receipt of an old age pension from January, 1909, to September, 1909, but was deprived of the pension on the sole ground that her name was not to be found in the Census returns of 1841 and 1851; whether he is aware that the pension committee on more than one occasion recommended the pension, being convinced by her appearance that she was
  2058
  well over the statutory age; and, seeing that the opinion of the pension officer alone remained adverse to the applicant, whether the Local Government Board will reconsider this case?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Kate McGrath's family was not traced in the 1851 Census, but appears in the 1841 Census return. The claimant, however, was not found as one of the members, and it would, therefore, appear that she was as yet unborn in 1841. The Local Government Board did not disallow the claim on account of the pension officer's opinion, but because there was no satisfactory proof furnished to them that she had attained the statutory age. It is not open to them to reconsider their decision.
  Mr. LYNCH: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the time has come when he should no longer allow pension officers to override the decisions of the committee?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir.
  Mr. O'DOWD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what class of evidence will be accepted in such cases as satisfactory by the Local Government Board and the Treasury?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It is impossible for the Board or anybody else to say beforehand in any given ease what will satisfy them. All I say is that they require to be satisfied.

  Firing into Residence (Bawnmore, County Galway).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary if he was aware that on the night of the 13th February the residence of Lieutenant Kirwan, R.N., Bawnmore, county Galway, was fired into, and if any arrests have been made in connection with the occurrence?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The residence of Lieutenant Kirwan, Bawnmore, county Galway, was fired into on the evening of the 12th instant. No arrests have been made.

  Dennehy Estate (Evicted Tenant).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware that the application of James Breen, Breanlea, Kilgobnet, an evicted tenant on the Dennehy estate, had been brought to the notice of the Estates Commissioners; and whether he could state what action the Estates

  2059
  Commissioners had taken with a view to his reinstatement and the purchase of his holding?
  Mr. BIRRELL: An inspector has been directed by the Estates Commissioners to make enquiries in this case.

  Palmer Estate, Kenmare.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware that the tenants on the Palmer estate, near Kenmare, were desirous of purchasing their holdings; and could he state what action, if any, had been taken by the Congested Districts Board to complete the purchase negotiations?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am aware that the tenants on the estate referred to are desirous of purchasing their holdings. The estate has been offered to the Congested Districts Board, who will arrange for a valuation of it as soon as possible.

  Colomb Estate, Caherciveen.
  Mr. BOLANDasked whether the Estates Commissioners had completed their inspection of the Colomb estate near Caherciveen, with a view to its purchase; if so, to what extent would their valuation be binding on landlord and tenants; and whether, in view of the dilapidated condition of the houses of the tenants, would the Estates Commissioners, in lieu of handing the estate over to be dealt with by the Congested Districts Board, erect buildings and carry out other improvements to the same extent as if the estate had been originally purchased through the medium of the Congested Districts Board, so that the tenants might not be at any disadvantage?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member presumably refers to the estate of Rupert P. Columb, for the sale of which direct sale purchase agreements have been signed by the tenants under the Irish Land Act, 1909. An inspector has been directed to visit the lands, and when the Estates Commissioners receive his report they will consider what action they will take in reference to the property.
  Mr. BOLAND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Inspector will visit the lands?
  Mr BIRRELL: I cannot give the exact date.
  Mr. BOLAND: I hope it will be soon.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will press it on.

  Fitzgerald Estate, West Clare.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware that, in the case of the Fitzgerald estate, Kinlea, Kilmihill, West Clare, the landlord had offered to sell to the Congested Districts Board, and that the disputes that had arisen in connection with this estate had involved extra police tax to the extent of over £400 a year; and whether, in view of a peaceful settlement, the matter would be dealt with as expeditiously as possible?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The offer of the Congested Districts Board for the estate referred to has been recently accepted by the owner, and the Board will proceed with the re-arrangement of the holdings and distribution of turbary as soon as the vendor gives possession. The Inspector-General informs me that the charge for extra police employed in connection with the dispute is about £170 per annum.

  Agricultural Credit Banks.
  Mr. SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary if he could say whether any negotiations or interviews had taken place between the English and Irish Departments of Agriculture in relation to the establishment, with State assistance and supervision, of agricultural credit banks in rural districts in all parts of the United Kingdom; and whether this was a project for which support might be expected from the Government?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The question of agricultural credit has been discussed by representatives of the Departments mentioned. I am not aware that any proposals have been made as regards assistance from the State towards the establishment of Agricultural Credit Banks.

  Petty Sessions, Ireland (Accommodation for Defendants).
  Mr. LARDNERasked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware that, as a general rule, the courts of petty sessions in Ireland sat on the day after the weekly market or monthly fair, and that persons arrested in these fairs or markets, charged with indictable offences, or offences which might be punished with imprisonment under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, or with drunkenness, were detained in custody, from the time of arrest in the fair or market until the sitting of the petty sessions court next day, in the strong room or cell of the local Royal Irish Constabulary barrack; and would he state what

  2061
  sleeping accommodation was provided in these strong rooms for such persons awaiting trial?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am not aware that any such general rule as that indicated in the first paragraph of the question exists. No sleeping accommodation is supplied in the strong room in police barracks other than that afforded by an inclined wooden platform. Prisoners are not unnecessarily detained, and, when detained, are treated with much consideration.

  Road Improvements (Ireland).
  Mr. LARDNERasked the Chief Secretary if his attention had been directed to a resolution passed at a meeting of the executive committee of the Irish County Councils General Council held on Friday, 17th instant, protesting against the proposals of the Road Board in reference to the allocation of Ireland's share of the Development Fund; whether he would examine the reasons on which this protest was based; and, whether, having regard to the reception accorded to the Road Board's proposals in Ireland, he would make representations to the Road Board to withdraw the scheme recently submitted, and to propose a new scheme after consultation with the local authorities in Ireland interested in the scheme.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have seen the resolution referred to. The Road Board have issued a circular to all the county councils in Ireland inviting them to a conference in Dublin early in March, when doubtless the views of the Irish County Councils General Council will receive careful attention.
  Mr. LARDNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman support the views of the general council of County Councils?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will consider them.
  Mr. LARDNERasked the Chief Secretary if his attention had been directed to a resolution passed at a meeting of the General Purposes Committee of the Irish Road Congress held last week in Dublin; whether he was aware that this body included amongst its members the county surveyors of Ireland, who had intimated personal knowledge of Irish roads and national traffic requirements; and, in view of these facts, would he request the Road Board to enter into communication with the General Purposes Committee of the Irish Road Congress with a view to having a new and more acceptable scheme for Ireland
  2062
  substituted by the Road Board for that which they recently submitted to the Irish local authorities?
  Mr. BIRRELL: My attention has been directed to the resolution referred to. It is a fact that the Irish Road Congress includes amongst its members a number, if not all, of the county surveyors in Ireland. I would suggest that the Irish Road Congress should communicate their views to the Road Board with a view to their consideration at the proposed conference to be held in Dublin next March.
  Mr. LARDNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that invitations are extended to the local surveyors to attend the congress?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will see what I can do. It is not my congress.

  Housing Scheme (County Limerick).
  Mr. JOYCEasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention had been called to the fact that the county borough council of Limerick had applied for a loan of £5,135 in order to carry out a first scheme of housing under The Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Act, 1909; whether the plans in connection with this scheme had been forwarded to the Irish Local Government Board; was he aware that the ground on which it was proposed to build in this case was almost wholly owned by the borough council; and if and when the scheme was approved by the Local Government Board, would he see that there would be no unnecessary delay in granting the loan, so that work on this much-needed scheme of housing would be commenced as soon as possible?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The facts are as stated in the first three paragraphs of the question. If, and when, the scheme is approved by the Local Government Board, the question of granting a loan from public funds will rest with the Treasury.
  Mr. JOYCE: As he knows a good deal about this case, will the right hon. Gentleman assist the Corporation to press its claim on the Treasury?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Subject to my general relations with the Treasury, I will do my best.

  Edwin Hughes Estate, Athlone.
  Mr. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware that the Athlone Rural District Council had passed a resolution, which had been forwarded to the

  2063
  Congested Districts Board, asking for the purchase by that Board of the Edwin Hughes estate, situated near Athlone, setting forth also that there were several families whose holdings were completely flooded; and whether the Board would send an inspector to this estate on an early date?
  Mr. BIRRELL: A copy of the resolution referred to has been received by the Congested Districts Board. The Board communicated with the owner asking if he were willing to sell his estate, but did not receive a reply. They do not propose at present to send an inspector to the estate.

  Alleged Assault (Rathfriland).
  Viscount CASTLEREAGHasked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware that the doctor who gave evidence at the inquest on Mr. Thomas McClory said that death arose from heart disease, from which McClory had been suffering for years, and that there were no traces of injuries from which death was likely to result; whether the injuries to his face were consonant with McClory falling down whilst on his way home; whether McClory, the day after it was alleged he was the victim of a brutal and unprovoked assault, spent the whole day from seven in the morning to ten at night in Raithfriland; whether McClory, when questioned by the police, was unable to say where he met with his injuries; and whether the police had any information which pointed to the fact of there being an assault at all; and, if so, of what was its character?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The doctor's evidence at the inquest on 29th December was to the effect that when McClory visited him on 15th December his face was bruised and his nose was broken, and he complained of having been beaten on the previous night. The doctor went on to say that on a superficial examination of the body on the day of the inquest he saw no marks that would account for death He further stated his opinion that the cause of death was heart disease, and that the injuries which he saw may have accelerated it. McClory was a deformed and decrepit old man. The police are satisfied that the injuries to his face which they saw were caused, as stated by him, by his being beaten on the face and knocked down on the road. It is true that McClory spent the day following the assault in the polling booth at Rathfriland in the discharge
  2064
  of his duties as election agent. When questioned by the police that morning he told them exactly where the assault as described above took place, but was unable to give the names of his assailants. The police are satisfied of the truth of his statements.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Is it not a fact that a coroner's jury, composed almost entirely of Unionists, found that the man's death was accelerated by the violence of the Unionists who attacked him?
  Mr. BIRRELL: They found that death was accelerated by the wounds inflicted.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Did not the alleged assault take place in the Nationalist quarter of the town?
  Mr. MacVEAGH: There is no Nationalist quarter of the town.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: If the police have not discovered who committed the assault is the hon. Member entitled to call the culprits Unionists?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I did not say what were the politics of the people.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Is it not a fact that the three persons whom the police suspect in connection with this murderous attack are all Unionists?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot go into that.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: I can tell you.

  Erection of Vested Schools (Ireland).
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether he had approached the Treasury to know if they were prepared to provide funds for the erection of vested schools in Ireland; and, if not, from what source was it proposed to obtain the money required to erect those vested schools in Ireland, the preliminary investigations in which, and the plans of which, in some cases had been completed for many months?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the question of the hon. Member for North Kildare on 22nd November last, to which I have nothing to add.

  Transvaal Estate Duty Act, 1909.
  Mr. FELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the provisions of the Transvaal Estate Duty Act, 1909, had been brought to his attention; and if he had received any memorials with reference to

  2065
  this Act and the question whether its provisions were ultra vires and in conflict with the English law and the practice of the courts?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): Yes, Sir, complaint of the kind referred to has been made to the Colonial Office. The question of double Death Duties is one of the subjects proposed by the Union Government for discussion at the Conference.
  Mr. FELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this particular question will be brought up; there is great feeling among the public in regard to it?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Any question suggested by any of the Dominions for discussion will be considered.

  Ystradfellte (Local Government Inquiry).
  Mr. ROBINSONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he was aware that a Commissioner of the Local Government Board held an inquiry into the question as to whether the parish of Ystradfellte, in the county of Brecon, should continue to belong to the Neath Urban District, or whether it should be transferred to the Brecon Rural District; whether the inquiry was held in November, 1909; whether the Commissioner has yet reported upon the inquiry; and, if not, whether it was possible, after fifteen months' consideration, to obtain from the Commissioner a report which would put a period to the suspense of all parties concerned?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The inquiry referred to was an inquiry as to the transfer of the parish from the Neath Union to the Brecon Union. The report of the inspector who held the inquiry was very carefully considered, and the parish council have been informed that the Local Government Board see no sufficient reason for the transfer of the parish from the Neath Union to the Brecon Union.

  Local Government Audit (Inspection of Books by Ratepayers).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Local Government Board if he was aware that, under Article 34, 11 and 12 Vic, Poor Law Amendment, power is given to any ratepayer in the various districts to inspect the books of boards of guardians at the time they are under
  2066
  audit by the Local Government Board; if he was aware that on 3rd January last Mr. John Yallop, who resided within the Edmonton Union area, was refused permission to inspect the books of the Edmonton Union, and that at the Wood Green Petty Sessions an order was refused to Mr. Yallop to allow him to inspect the books; and if he proposed taking action in the matter?
  Mr. BURNS: By the Local Government Board's regulations, any owner of property or a ratepayer interested in the accounts of the officers of a Board of Guardians is entitled to inspect during the audit, any books, documents, etc., relating to the accounts of such officers, but to such extent and in such manner only as will not, in the judgment of the auditor, interfere with the audit. I am informed that Mr. Yallop attended on the 3rd January, while the audit was in progress, and was informed by the assistant auditor that he had no objection to the books required being then inspected, but that he should apply to the Clerk to the Guardians for permission to do so. The Clerk to the Guardians was not present, and Mr. Yallop was informed by the Assistant Clerk that he could not then have the books he required. I understand that, when the matter was reported to the Clerk shortly afterwards, he gave instructions that, if Mr. Yallop called again, he was to be allowed to see such of the books as were not actually being used by the auditor. I have no-official information of the result of Mr. Yallop's application in the matter at the Wood Green Petty Sessions.

  Motor Cars (Dazzling Headlights).
  Captain MURRAYasked the President of the Local Government Board, with reference to the question of the hon. Member for Kincardineshire on the 4th November, 1908, whether the subject of accidents caused by the employment of dazzling headlights on motor-cars had received his further consideration; and, if so, whether he could now take steps, by regulation or otherwise, to compel the use of such appliances as would reduce to a minimum the excessive glare?
  Mr. BURNS: Further consideration has been given to this matter, but I regret that I have not as yet been able to find a saris-factory means for dealing with it.
  Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of prohibiting the use of these large search-lights

  2067
  in the streets of London, where the streets being well lighted, there is no necessity for them?
  Mr. BURNS: I am glad to say that since attention was called to this matter by my hon. Friend, the makers of these lamps have seen the wisdom of not pursuing the policy of having the high-grade lamp that they first instituted, and the tendency is to avoid the difficulty to which the hon. Member opposite referred. I am considering this matter in conjunction with the police, and if we can still further diminish the use of these particular lights, which are a danger to horse drivers and others, we will do our best in that direction.

  Nutritive Value of Bread.
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE (for Mr. Goldman)asked the President of the Local Government Board whether the inquiries now being made by the officers of the Board in connection with bread include the question of the relative nutritive values of bread containing different proportions of the germ and the inner cuticle of the wheat berry, which are eliminated in the ordinary process of roller milling, and of ordinary bread containing none of these constituents?
  Mr. BURNS: The subject referred to in the question is being considered in connection with the inquiry into matters relating to flour and bread which is now proceeding. A preliminary report on the subject will, I hope, be shortly issued.

  American Imported Meat.
  Mr. HUNTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the fact that the use of borax in the preservation of meat is a criminal offence in America and that borax is allowed to be used in specially marked boxes for exportation to this country from America, he has taken any steps to preserve the health of our people from the bad effects of American meat preserved by borax?
  Mr. BURNS: I am advised that, so far as the public health is concerned these matters are sufficiently dealt with by the regulations which have been made under the Public Health (Regulations as to Food) Act, 1907. I do not consider that further steps are at present called for.
  Mr. HUNTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the fact that the American Government
  2068
  marks as fit and wholesome for human food the remainder of the carcases of animals from which parts affected by tuberculosis, malignant tumours, and other diseases have been cut out, he has taken any steps to prevent such meat, either tinned, chilled, or frozen, from being sold for food in this country without due notice to purchasers as to the origin of this meat?
  Mr. BURNS: Under the Public Health (Unsound Food) Regulations, 1908, the Medical Officer of Health is empowered to seize any article of food landed within the district which is unsound, unwholesome, or unfit for human consumption. I do not at present think it necessary to make further provisions on the subject I may observe that the rules laid down by the United States Authorities governing the inspection of carcases of cattle intended for export, either inter-state or foreign, are not less stringent than those observed in this country. In the case of the pig the United States standard is less stringent than that obtaining in this country, and, in accordance with the provisions of the Foreign Meat Regulations, American pork, fresh, chilled, or frozen, is only admissible if it comes in the form of the whole carcase, so as to permit of examination for disease.
  Mr. HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this country carcases of any animals suspected of tuberculosis or other malignant disease are altogether destroyed; and that under the American Regulations it is not so? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that according to the American Regulations the diseased parts only have to be cut off, and the rest of the carcase is stamped by the American Government as sound and fit for human food?
  Mr. BURNS: I have nothing to do with the American Regulations; but this I do know; that there is no country in the world where the Regulations as to the importation of unsound, unfit, and unwholesome food are as stringently administered as in this country.
  Mr. HUNT: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that our examiners in this country can tell whether the meat that is sound——
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a subject for debate.

  Telephone Exchanges (Employment).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Postmaster-General whether he has now

  2069
  considered the report of the medical officers upon the conditions of employment in telephone exchanges; and when it is proposed to publish the same?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The report has been under close consideration, and the details of its various proposals have been, or are being, worked out by the Department. The question of publication is not yet decided.

  Post Office (Night Telephone Operators).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Postmaster-General whether he will state on what grounds he has come to the decision that he cannot establish the permanently employed night telephone operators in the Post Office service; and whether he has considered whether these officers, performing responsible duties and engaged on continual night duty (which includes Sunday work without extra pay) and an attendance of twelve hours per week above that of established officers performing night duty, are sufficiently remunerated with a maximum of 30s. per week?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The work of night telephone operators is now carried out by men who do not necessarily have the age and other qualifications laid down for entrants into the Civil Service. It does not lend itself to rotation with other Post Office work, does not afford training for higher employment, and cannot advantageously be offered as a permanent career to young men. For these reasons I cannot favour the establishment of these operators. I regret that I am not in a position to improve their pay. The net weekly attendance in most cases exceeds by about six hours, not twelve hours, the attendance given by an established officer performing all-night duty, but the work is very much lighter than that of such an officer.

  Chester Post Office.
  Mr. YERBURGHasked the Postmaster-General, with reference to the recent appointment of a superintendent at Chester post office, why, seeing that the local officer then filling the vacancy had acted not only as substitute for the superintendent for a period of three months, but also as substitute for the postmaster on leave, without evoking any complaint, it was found necessary to send to Chester, as acting superintendent, the officer from Wellington, Salop, now appointed to the post of superintendent; and what effect such
  2070
  appointment to the post of superintendent at the Chester post office has had upon the prospects of promotion of the chief members of the post office staff at Chester?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: After carefully considering the qualifications of all the eligible officers at Chester I was satisfied that none was fully qualified for the vacant superintendentship. The officer transferred from Wellington, Salop, was fully qualified. I am considering the possibility of granting a reciprocal promotion to the Chester staff.

  Beetham Sub-Post Office (Carnforth).
  Captain BAGOTasked the Postmaster-General whether he will reconsider the decision recently made by which the public are no longer able to obtain money orders, licences, and savings bank accounts at Beetham sub-post office in the Carnforth district; and whether he is aware that residents in and near the village who have had such facilities for many years past are much dissatisfied?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have carefully considered representations made to me on this subject, and I regret that, in view of the small number of transactions of the nature specified, I should not be justified in sanctioning the resumption of money order and savings bank business and the issue of licences at the post office at Beetham, Carnforth.

  Postal Surcharge (Newspaper Packet).
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that during the month of January a newspaper packet from Australia addressed to Mr. E. C. Tilley, 38, Kitchener Road, East Finchley, London, N., was surcharged the sum of 4d.; that Mr. Tilley refused acceptance of the packet on these conditions; and that when he subsequently made inquiries with regard to the packet and the reason for the surcharge he was informed that the packet could not be found; and, if so, what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I find that Mr. Tilley's inquiries with regard to the packet in question were not received until some days after his refusal to accept it, and that in the meantime, being of no intrinsic value, it had been destroyed in ordinary course. There is no reason to suppose that the surcharge was not correctly made, and the matter seems to call for no further action on my part.
  EARL of RONALDSHAY: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that if an addressee refuses to receive a package at the time of delivery on the ground that, in his opinion, he is surcharged unfairly, the Post Office are then entitled to destroy the package?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: All packages which are of no intrinsic value and which are not delivered, are kept for seven days, and then destroyed. If any complaint is made in the meantime about the packet the matter is looked into. This person not only refused to pay the surcharge, but made no complaint until after the time had elapsed for destruction.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Might not a longer period than seven days be allowed? Seven days seems rather short.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I will consider that.

  United States and Canada (Tariff Agreement).
  Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Prime Minister whether any instructions were given by the Government to His Majesty's Ambassador in Washington with regard to the reciprocity negotiations between Canada and the United States; if so, what was the tenour and effect of such instructions; and whether the Ambassador has sent in any report as to the result of his action in compliance therewith?
  Sir E. GREY: As I informed the hon. Member for Hammersmith on the 16th instant, the answer is in the negative.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Do we understand that no instructions at all were given to our Ambassador at Washington?
  Sir E. GREY: No instructions were sent.
  Mr. HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether he has any official information showing that the South African preference now given to Great Britain will not be continued unless Great Britain gives in return a preference to goods coming from South Africa; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. HUNTalso asked the Prime Minister whether his attention had been called to the Resolution introduced into the American House of Representatives, directing the President to open negotiations
  2072
  with Great Britain for the annexation of the Dominion of Canada to the United States of America; and wheher he intends to send any communication to the Government of the United States on the subject?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The answer to these questions is in the negative.
  Mr. HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a prominent American politician has let the annexation cat out of the bag, and that President Taft is trying to get it back again?
  Mr. REMNANTasked the Prime Minister whether he has received from His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington any despatch as to the effect of the proposed reciprocity agreement between the United States and Canada in leading to full commercial union between the two-countries and its bearing upon the political relations between the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada; and, if so, whether he will lay that despatch upon the Table of the House?
  Sir E. GREY: Despatches have been received and we are considering what papers could be laid.
  Mr. REMNANT: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the statement made by the Canadian Postmaster-General that Mr. Bryce has helped all through these negotiations between Canada and the United States?
  Sir E. GREY: Our attention has been called to a short report, but we are not yet in the possession of full information of what was said.
  Mr. REMNANT: Will the right hon. Gentleman make definite inquires on this point, and lay papers on the Table?
  Sir E. GREY: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give notice of that question.

  Post Office Telephones (Directory).
  Major GASTRELLasked the Postmaster-General if he will consider the desirability, as soon as he has control of the telephone service, of providing a directory for telephone users that shall not contain advertisements inserted among the names of subscribers?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not think that the large financial sacrifice

  2073
  which would result from adopting the suggestion of the hon. Member would be justified.

  Epping Case (Mrs. Woolmore).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. Woolmore, charged at Epping on the 10th February with neglect of her five children, who was sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment; whether he is aware that the doctor's evidence for the prosecution was that the cottage and the children were dirty, that the children looked exceedingly well in health, but that the conditions would be serious in case of illness; that it was also adduced that the woman was of sober habits; and that the woman pleaded that she was hampered by the cottage having no water supply, and that she was ill; and whether, seeing that she had to fetch all the water required from a mile distant, often carrying her youngest child with her, he will take action with a view to mitigating the sentence passed upon her?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): My attention has been called to the case. The facts are not quite correctly stated. The evidence showed that the children and the cottage where they lived were, owing to the mother's neglect, in an indescribably filthy condition. The woman had been repeatedly warned. There was water fit for washing purposes in a pond close to the house, and drinking water had to be fetched only about 200 yards. The justices tell me that in sending the woman to prison they had regard chiefly to the interests of the children, and hoped that before her release a better cottage would be found by the father. The case is a difficult one to deal with. The reports I have received from the prison medical authorities show that the woman is weak-minded, and indifferent to her imprisonment. She is being carefully treated, and her release at this moment would not be for her good or for the good of the children. I have decided that I would not be justified in interfering with the sentence: and I hope that before its expiration the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (with whom I am in communication) who prosecuted, and the many benevolent persons who have taken an interest in the case may be able to make some arrangement for the family
  2074
  which will prevent their reverting into the same miserable condition as before.
  Mr. O'GRADY: May I ask is it not a fact that the only water supply was some 200 yards away from the cottage; whether that water was not pump water, and whether or not it was fit for the purposes of drinking? And, also, is it not a fact that the medical officer who inspected the children stated that they were healthy, and that the whole complaint of the children themselves was the fact that the cottage was insanitary; and is it not a fact that the woman on 13s. 6d. per week had to keep five children, her husband, and herself?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I think my answer covers all that.
  Mr. O'GRADY: Will the Home Secretary consider this point? That the woman has been in prison six weeks; that the children are in the workhouse; that the whole family life has been decimated; and whether, under these circumstances, the woman is not entitled to some reconsideration of her sentence?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not a question of mercy. If the use of the prerogative of mercy would have beneficial results I should not hesitate to apply it, but in this case it is more a question of treatment. Arrangements must be made to prevent the miserable condition in which these children were living being restored when the mother comes out.
  Mr. O'GRADY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability, instead of allowing the woman to remain in prison, of having her put into hospital and carefully nursed, as the whole of her condition, both mental and physical, was due to the fact that only 13s. 6d. per week was available for the sustenance of the whole family of seven?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I said the woman is reported as being weak-minded by the prison medical authorities, and she is receiving treatment in accordance with her condition. She is not being punished, but is being treated as a person in her condition should. I cannot say whether she is in the prison hospital at present, but she is under the constant supervision of the prison medical officer.
  Mr. O'GRADY: Arising out of that——
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must put down any further questions.

  Electric Sparklers.
  Mr. GLYN-JONESasked whether instructions had been given to the Metropolitan police to enforce Section 30 of the Explosives Act, 1875, with regard to the hawking and exposure of an explosive known as electric sparklers in the public streets; and, if not, whether such instructions will be given?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No instructions of the kind have been issued, but the matter is now engaging my attention.

  Released Convict (David Davies).
  Mr. FELLasked if the Celtic shepherd, David Davies, will be allowed to return to Dartmoor Prison and resume the occupation he pursued there prior to his release, if he surrenders to the authorities or is captured by the detective who is now searching for him?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: As the question is hypothetical and depends on circumstances, some of which are not within my knowledge, I am afraid I cannot enter into any undertaking at the present time.
  Mr. FELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to punish him any further for breaking his parole?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think I should reply to that question until I know the facts. My present intention is not to punish because he did not comply with one or two unusual conditions that attached to his licence, for the purpose of keeping him out of trouble.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will not consider the propriety of publishing a free pardon in the papers for the purpose of inducing this shepherd to come out of his hiding-place?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think it would be suitable for me to put into the papers a notice that if he came out of his hiding-place all would be forgotten and forgiven.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: What are the use of licences if these people can so easily elude the vigilance of the police?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: That is a very large question, with which I should be glad of the opportunity of dealing.

  Nelson Plinth as Public Platform.
  Mr. YERBURGHasked the Secretary of State whether he is aware that the exhibition of the red flag and the use of trea-
  2076
  sonable language on the national monument erected to commemorate the services of Nelson are resented by loyal citizens without distinction of party; and whether he will arrange for the speakers at anarchist, republican, and insurrectionary meetings held in Trafalgar Square to be accommodated with a platform other than the plinth of the Nelson column?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The use of the plinth for public meetings has been allowed by successive Governments for many years, and I see no reason to interfere with the established practice. If any speakers use seditious language they can, if necessary, be prosecuted; but there is no ground for differentiating between the treatment of speakers at one meeting and speakers at another.
  Mr. YERBURGH: Is it the right hon. Gentleman's opinion that long usage of a bad practice justifies its continuance?

  Monmouthshire Colliery Horses (Infectious Diseases).
  Mr. RICHARDSasked whether any report has been received of the investigations made by Dr. Rocyn Jones respecting the infectious disease among the colliery horses in Monmouthshire?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have received a report by Dr. Rocyn Jones, the County Medical Officer for Monmouthshire, and Mr. Martin, lately Inspector of Mines for the Southern district, of the results of the investigations made by them at my request into the sanitary condition of certain Monmouthshire mines; and it is now under my consideration.
  Mr. RICHARDS: Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to issue it as a Parliamentary Paper?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I must have notice of that.

  Heswall Reformatory School (Administration).
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONESasked whether, in the course of an inquiry into the administration of the Heswall reformatory school and certain charges of cruelty against the Superintendent of the School, it had been established and so found by the Under-Secretary that canings contrary to the regulations and with a cane too large for its purpose had been inflicted; that in the case of twenty-seven boys permanent scars had resulted from canings or birchings; that on one occasion in 1909 the Superinten-

  2077
  dent kept all the boys in the school standing by the side of their hammocks from ten o'clock at night till five the following morning; and that in the month of November, 1909, he directed some of the boys at the school to throw fifteen pails of cold water over a lad named Palmer; and whether the Superintendent against whom these charges have been established still retains his appointment?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: If the hon. Gentleman will refer to the Report of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State he will find that charges of cruelty against the Superintendent were not substantiated; that the substitution in certain cases of the cane for the legal regulation punishment of the birch was done under a belief that it was a humaner form of punishment; that in two cases during the first five years the Superintendent has inflicted punishment outside the regulations, for which he is censured. On the other hand, he will find that high tribute is paid to the excellent and self-sacrificing work which the Superintendent has been doing at Heswall, to his successful efforts to reduce the number of corporal punishments, and to the very great physical and moral improvement—as testified by external and internal evidence—in the condition of the boys. I am sending the Report to the Managers, but under these circumstances I see no reason to recommend the dismissal of the Superintendent. My hon. Friend has recommended some general investigation into the Government regulations and present practice of Reformatory and Industrial Schools; and I hope shortly to appoint a strong Departmental Committee to investigate these matters.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Are we to understand that that part of the question which says that: "On one occasion, in 1909, the Superintendent kept all the boys standing by the side of their hammocks from ten o'clock at night till five the following morning" is not true?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It certainly is true, but the whole matter is fully described in the report, which goes into the matter at great length and in the most minute detail, and which I have now presented as a Parliamentary Paper.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: How does the right hon. Gentleman justify the retention of the Superintendent who was guilty of conduct of that kind?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I think if the hon. Member read the report he would be in a better position to put questions on the subject.
  Mr. W. P. BYLES: The right hon. Gentleman says he has no power to remove the superintendent; then with whom does the power lie——
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The power rests with the managers of the schools. The Home Office may decline to send any more boys there. But as it is now, however, in a very good condition, I do not propose to adopt that course.
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: Did the right hon. Gentleman advise the school committee to dismiss the superintendent?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It is a very delicate question, and I have given it very considerable attention, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave many days' personal examination to the subject, and we came to the conclusion that we should not be justified in making an example of this officer in view of the circumstances of the case.
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: In consequence of the answers of the right hon. Gentleman, I shall have to ask leave later to move the adjournment of the House.

  Welsh-Speaking Mine Inspectors.
  Mr. JOHNasked whether, in drawing up his scheme for workmen inspectors of collieries, he will provide that for all Welsh collieries only Welsh-speaking workmen inspectors be appointed?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It will not be necessary to insert any provision on the subject in the scheme now under consideration, as the requirement in the Coal Mines Act as to the appointment of Welsh-speaking inspectors in Wales will apply to the new class of sub-inspectors equally with the existing inspectors.

  Metropolitan Police (Inspector Syme's Dismissal).
  Mr. TOUCHEasked whether he is aware of the effect caused in the police force by the dismissal of Inspector Syme; and will he, therefore, publish or lay upon the Table of the House a full Report of the proceedings and evidence in the inquiry which resulted in such dismissal?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have no reason to think that the dismissal of Inspector Syme has had such effect on the force as the hon. Member suggests. I believe the men

  2079
  generally appreciate the care and consideration with which the Commissioner deals with cases of misconduct in the force. It would be contrary to practice, and would, so far as I can see, serve no useful purpose, to lay on the Table the papers mentioned in the question. I shall be glad, however, to lay, if the hon. Member desires it, on the Table the judgment of the Commissioner which goes fully into the whole subject, and with which I concur.
  Mr. REMNANT: As there is a considerable amount of feeling outside on this matter, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has looked personally into this matter and is he satisfied that the course taken is justified?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, I have indeed gone carefully into the matter myself. I have had long interviews with the Commissioner and also with ex-Inspector Syme. I very much regret to say that I see no chance whatever of altering the present position, which has grown out of small events, and has led to gross insubordination on the part of that officer.
  Mr. TOUCHE: May I ask whether any part of the report of the proceedings, denied to Members of this House, has been communicated to any party outside?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I did communicate the judgment of the Commissioner to certain parties outside who took great interest in this particular case, because I thought they wanted to know what was said. I shall be glad to lay the judgment on the Table of the House.

  Parkhurst Prison.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the warders and certain other officials of Parkhurst Prison, Isle of Wight, who live outside the prison are only allowed 5s. a week for lodgings; and, whether, seeing that the average price for suitable lodgings in Newport and the district is 6s. 6d. to 7s. a week, he can see his way to inquire into the matter, and, if necessary, to increase the lodging allowance of the non-resident warders and similar officials of Parkhurst Prison so as to place them on an equality with resident warders?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No officer at Parkhurst below the rank of principal warder receives more than 5s. a week. No general application for increased lodging allowance has been received from the officers
  2080
  at Parkhurst, but if an application from any officer were received, and it were shown that he had to pay excess rent for accommodation sufficient for himself and his family, it would, of course, receive consideration.

  Labour Exchanges.
  Mr. JOWETTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, where an Advisory Board in connection with Labour Exchanges holds its meetings in the afternoon, some members of the board have to absent themselves from their employment in order to attend, with a consequent loss of wages; whether he is aware that, when the meeting is held in the town in which the member resides, no expenses are allowed; and whether he will take steps either to compensate such members for their loss or secure an alteration in the hour of meeting?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): The matters to which my hon. Friend refers have been brought to my attention and are now receiving careful consideration.
  Major GASTRELLasked the right hon. Gentleman if he will state the cost incurred in opening and maintaining the Labour Exchanges from February, 1910, to 30th December, 1910, the number of applications made for work during that period, and the number of temporary and permanent vacancies filled?
  Mr. BUXTON: The expenditure on Labour Exchanges from February, 1910, to 30th December, 1910, in respect of salaries, travelling, stationery, and incidentals was approximately £100,000. The amount of the expenditure incurred in respect of the hire and adaptation of premises for Labour Exchanges cannot at present be stated. The number of applications for work made during that period was 1,588,534. These numbers include the re-applications by persons whose applications had lapsed or been cancelled. There is also a certain amount of duplicate registration. The above numbers cannot, therefore, be taken as in any way representing separate individuals. The total number of vacancies filled during that period was 374,313, exclusive of the vacancies for casual employment filled by two Exchanges in Liverpool and Manchester dealing with cotton porters and cloth porters respectively. What proportion of the number given were temporary or permanent cannot be stated.

  Private Railway Waggons (Brake Levers).
  Mr. JAMES THOMASasked whether the Board of Trade has taken any action to compel railway companies and owners of private waggons to have all waggons fitted with brake levers on either side?
  Mr. BUXTON: A rule on this subject was proposed last year under the Railway Employment (Prevention of Accidents) Act, 1900, but it has not been brought into operation, as certain railway companies and an association of coal freighters owning waggons have required objections lodged by them to the rule to be referred to the Railway and Canal Commissioners. It is expected that the objections will shortly be filed with the Court.

  H.M.S. "Collingwood" (Accident).
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the group of rocks upon which H.M.S. "Collingwood" struck outside Ferrol are more than thirty feet below water; whether the survey of 1893 ignored all dangers below thirty feet; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to secure a new and complete survey of Ferrol and other parts on these coasts which are habitually visited by His Majesty's Fleet?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): A depth of twenty-seven feet was found on the rock on which H.M.S. "Collingwood" struck. The survey of 1893 includes dangers below thirty feet. A new survey by the Spanish authorities of the Spanish coasts has for some time been in progress.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information as to when the survey is likely to be completed?
  Mr. McKENNA: I will inquire, if the bon. Member will put down a question.

  Sheerness Dockyard (Pensions).
  Mr. WHELERasked the right hon. Gentleman if he will state the weekly wage, the amount stopped on establishment, and the full pension granted at sixty years of age to hammermen and smiths respectively employed in Sheerness Dockyard?
  Mr. McKENNA: The weekly wage for hammermen is 21s. to 28s., and for smiths 34s. to 45s. The amounts stopped on establishment are as follows:—
  1s. per week upon rates not exceeding 24s.
  2082
  1s. 6d. per week upon rates not exceeding 36s.
  2s. per week upon rates not exceeding 42s.
  2s. 6d. per week upon rates not exceeding 48s.
  The amount of the full pension is determined by the same rules in both cases, according to the length of service and rates of pay during the last three years of service, as laid down in the Superannuation Acts.

  Bread (Admiralty Contracts).
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE (for Mr. Goldman)asked whether, in view of the higher nutritive value of bread containing the germ and inner cuticle of the wheat berry over ordinary white bread, he will consider the desirability of providing that, in Admiralty contracts, no bread and flour shall be supplied containing these eliminated constituents?
  Mr. McKENNA: It was the practice until recent years to supply the Navy with "stone-ground" flour produced in Government mills at the victualling yards; but there was considerable prejudice amongst the men against the dark-coloured bread and puddings which this flour produced, and very little was consumed. It was consequently decided to dismantle the Government mills, and to purchase from millers the "roller-ground" flour which is used in the private trade. The bread, etc., made from this flour is very popular in the Navy. Before eliciting the present opinion of the Fleet on the subject it is proposed to wait until the Local Government Board experts, who are at present investigating the comparative nutritive qualities of the various descriptions of flour, have made their report.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the opinion of some of the leading millers in the country the so-called standard bread consists of ordinary bread made with ordinary flour to which a little pig meal has been added?
  Mr. McKENNA: I was not aware of that. I can only repeat that the bluejackets who had this bread do not seem to like it.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: Before any change is made, will the opinion of the men be obtained?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir. The sailors have strong opinions of their own as to whether they like food or they do not.

  Tobacco Growing (Ireland).
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he will direct the attention of the Development Commissioners to the success which has already attended the production of tobacco in Ireland on a small scale, with a view to enable the experiment to be continued on a larger scale so that a greater number of small landholders may engage in the industry?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I understand that the Development Commission are taking steps to satisfy themselves as to the possibilities of further tobacco cultivation in Great Britain and Ireland.
  Sir JOHN JARDINE: Will the scheme be extended to Scotland for the same reason?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I said Great Britain and Ireland.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Perhaps I may be allowed to put a supplementary question myself, although it is a thing I do not care about doing. I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in considering what can be done in this matter in Great Britain, whether he will bear in mind that on this subject, as in the case of forestry, Ireland has made a great many experiments, and is much more ahead, and should be treated first in the matter.

  Leases of Small Houses (Scotland).
  Mr. WATTasked whether he is aware that leases of small houses for the period of one year or less than a year are now being universally constituted in Scotland by oral agreement in consequence of the high stamp duties put on such agreements, if written, by the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910; that such oral agreements lead to want of clearness, and consequent disputes and litigation, besides loss of revenue to the State; and whether he will reduce the duty payable on such leases to 1d. if the rent is £10 or under, as enacted in the Stamp Act, 1891?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My attention has been drawn to the matter referred to, which is at present under consideration.

  Inland Revenue (Clerks to Surveyors of Taxes).
  Mr. SYKES (on behalf of Mr. Tobln)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the clerks in the offices of sur-
  2084
  veyors of taxes are grouped in different classes; and whether promotion of a clerk to a higher class means not only increased official responsibility, but also, in the case of his being transferred from a country to a London district, increased personal expenditure; whether a clerk promoted to a higher class is for a time paid the same salary that he received while in the lower class; and whether he will take any, and what steps to avoid the overlapping of the minimum wages of the higher class and the maximum wages of the lower class?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second and third parts, promotion to a higher class as a rule means a higher scale of salary with a higher maximum and with pension rights in the case of clerks promoted to the two higher classes. As regards the last part of the question, my right hon. Friend does not propose to alter the existing scales.
  Mr. SYKES (on behalf of Mr. Tobin)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether two-thirds, or thereabouts, of the clerks to the surveyors of taxes are not upon the establishment of His Majesty's Civil Service but are in the direct service of the Board of Inland Revenue upon agreements terminable by a notice of one week only; and whether, having regard to the confidential and responsible nature of their duties, and to the fact that the system of employment in the offices of surveyors of taxes of clerks who are subject to dismissal at one week's notice has been condemned by the London Chamber of Commerce and other public bodies, and also by the surveyors of taxes themselves, he will take any, and what, steps in the matter?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The reply to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I do not consider it advisable at the present time to take any action in the direction indicated by the hon. Member.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he had received a copy of a memorial from the clerks to surveyors of taxes requesting consideration of their conditions of service; and, if so, whether a statement could not be made on the various points contained in the memorial, and of which consideration was promised to a deputation of the clerks who laid their case before him in July, 1908?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Baronet the Member for Hawick Burghs on Monday last.
  Mr. O'GRADY: May I ask whether these clerks may be expected to be put in the position of other officials of the Inland Revenue?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am afraid I must ask for notice of that question.

  Licence Duties (Rateable Values).
  Mr. CASSELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fall in rateable values in London and elsewhere owing to the new Licence Duties under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910; and whether he is prepared to make any compensation to the local authorities affected?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My attention has been called to the possible effect of an increase of the Licence Duties in this direction. The clause in the Revenue Bill, which I explained to the House last Monday, dealing with valuations for Licence Duty, will, of course, tend to mitigate this effect. Having regard to the very liberal concessions now to be made to the local authorities, pending a comprehensive settlement of the question of Exchequer Grants-in-Aid of local taxation, I cannot undertake to make any further transference of burdens from the shoulders of the public in their capacity of ratepayers to the shoulders of the public in their capacity of taxpayers.
  Mr. CASSEL: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will keep an open mind on the question of taking away from the Local Authorities their half share of the Land Taxes?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should be very glad to revert to my original position of taking a contribution in respect of old age pensions, and handing back to the Local Authorities their half share, because that would be a benefit to the Exchequer of £1,200,000 a year.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his original promise to give half of the Land Taxes to the Local Authorities was made without conditions?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Noble Lord is perfectly wrong. If he will only just look at the Budget statement, in which I outlined the Land Taxes, he will
  2086
  see I made it perfectly clear then that it was the intention of the Government to levy a contribution on the Local Authorities in respect of pensions.
  Viscount HELMSLEYdissented.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Noble Lord contradicts me, but I can show him. If he will look at my statement of 29th April, 1909, he will see I made it clear that it was the intention of the Government, as a part of the whole scheme of finance, to levy a contribution in respect of old age pensions on the Local Authorities. It was only subsequently I promised that half of the Land Taxes should go to the Local Authorities. That was on the assumption that the first part of the bargain was carried out. The Government have now under consideration the whole case of the pensions, and they are only holding temporarily half of the Land Taxes, which means that the Local Authorities benefit to the extent of at least a million and a quarter a year.

  Collection of Local Taxation Licences (London).
  Mr. CASSELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the expenses incurred by the London County Council in the collection of local taxation licences transferred to the Council under the Finance Act, 1908, amounted in the year 1909–10 to £11,481, while London's share of the sum provided by that Act to meet such expenses was only £3,910, and that the estimated deficiency for the year 1910–11 is even greater; whether it was intended that the sum allowed should be sufficient to meet the expenses; and whether, in view of the deficiency, he is prepared to increase the amount?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: A statement by the Finance Committee of (the London County Council, citing figures which correspond approximately to those specified in the question, has been brought to my notice. With regard to the suggestion that an increased Grant should be given I must refer the hon. Member to my reply just given to the preceding question.

  Cairo (Abbassia Barracks).
  Captain GILMOURasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the Abbassia barracks at Cairo, where British Infantry, Cavalry, and Artillery are quartered, are only lit by old-fashioned oil lamps, from the light of which it is impossible for the men quartered there to

  2087
  see to read after dark, and that the men are therefore obliged to buy lamps to work by at their own expense; and whether, under these circumstances, either electric light or incandescent gas will be installed?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): New barracks are being built at Abbassia in which it is intended to instal electric light. It may be found possible later to extend this light to the old barracks. Large sums are being expended on the improvement of lighting in barracks generally, but it is not possible to meet all requirements at once.

  Yeomanry Training (Liability of Territorial Association for Injured Horses).
  Sir WALTER MENZIESasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Trooper Laird, a miner, of Lesmahagow, Lanarkshire, hired a valuable horse from Mr. Robert Graham, a miner, of the same parish, for the purposes of the usual yeomanry training; and that the horse was injured and finally had to be destroyed during the course of the hire; and whether, under these circumstances, the Territorial Association are liable or should make themselves liable to the owner, or whether he must rely for compensation solely upon the trooper, who, being a working miner, would obviously feel this a great hardship?
  Mr. HALDANE: I am now in communication with the Association in this matter, and will let my hon. Friend know the result.

  Officers' Training Corps (Instructions to Junior Division).
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked the Secretary of State for War if he can state what provision is made for instructors to the junior division of the Officers' Training Corps; and whether, if any unit is willing to pay for an instructor, the Army Council makes any provision for supply?
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIGalso asked whether the list of persons open for employment as instructors to the junior division of the Officers' Training Corps is composed wholly of men who have completed their service; and whether provision could be made for instruction by men still serving with the colours or of young and up-to-date instructors?
  Mr. HALDANE: A list of specially selected ex-non-commissioned officers, who
  2088
  are young and up-to-date, is kept at the War Office from which names are forwarded to all contingents who apply for them. Several contingents have been so supplied with instructors with very satisfactory results. The names are not kept on the list for more than twelve months after they have left the colours. It is not considered to be in the interests of the Regular Forces to appoint serving noncommissioned officers to be instructors to these contingents.

  Army (Promotions from the Ranks).
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked how many commissions from the ranks were granted during the last five years to men who had previously failed to obtain commissions by the usual process of examination?
  Mr. HALDANE: There are no records at the War Office containing the required information, and I am not therefore able to supply my hon. Friend with the figures.

  Royal Fusiliers, 6th Battalion (Cage of Albert Victor Connelly).
  Colonel CHALONERasked the Secretary of State for War, whether his attention has been called to the case of Albert Victor Connelly, a soldier in the 6th Battalion Royal Fusiliers, who was brought be fore Mr. Fordham, at West London, on Saturday, 18th February, charged with desertion; whether he is aware that he gave his age as 15½ years; that the magistrate described him as a mere child dressed up as a soldier, and consigned him to the remand home as a child; and whether he will make a Return showing the number of such children included in the effective list?
  Mr. HALDANE: Will the hon. and allant Member kindly refer to my reply to a similar question put by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth on the 22nd instant.
  Colonel CHALONER: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question?
  Mr. HALDANE: It is not possible.

  Hops Bill (No. 2).
  Mr. WHELERasked the Prime Minister whether he would grant facilities for discussion of the Hops Bill (No. 2) of last Session if reintroduced in the present Session?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asqulth): It would be quite unusual at this stage of the Session to give any undertaking on the subject.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the sympathetic consideration which he has previously shown, whether he cannot hold out any hope to those who are adopting an attitude of patient expectancy with regard to this question?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.

  Parliamentary Debates (Length of Speeches).
  Mr. WILLIAM PEELasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the recent complaints of private Members of their lack of opportunity to take part in Debate, and having regard to the special privileges enjoyed by the Members of both front Benches and of the leaders of parties and sections, and to the curtailment under recent Standing Orders of hours of sittings, he will give special facilities for the passage of a Bill to place a limit on the length of speeches?
  Mr. MacVEAGH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, before he answers, whether he is aware of the fact that all the trouble referred to in this question is due to the pronounced and growing tendency on the part of the two Front Benches to monopolise the time of the House, and whether he can suggest any method by which this House might restrain the loquacity of these great, wise, and eminent people?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, my diagnosis of the case does not at all compare with that of the hon. Gentleman. In answer to the question on the Paper I am in complete sympathy with those who hold that a curtailment of the average length of speeches is very desirable in the interest not only of private Members, but of public business. I am disposed to think that reform is more likely to be attained by the pressure of Parliamentary opinion, than by attempts at legislation, which have always failed in the past, and for the renewal of which the present Session will not afford adequate time.
  Mr. PEEL: May I ask, arising out of that, if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that in local bodies this rule does apply, and works exceedingly well, and that brevity is probably quite as useful in the House of Commons as in local bodies.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Those are all very material considerations.

  Belfast Cave Hill Tramways (Arbitration Inquiry).
  Mr. DEVLINasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the fact that the hearing of the evidence in connection with the arbitration as to the terms on which the Cavehill Tramways may be acquired by the Belfast Corporation is being conducted in private, the Press being refused admission; whether the exclusion of the Press has caused great indignation in Belfast amongst all sections of the ratepayers; and whether he will at once give orders that the Press be admitted to the Inquiry, and that a transcript of the official notes of the proceedings up to the admission of the Press be supplied to the Press for publication?
  Mr. BUXTON: The question whether arbitration proceedings of this character should be conducted in public or in private is one that rests entirely with the arbitrator. I have, therefore, no jurisdiction in the matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the Prime Minister be good enough to make his usual Thursday statement as to the business of the House next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday we shall take the Second Reading of the Parliament Bill, and the discussion will be continued on that and the succeeding evenings till Thursday night, when the Division will be taken. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to ask me on Monday about the business of Friday.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  REGISTERED ACCOUNTANTS BILL.
  "To provide for the registration of Professional Accountants in Great Britain and Ireland, and for other purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY; supported by Mr. Hay Morgan, Sir Frederick Low, Mr. Frederick Edwin Smith, Mr. Radford, Mr. Winfrey, and Sir George White; to be read a second time upon Monday, 13th March.

  ILLEGITIMACY AND MATEBNITY BILL.
  "To consolidate and amend the Bastardy Laws; to enable Maternity orders to be made with regard to certain women and girls; to make further provision with respect to certain Maternity cases dealt with

  2091
  under the Acts relating to the relief of the poor; and otherwise to amend the law relating to Illegitimacy; and for other purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. KING; supported by Sir Robert Price, Mr. Alden, Mr. Henry M'Laren, Mr. Snow-den, Mr. Fletcher, Mr. George Roberts, and Mr. Herbert Craig; to be read a second time upon Friday, 17th March.

  TRADE UNION LAW AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Trade Unions," presented by Mr. CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMS; supported by Mr. Allen Baker, Mr. Byles, Sir Henry Havelock-Allan, Mr. Morrell, and Mr. Lees Smith; to be read a second time upon Friday, 16th June.
HESWALL REFORMATORY SCHOOL (ADMINISTRATION).

  MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: I beg leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, "That the Home Secretary has taken no effective steps to secure that the Heswall Reformatory School is under management which shall secure the safety and health of its inmates in view of the action of misconduct established against its Superintendent."
  Mr. CHURCHILL: May I, as a point of Order, speak on the question of urgency?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that has ever been done. I have been at some pains to endeavour to ascertain whether or not the Home Office is in any way responsible for the continuation of this Superintendent in his office, and I have come to this conclusion: I cannot say that the Home Office by action which it might take could not indirectly cause the removal of this man, and if they have an indirect power of doing so, I do not think it rests with me to stop this Motion on the ground of urgency.
  The pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than Forty Members having accordingly risen,
  The Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a Quarter-past Eight this evening.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Ordered, That the Business of Ways and Means have precedence this day of the Business of Supply.—[The Prime Minister.]

WAYS AND MEANS.
Considered in Committee.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (MR. WHITLEY) in the Chair.]

WAYS AND MEANS.

  BUDGET (1910) RESOLUTIONS.
  Order read for Adjourned Debate on Question proposed [20th February], "That it is expedient to amend the Law relating to National Debt, Customs, and Inland Revenue, including Excise."—[Mr. Hob-house.]
  Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I desire to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer one question which was not touched upon by the Financial Secretary the other day, and on which some doubt prevails on this side of the House. It is whether it is the right hon. Gentleman's intention to make any alteration in the Sinking Fund, or whether it will be necessary for him to have any legislation in connection with his Budget dealing with the Sinking Fund in consequence of the running of two financial years into one. My own impression is that the result of that proceeding is that there was a deficit instead of a surplus on the 31st March last, but that when the revenues were collected there was really a realised surplus of 2½ millions, which would go to swell the realised surplus for the current year. In the ordinary course that would find its way to the old Sinking Fund. I should like to know if it is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to substract any money from the old Sinking Fund?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No; in the ordinary course, unless some Motion is made, the money would naturally go to the old Sinking Fund.
  Sir F. BANBURY: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by the words "unless some Motion is made"?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Unless some alteration is made subsequently in the law. I have said we do not propose to make any alteration at all.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May we take that that no alteration will be made at this or any subsequent period? That is what I want to find out. Does the right hon. Gentleman reserve to himself the right later on in the Session to make a further inroad on the old Sinking Fund?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Baronet is asking me a question as to my intentions regarding the next Budget. My answer referred only to the present Budget.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am afraid I expressed myself badly. I did not dream of asking the right hon. Gentleman his intentions as to the next Budget. My question had reference to the two Budgets 1909–10 and 1910–11. The position is this, the 1909–10 Budget did not become law until April or May last year, and the consequence was that on the 31st March last there was a nominal deficit of about twenty millions. In the ordinary course that deficit would have to be made up by borrowing money. But when the remainder of the taxes came in which they did in the year 1910–11 they were used to pay off the debt, which had accrued and that apparently was the proper course to pursue. But when they had done that there was a surplus of two millions odd for the year 1909–10. Now the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to amalgamate the two financial years into one, and I am afraid that the surplus remaining at the end of March, 1911, is the only surplus which can go to the liquidation of debt in the form of the old Sinking Fund. I would point out that when the right hon. Gentleman has amalgamated the two years it may be quite possible for him—and I do not know how he will avoid it—to merge the surplus of two millions odd of the year 1909–10 into the expenditure of the year 1910–11.
  4.0 P.M.
  Therefore, the only surplus is a surplus which appears on the 31st March next, whereas, as a matter of fact, there will be two surpluses, that is, if there is a surplus at the end of the year. There was a surplus on the year 1909–10, and that surplus ought to be used for the redemption of debt in some form or another, and, in addition to that, there will be another surplus which will accrue on the 31st March this year and ought to be used in the reduction of debt. What I want to ask is this, are these two surpluses going to be used for that purpose, or is the first sur-
  2094
  plus to disappear in the figures for 1910–11 and be used in order to make good the expenditure of that year. I hope I have made myself clear, and I should like to explain that I am not raising this in any kind of way as a party matter. I am not raising any objection to the manner of carrying on the finances of last year, I am only asking a question, and it is not as to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to do next year, but whether there will be any measure for appropriating the surplus which there will be on the 31st March this year?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. C. Hobhouse): All that my right hon. Friend proposes by his Revenue Bill is this; there are accounts for two years which are mingled with each other. In one account there is a surplus from last year, and there may be a surplus from this year, and unless some clause is brought into this Revenue Bill, to deal with that, this would occur: there is not only a deficit in last year's borrowings, but in order to make up that deficit, say, twenty-six millions, there is a very large apparent surplus this year of a smaller sum of twenty-one millions that has to be applied in reduction of temporary borrowing, but unless my right hon. Friend brings in a clause, and without that the sum of twenty-one millions instead of being available to pay the temporary borrowings would be available and have to be paid into the old Sinking Fund. It is merely to set right a financial transaction, which involves two years and which introduced into the second of those two years an artificial surplus which would have to be applied under old legislation to the Sinking Fund and to the repayment of old borrowings when new borrowings are outstanding.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but may I point out that I do not object to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman in the least. I quite agree that what the Financial Secretary says is perfectly adequate, except as to the twenty-one millions which he says will have to be used in the payment of debt, because there is nothing in the old Sinking Fund Act which directs that it should be used in the reduction of Consols, therefore it has to be used in the redemption of floating debt. It could be used without this clause, which is really unnecessary. It can be used for the redemption of floating debt. But I am not quarrelling with the clause, if the right

  2095
  hon. Gentleman proposes to bring it in. I am not making any objection to it. What I want is a distinct understanding that the surplus which would accrue in the year 1909–10 will be devoted, as it would have been had matters been carried on in the old way, to the old Sinking Fund account, and that the surplus of this year will be devoted to the old Sinking Fund without any alteration. I do not want to use any ambiguous language which might give rise to question later on.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: May I ask a question of the Financial Secretary in regard to the Income Tax? Figures were given us in regard to the yield of the Income Tax in the year 1909–10. May I ask my right hon. Friend if he can analyse those figures in order to give us a statement in relation to the Super-tax. Has the Super-tax yielded as much as it was estimated for, and can he say how the Super-tax is coming in, in the present financial year?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I could not possibly say what is happening in regard to the Super-tax. That is a matter which will be dealt with by my right hon. Friend in his usual Budget statement. I do not think the Committee would desire me in any way to anticipate the finance statement which will be made in the ordinary course by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I am only applying for an explanation in regard to it, and, after all, the Super-tax, although relating to the Income Tax, was treated as a separate tax in regard to the Budget. We have had a separate statement as to the Land Tax, and it is not inconsistent, therefore, to ask for some statement as to the Super-tax.
  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I desire to make a few observations with reference to the statement of the Financial Secretary the other day in connection with Local Taxation. Firstly, in regard to the concession which he says he has made in respect to local taxation I think that the hon. Members on this side of the House—my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham especially, who brought forward the question when we had the Debate on the Address—may fairly congratulate ourselves on the change of front made by the Government. In the Debate on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Fulham the Government practically shelved
  2096
  the whole question of giving any relief to local authorities. They simply proposed to appoint a committee upon the matter, although they did not say what that committee was to be, and whether it was to be a select or departmental or any other committee. They simply proposed to shelve the question by referring it to a committee. The other day, subsequent to that occasion, in view of the fact that the Government majority fell to 65 on that Amendment, a complete change is made, and the Financial Secretary comes down and makes a statement in regard to local finance and uses these words, that he hopes it will be a final and satisfactory settlement. I am sure, as representing a large borough, we are very grateful for any small concessions which have been made, but if the right hon. Gentleman or the Chancellor of the Exchequer think that that is a final or satisfactory settlement, I venture to think that they are very much mistaken. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says, it is not a statement he made, but I am taking the words of the Financial Secretary at the end of his speech. Let us see what the Government propose to do. They take great credit, because they are going to give to us the deficiency in regard to the whisky money this year and last year. The Financial Secretary told us that it came to about £600,000, but that, I beg to say, is not a gift at all. The right hon. Gentlemen the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary, by their Budget, put on a spirit duty which spirits could not bear, and caused this deficiency. And because they are merely making it good, and enabling local authorities to carry on their work without imposing extra rates on the ratepayers, I say it is no gift whatever from the Government to the local authorities.
  It is the very least that we have the right to claim, and when you consider the enormous extra burdens which are put upon education authorities every year—I might say every month—by the demands of the Government, who are causing constant increase in every education rate, in every county and borough in England, and when we consider that education has always been recognised as an onerous, a national, service, I say that this little-grant of £600,000, to make up the deficiency caused by the Government themselves is very far from being a final or satisfactory settlement. On the contrary, we shall require a great deal more to relieve the enormous burden now put upon

  2097
  ratepayers in respect to education in this country. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman take great credit because they have relieved the Poor Law guardians of the cost of old-age pensions, and the Financial Secretary, speaking on Monday, said that these pauper pensions cost two millions. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us this afternoon that he is going to relieve the ratepayers to the tune of £1,500,000. I do not believe that that estimate is anything like the correct one. I think that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his friends have done is that they have practically taken the cost of the old-age pensions to the State, and have assumed that they are going to relieve the guardians up to very nearly the same sum. They entirely forget that, notwithstanding that there will be fewer inmates of the workhouses, as I hope there will be, the management and establishment charges will continue practically the same as before. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, the charges will be very nearly the same. The establishment charges of a workhouse just as in most businesses, are very large, and are much the same, whether the business is great or small. That is a known fact in regard to a great many businesses, and it is absolutely absurd to say that these pauper pensioners will cost the State so much, and therefore they will save the Poor Law guardians a corresponding sum.
  I quite agree that it will give some relief, but I venture to think the amount of relief is entirely over-estimated. As a matter of fact, if you consider what the cost of pauperism now is, and the amount by which old-age pensions have decreased it, I think it is exceedingly small. From the monthly return, published this week, it appears that the pauperism at the present time is 22.2 per thousand, whilst twelve months ago it was 22.9, so that there has been the smallest diminution in the last twelve months, notwithstanding the fact that old-age pensions have been paid and a large number of possible paupers have been saved from the workhouses. Moreover, when we consider that the party opposite and the Government are always telling us of our reviving trade and prosperity, I think the House will see that the effect of the pauper pensions on pauperism has been very small. What I claim is this, as the Royal Commission said, the cost of the Poor Law is a national burden. The Royal Commission said ten years ago:
  "We consider Poor Law relief a national service."
  2098
  and I say far the greater proportion of it ought to be paid by the taxpayer generally, according to his ability, and not be placed upon the shoulders of the ratepayers. So far from this being a gift to the ratepayers, I have always held that the proposal made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a large part of the cost of old-age pensions, which we have always been taught to consider a national service—that a large part should be put upon the shoulders of the ratepayers is a most preposterous proposition. Though we are glad to think that the right hon. Gentleman has withdrawn this particular point, I venture to say, we do not regard it as in the nature of a gift, we regard it merely as the withdrawal of a claim which was an absurd and most unjust one from the beginning. The Financial Secretary last week, among various gifts which he said had been made to the local authorities, mentioned the sum of £420,000, which he said was the produce of the Motor Spirit Tax and the Motor Licence Tax, and he cited that as a gift to the local authorities. I deny that altogether. What is the point? This particular money is to be handed over to special machinery for a special purpose. It is quite true that local improvements may be made. I hope they will. But no part of the money will go to relieve the ordinary duties of the local authorities. You are merely creating fresh local work and providing fresh money for it, and I absolutely deny that that in any way represents a gift or a concession to the local authorities. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consult any of the great urban authorities or any county council they would entirely endorse my view and not take his view. While these purely imaginary gifts, which the Financial Secretary calls a final and satisfactory settlement, are being made to the local authorities, with the other hand the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes away his promise of giving them the half share of the Land Taxes.
  The history of these Land Taxes is indeed most interesting. The first stage is that very large municipalities, especially, I think, Glasgow, Manchester, and other places, agitate for a special tax on undeveloped land in the town or for an increment duty on the ground that local improvements increase the value of land, and contending that the sites ought to pay some contribution for local improvements

  2099
  in the future. The agitation is entirely and solely that the money may be spent for local purposes. Then we come to the next stage. The Chancellor of the Exchequer brings in his great Budget. In that he confiscates the idea of the great municipalities. He proposes various incongruous land taxes, but having proposed them, he says the proceeds are to go, not to the local authorities but for Imperial purposes. If these special taxes on land are to go to Imperial purposes, all I can say is that it is taxing the same property twice over, and you are taxing a man not according to his ability but simply according to the kind of property he happens to possess. That is especially the case with the Mineral Rights Duty. That duty is nothing more nor less than a second Income Tax. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, no."] If my hon. Friend opposite holds Consols and I happen to put my money into mining royalties, why should I pay two taxes while he pays only one? Therefore I say that so far as these taxes are used for Imperial purposes they are a second Income Tax. Now we come to the third stage. The right hon. Gentleman finds pressure put upon him by his Friends below the Gangway and therefore he says "I must give something to the local authorities," and so in a very belated manner he promises that the local authorities are to have a half share of the proceeds of the Land Taxes. Then we come to the fourth stage, which is represented by the date September 27th, 1909. The right hon. Gentleman then came down with the proposal with regard to the half share. He says he does not know how to allocate it. That is the difficulty he has got into with his land taxes. Therefore he will postpone the allocation to a later date and he used these remarkable words which are well worth remembering now:—
  "I do not think this will make any serious difference in regard to the localities."
  Now we come to the final stage. It has made a very serious difference, for the result of postponing the allocation is that the right hon. Gentleman has taken them away altogether. I really think we have good reason to complain on this ground. The Land Taxes from the first, if there were any Land Taxes, should have been entirely devoted to local purposes, and, for my part, provided that personal property pays a fair share of the rates, I have no
  2100
  objection in urban districts to a special site value tax for improvement purposes, but always provided that personal property is brought in and made to pay, as it does not do now, its fair share of the rates. That was the proposition which was made by Lord Balfour of Burleigh and his friends in the Minority Report of the Royal Commission ten years ago. They said:—
  "It should be a special tax, it should be confined to urban districts, it should be limited in amount, it should be on all covered land and all land actually ripe for building, and it should be entirely devoted to local purposes."
  If we had a proposition of that sort, an entirely different proposition from what we have before the House at present, we should be adopting the German plan. We may sometimes learn something from the Germans. I believe the right hon. Gentleman himself went to Germany and he said it was very good. Why not adopt it? Instead of devoting your incongruous Land Taxes to Imperial finance, for which they were never intended, why not adopt the plan they have in Frankfort, where they have a local income tax for local purposes, where one quarter of the expenses of the town are raised from the local income tax, and one-ninth from an Increment Tax on site values. I think there is a great deal to be said for Land Taxes imposed upon that basis. In order that we may get that the first inevitable step is that we should absolutely repeal the Land Taxes for Imperial purposes, for which they never ought to have been imposed, and we should endeavour to meet the wishes of the locality by imposing a special tax merely in the case of property which is directly benefited by the expenditure of the local rates. While we, who have been trying to advocate the claims of local authorities, accept with gratitude the small crumbs of comfort that the right hon. Gentleman has given us, we are far from accepting this as a final or satisfactory settlement in any way whatsoever, and before long it will be absolutely necessary for the Government, notwithstanding all the revolutionary schemes which they have in view, to take in hand a thorough and bold reform of local taxation, and to remove from the narrow shoulders of the ratepayer those onerous national burdens that they bear now, and which they ought not to bear, and ought never to have borne in the past.
  Now I want to say a word or two, not only on the effect of these changes outlined the other day by the Financial Secretary on local authorities, but I also want

  2101
  to say a word upon the licensing question. The Government have proposed a small change.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: A small change? It is £400,000.
  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: it is a small change in regard to the way of assessing annual values. The £400,000 is represented to us as a gift. It ought never to have been exacted. If the Government had carried out the pledges that they gave in this House when the matter was under discussion, if they had listened to the reasons which were put forward from this side, if they had accepted Amendments moved from this side they never would have exacted the £400,000. Now they find themselves in an impossible position, and they say "for the future we will not exact the £400,000, but we are not going to repay the £400,000 that we ought not to have had but did have last year." I do not call that a gift. I call it the most niggardly proposal I have ever heard. It is as if you caught a man robbing your till, and he says, "All right, I will not do it again, but I am not going to repay you what I have taken." Of course, we are glad the Government have seen that their former position was untenable; but, instead of not exacting the £400,000 in future, they ought to restore the £400,000 that they had no business to have, and the injustice of which was clearly demonstrated by Mr. Justice Channell in the Wrigglesworth case. But it is just the same with the Licence Duty as it is with the Land Taxes. It is here again simply a case of taxing a man, not according to his ability, but according to the character of the property that he happens to hold. It is bad enough to be a landlord. It is worse to be an owner of mining royalties, and it is worst of all to be a publican or a brewer. If you happen to fall under any of those categories you are to have special taxation imposed upon you, be you rich or be you poor. Look at the case of these Licence Duties. Before the celebrated Budget of the right hon. Gentleman 32 per cent. of the tax revenue of this country was paid by taxes on liquors—in fact, by the licensed trade. That does not include either their contributions to rates nor the compensation levy, which comes to some thing like £1,000,000 a year. Then the right hon. Gentleman swoops down upon the prey and imposes these enormous new Licence Duties. With what result? In
  2102
  Cardiff the Licence Duties have been increased 357 per cent., in Newcastle 278 per cent., in Birmingham 270 per cent., and in Leeds 266 per cent. I call it a crying injustice and a shame. It ought never to have been imposed, and it ought to be repealed.
  Then look at the absurd injustice wherever these licences are levied. There is that minimum clause that in all cases the Licence Duty should be at least the minimum, whatever the annual value may be, according to the population of the district in which the house is situated. I represent a district of the Black Country where you have large towns and large urban districts quite close together. But the actual population of these districts differs. You have a large county borough of 50,000 or more. You have next door a smaller urban district of between 5,000 and 10,000. Yet in the case of two identically similar houses, with an identical trade, the duty in the one case is far higher than the duty in the other case, for no reason whatever except that, according to the arbitrary geographical division, one happens to be in a place with a population of over 50,000, and the other in a place with a population of under 10,000. I do not see how that can be defended. It seems to me just an instance of that sloppy legislation of which we have had so much in recent years. Here is another example of the sloppiness of the Government's finance. We all remember the celebrated statement of a Chancellor of the Exchequer when he imposed an enormous new additional duty on spirits of 3s. 9d. that he imposed this large round sum in order that the licensed holders might easily pass it on to the consumers, and so by passing on rather more than the duty they might be able to recoup themselves.
  What about the Beer Licences, and what about the places which do not sell spirits? It is another example of that sloppiness to which I have referred, and as a matter of fact, the reduction in the consumption has been so great that the effect of placing new burdens upon a falling revenue has been to impose a charge which it could not bear. It is perfectly impossible for people to recoup themselves under the Spirit Duty, or in any way whatsoever.
  Take the case of free houses. I have always understood that the party opposite are averse to the tied-house system, and particularly friendly to the free-house

  2103
  system, yet under the right hon. Gentleman's policy free houses are one by one being destroyed as quickly as they can be, because the tied tenant can pass back on to the brewer part of the new burdens imposed. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Not only can he do so, but it is expected that he should do so, according to the very words of the Finance Act. One of the results of Liberal legislation is therefore to destroy free houses as quickly as you can. The statement made by the Financial Secretary was of very great importance, and I think it will be the duty of the party with whom I act, while accepting what small concessions have been made, to fight so far as we can to the best of our ability the policy of this Budget, believing that it is based on unsound principles, and that we can have no real financial reform until its main elements disappear altogether.
  Mr. GEORGE THORNE: I represent a county borough situated near the borough represented by the hon. Member opposite (Colonel Griffith-Boscawen). While listening to the hon. Member's speech, I had some difficulty to know in whose interest he particularly spoke—whether in the interest of the ratepayers or of the licence holders. He talked about the ratepayers first, but a great part of the later portion of his speech referred to the interest of the licensed holders. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] I am not objecting. I said I did not quite understand.
  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I spoke in the interest of both.
  Mr. G THORNE: I am speaking in the interest of the ratepayers, who are specially concerned in a matter of this description. I believe the hon. Member is entirely mistaken in supposing that this is the last word the Government has to say in reference to the relationship between Imperial and local finance.
  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I merely quoted the words of the Financial Secretary.
  Mr. G. THORNE: The hon. Member may have quoted the words, but he did not quote the connection.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Gentleman opposite has two or three times called attention to words of mine. No doubt I used the words complete and final, but anybody listening to me must have known,
  2104
  I think, I was speaking of this particular settlement and this particular Bill. That is perfectly clear. I am quite sure the hon. Gentleman did not mean to misinterpret my words, and I hope he will not put the same interpretation on the words again.
  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I had no intention to misrepresent him. I merely took the words as I heard them, and I must say that the word final is very large and covers a great deal.
  Mr. G. THORNE: I am very glad that my intervention in the Debate has elicited a statement from the Financial Secretary, although personally I cannot see the necessity for it. The remark of the hon. Member opposite suggested that the statement made by my right hon. Friend on behalf of the Government was a complete and final settlement. I fancy that the hon. Gentleman is alone in that impression. What the Financial Secretary has just stated is in accordance with what I understood him to say on Monday, in common, I believe, with my fellow Members on this side of the House, namely, that the statement had relation to the particular proposals at the present time. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated, if I understood him rightly, that it was his intention to face the whole question this Session, and that it is only because there are supreme matters which have now to be considered that he is prevented from doing so. I understood him to say further that next year, if it is in any way possible, this great question will be taken up, and the whole issue between Local and Imperial Finance will be fully and fairly considered. [An HON. MEMBER: "Next year."] I sincerely trust that circumstances will admit of the whole question being fully dealt with next year. Whenever it comes to be considered, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman (Colonel Griffith-Boscawen) that the questions of Education and Poor Law should be treated as distinctly national matters. I earnestly hope that they are going to be treated from a national standpoint, and that the local rates are going to be relieved of what are really national burdens. Everyone who is associated with the administration of local affairs knows the hindrance to which localities are exposed by the burden of the rates. In the Debate which took place the other day the charge made against the local

  2105
  authorities was that they are guilty of extravagance. This charge is generally based upon the whole of the rates without diffenentiating between them, and showing which part absolutely relates to local matters, and which part relates to national matters, such as education and the poor law. Not only do we find that this charge is generally made against local authorities, but we find that it is a hindrance to progress in our towns. Every town is looking out for, and endeavouring to get, fresh manufacturers into the district. When an employer visits a place he asks what the local rates are, and, finding that they are heavy, he is hindered from coming and taking his part in our local enterprise. In the interest of local enterprise and development it is absolutely essential that there should be a clear distinction between Imperial taxation on the one hand and local taxation on the other. I hope and believe the Government will undertake to deal with this question at the earliest opportunity. The hon. Member opposite stated that he was grateful for what had been done in giving concessions. I have never heard gratitude expressed in so grudging a manner. If that is the hon. Gentleman's gratitude, I do not know what his ingratitude would be. I feel a very great amount of gratitude for the concessions which have been made. Realising that it is imposesible to face the whole question this year, I am glad that what was anticipated is not to take place, and that the locality is to be relieved of the increased expense of the poor law. I took the opportunity of inquiring what benefit the concession would give in my own district, and I have received a telegram from the town clerk of Wolverhampton to the effect that, so far as that district is concerned, it will amount to 2d. in the pound. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman opposite is grateful on behalf of Dudley, which he represents, but I express my gratitude as regards Wolverhampton and district.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Is that calculated on the number of pensioners who are going to receive pensions in the borough?
  Mr. THORNE: I wrote to the Town Clerk stating the circumstances, and referring him to the statement which was made in this House. The Town Clerk has consulted the clerk to the board of guardians, and he says that he anticipates the benefit will be what I have stated. That is the information given to me in the telegram which I hold in my hand. I should like to
  2106
  have made a little more clear a matter in regard to which I believe there is some misconception. There has been in our district considerable anxiety by reason of the reduced asesssment in regard to public-houses. There has been some fear that this may result in considerable loss to our rates. From the telegram which I have received I understand that it is impossible to say what that will be on account of the appeals which have taken place, and that there is no immediate possibility of ascertaining. In view of the reduction I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to do something in that matter. What I desire to ask is whether indirectly the grant of £400,000 to the licence holders will have any effect on the rates. I only ask for information in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary may in his reply tell the House what the effect will be in that direction. Will the granting of £400,000 to the licence holders have a material effect on the value of the houses, and will the assessment be raised in some proportion so that the ratepayers may have some benefit from that concession. If they are to benefit the fears we have entertained will be removed, while we will gain from the concession with respect to the Poor Law. I desire to express my gratitude to the Government for what they are doing now. I believe they are doing the best they can with the means at their disposal. I hope that next year there will be a settlement of the relations between Imperial and local finance.
  Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: The Resolutions before the Committee are extremely important. The hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs (Mr. Younger) dealt so fully with the figures in regard to licences on Monday that I do not propose to go at length into that matter; but I wish to say one on two words from my own knowledge with reference to the heavy charges for Licence Duties on brewers and the tenants of licensed houses. When the Financial Secretary referred to the judgment of Mr. Justice Channell in the Wrigglesworth case, it appeared that the Treasury was making a merit of carrying out the Judge's decision. That is rather a strange way of dealing with this licensing case. The Judge's decision deals with the principle upon which licences are to be assessed, and it is a principle which undoubtedly will cost the Exchequer a considerable sum of money. The Treasury virtually say: "We are not going to carry the appeals further, but we are going to give

  2107
  the licence holders a gift which will cost us about £400,000 from our Licence Duties." That applies to the future, and not to the past, but if the decision of the Judge is right now, why do not the Government adopt it, and apply it to all those who have suffered so much in the past? I think we have a right to appeal on behalf of those licence holders to be treated in the same way according to the decision of the Judge and according to what is evidently equitable and right.
  I have, according to my experience and business, a great many chances of seeing what these Licence Duties do. They penalise the licence holder. My business is that of an accountant. I am aware, from some of the accounts I have seen lately, that those duties have imposed in one instance an added charge of £11,000 on the brewers. It is all very well to say they get it back from the licence holder; that is not the fact. The brewer has no redress. In another case £15,000 charge is added, and in another case £19,000. In one case the addition sweeps away the ordinary and preference dividend. In the other two cases it largely reduces the dividend which the shareholders had. This £400,000 would give some relief. Why should not the relief go back? Why should it not apply to the past just as much as to the future? The decision is undoubtedly a correct one. It is an absurd position to take up that if you add a heavy Licence Duty to a house therefore the rent of the house would remain the same. The rent of a house must be according to the profits that the house can make. If the duty is put on the house the profit must be less and the rent payable on that house must be less also. Therefore the rent falls, and the Licence Duty must be reduced. I was very pleased to hear the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. G. Thorne) speaking of the effect of the legal decision upon the municipalities and the county councils. The loss will be heavy on both these bodies in the reduction of the assessments upon which rates are levied. Like him, I am unable to obtain full information, but I am quite certain it is a penny, and I am very nearly certain it is twopence. Therefore, the gift going to be given by the removal of the pauper disqualification and the payment of that charge by the Imperial Exchequer will be swept clean away by the loss that the municipality will suffer through the application of the Wrigglesworth judg-
  2108
  ment. The charge to the brewers and the licensed houses is so heavy—it is quite apparent that it is unfair. Even with the animus which the party opposite have against all those who have put their money into breweries and licensed houses I can hardly think it is their wish to sweep away the debenture interest and preference dividends or the ordinary dividends which the shareholders ought to receive. In the three cases I particularly mentioned there is no doubt whatever that would be the result. Those cases which happen to be well known to me are not cases in which there has been any inflation of value such as would justify the statement that big profits were made one day, and, therefore, they ought to be prepared to make a loss at the present moment. I was very much gratified to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell). I think his suggestion that this Duty should be assessed upon the receipts was one well worthy of consideration, even at the present moment. It absolutely removes injustice and removes the effect of the Licence Duty payable on assessed value which makes it not in the interests of the brewer or the licence holder to put up large and well-fitted houses for their business.
  In reference to the Super-tax, I think we are all receiving it in the spirit in which it was sent to us. I cannot say we all like it, but I think that the general sense of the community is that the fairest method of exacting all taxes is by taking a proportion of the profits which we make. In this Super-tax we adopt rather an extension of that principle. But accepting that principle I want to preach what I have often said in this House, that is, that the ascertaining of profits should be put on a fair and reasonable basis, such as any member of the community adopts to ascertain his true profit from his business. We all know that the profit as ascertained by the Income Tax Commissioners is not based on that at all. It is based on what we can squeeze out of the taxpayer. Every device is put forward for bringing in various matters and assessing him on them, and for calling any losses losses of capital, and refusing to allow any abatement on them. In this particular case of the Super-tax there have been some gross injustices. The Super-tax is assessed upon the basis of the assessment made for 1909, and in ascertaining that the profits for the three years, 1906, 1907, and 1908 are taken. That is an ex post facto basis so far as concerns the case which I have under

  2109
  review. In the Act it is stated that the assessment of 1909, based on the three previous years, must be taken as the basis on which Super-tax is paid. I have more than one case in which an absolute loss has been made that year. In one particular case there was a loss of £22,000 in 1909, which swept away nearly all the capital of the merchant who was interested, and when the assessment for 1909 is taken on the trading of 1906, 1907, and 1908, and the man who lost £22,000 in 1909 is assessed on the profits of the three preceding years the whole of his capital is swept away. The excuse of the Income Tax Commissioners is not that that is a right or proper matter. The excuse is that that Super-tax is so assessed because the man failed to comply with some little formality in the account for 1909, which would have altered the back period, and thus have allowed him to raise this question. I do hope, the Act having been passed after the period when the assessment was made, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give some attention to these points, and will see that on this question of Super-tax something as regards the action of the Commissioners is done, so that in paying a Super-tax a man may feel that he is paying on a fair basis.
  As one interested in a municipality, I wish to make a few remarks upon the action of the Treasury in reference to this Wrigglesworth case. That action, as an hon. Member on the opposite side mentioned, is going to defraud the ratepayers of a very large sum of money in the shape of reduced assessment on public property. As regards these gifts which are said to be given, the Whisky Duty to the Education authorities, and the payment of the pauper pensions, it is rather like the case of taking away from a man his watch, chain, and seal, and then presenting the chain to the education authorities, the watch to the Poor Law authorities, and leaving the municipal authorities, who have the burden to pay, a great many extra payments for their benefit. That is the position at the present moment with these contributions for which the Treasury now take credit. Surely this House understands that it has the power over all municipal matters; it has the power to say to the municipality that it must pay so much money, and we know that it does, and that it imposes extra duties which must be carried out irrespective of cost. We know, also, that this House has the common purse
  2110
  except as regards the rates, and that from time to time it has imposed those duties upon the ratepayers, and made no contribution whatever to the relief of rates. We all know that the man who has to pay the rates is not the man who seems to pay. The shopkeeper has to take his stand somewhere where he pays his £1,000 or £2,000 rent. His rates are assessed on that, but his profits are not in proportion. The owners of works and of collieries have to take their stand with assessments for very large sums of money upon buildings and machinery which are erected for the purposes of business and for the good of the inhabitants of the labouring classes, but they get a profit proportionate to the amount which they expend. If the works do not succeed they are sold for scrap and go out of existence. The result is, as regards rates, that the ratepayers now have to pay all the taxes which this House imposes upon municipalities or counties, and they receive no relief whatsoever, and the charge goes on the wrong shoulders. The ratepayer is not the person who ought to pay the cost of the relief of lunatics or vagrants, or of the administration of justice. The cost in all those cases falls upon the ratepayer simply because the old custom of the country has been to place upon the ratepayer certain duties and to-give him a certain contribution from the Exchequer and leave him to do the rest.
  5.0 P.M.
  The local duties for which the ratepayers-have to pay have gone on in creasing, but the Imperial contributions have decreased. As regards these contributions, we have only to look to the last few years, since-the present Government came into office, to see what has occurred. First, when the present Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer, his action with regard to the licencing duties created alarm, and it was quite plain that the taking away these licence duties for the Imperial Exchequer, and then raising them, would probably mean a loss to the local authorities. That was met by a compromise. The present Prime Minister, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, said he would pay the average of that year, and that on that average he would continue the Exchequer contribution. In the following year, on this question of the licence duties, which operated to the detriment of the municipal authorities, an attempt was made at a species of compromise, and, finally, when it was seen there was nothing to meet the increased

  2111
  local charges, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer informed us that half of the Land Taxes would be employed in relief of extra local burdens arising from the removal of the licence duties. What has been the case? Like the old story in "Punch," of the lawyer and the oyster, the Government takes the oyster of these Land Taxes, and hands to the county councils and municipal authorities the two shells. We can do nothing whatever. The Government has now removed the Land Taxes from us and taken them into the possession of the Imperial Exchequer, for the purpose of pauper pensions and the Whisky Duty. This question is one that requires a good deal more attention than it gets The ratepayer is not the taxpayer. To put charges upon the rates for the purposes not properly belonging to them is not a fair method of dealing with the question of many of the duties which appertain to the general taxpayer. The increase in the charges is most apparent to anyone who looks into the facts. I have been chairman of the finance committee of Liverpool for some time, and I will give you a few of the figures in connection with the local finances in order to show the facts in relation to the Exchequer contributions. First there is the question of county asylums, which in their nature should not be a charge in any way upon the rates, and, in regard to that matter, in Liverpool in 1895 the cost was £14,000; in 1911 the cost is £36,500, an increase of £22,500. The constabulary in 1895 cost £49,000; in 1911, £97,000, an increase of £48,000.
  In that period what was the difference in Exchequer contribution. The Exchequer contribution in 1895 was £16,194, and in the present year the only amount we can get from the Exchequer contribution by way of relief to Liverpool—part of it goes to education and other charges—is not £16,000 but £11,000. The whole of the figures show that whereas during that period the local charges have gone up, charges which ought really to have been borne by the Imperial Exchequer, and which have been imposed on the municipalities by this House, those charges have increased by 89 per cent. from the amount at which they stood when they were first imposed, while the contribution from Imperial sources has only increased by 19 per cent. That is an enormous difference. We were told the other day that
  2112
  it is a matter which cannot be controlled, that both parties have been trying to arrange it, and that it is not one party or the other party which is to blame, but both parties who are equally to blame. We have suffered worse during the last six years; we have more burdens placed upon us, while the Imperial contribution is steadily going down. The engagements made in 1907 and 1908 have been actually broken. They were engagements that we should not suffer, and now we are face to face with the fact that we are called upon to pass a resolution which proposes that we are to take the average of 1909 as the proper Exchequer contribution in respect of those charges which have increased by 89 per cent. We are to take this as a proper contribution. We are to get no more. We are to wait some time until the Treasury wakes up and thinks it has enough balance of money to meet local demands. In the municipalities, Conservatives and Liberals alike have looked forward to these Land Taxes as a source of relief; but now, instead of that, these Land Taxes are to be taken from us and are to be used for places in which we have no interest. The Land Taxes of Liverpool are to go to some out-of-the-way Welsh places. We are not to have those taxes in connection with our expenditure on the widening of roads and on facilities for our commerce, and they are to be spent elsewhere. But we are to have the burden of this 89 per cent. increase on local charges, which will reach 100 per cent. Increase very shortly. The contribution from the Imperial Exchequer has dropped to 19 per cent., and will go down to 15 per cent., and probably 10 per cent.
  We have suffered, I was going to say something in the nature of trickery, but I will not do so, though one has to use strong expressions with regard to the conduct of last year. We have been fooled by the Government as regards the licence Duties, which have been taken away from us. Parliament will doubtless impose other duties upon us, such as the feeding of children; they will cast all sorts of duties upon us, but they will very carefully not add one penny to the receipts which we ought to have; and then they will turn round upon us with the statement, "We have not got your money; we have given it away to some other persons." We know very well that the proposal in regard to old age pensions is not going to create a very great amount of reduction in the charges on the poor rates. We do know that the estab-

  2113
  lishment charges will continue. There was some laughter on the other side when it was said that the establishment charges would go down. Establishment charges will not go down; they will remain, and great numbers of those who are already in the workhouse will prefer to remain there sooner than take their pension and go elsewhere. But the great point of controversy before us is whether it is fair between man and man that we, sitting here, with the power in our hands, should throw extra burdens on the municipality without giving extra relief. It is the future, it is this year and the last two years, the last six years, the last ten years with which we are concerned. If these burdens which have been imposed had been met by contributions from the Imperial Exchequer in relief, then I should not have had to bring before this House the fact that our municipal burdens have gone up by about 90 per cent., while the relief which is given is only a miserable 20 per cent.
  Mr. AINSWORTH: I should like to know if there is any possibility of some relief being given to licence-holders in Scotland, where the hardship is greater than in other parts of the country. Hon. Members know that in Scotland the hotels carry on a business which is largely seasonal; that is to say, except for four months in the year it is far more to the interests of owner and tenant that such hotels should be closed altogether. As the House probably knows, the rule at present is that where the receipts from liquors are less than one-third of the entire takings it is an hotel licence, but where the receipts from liquor are above one-third of the total takings' then the hotel becomes a public-house, and cannot get the benefit of the hotel licence, though a large amount of capital may have been spent. I am bound to say that in all the cases that have come under my notice in my own Constituency, and which I have been able to bring before the Treasury, I have received the most considerate and courteous treatment from the officials. I am sure the House will recognise that there is a special hardship on owners and occupiers of establishments of the kind to which I have referred. You may have a case of, say, £20,000 being spent in the building of a hotel for the accommodation of visitors in the season. The hotel of that kind is not carried on with the object of the sale of liquor, but if the drink sold during the season exceeds one-third of the total receipts the hotel does not get the benefit of the terms of the Finance Act.
  2114
  A thoroughly representative deputation of licence holders in Scotland made a proposal which, I am told, has the assent of the whole licensed trade of the country, and, I believe, also of the Scottish Members on which ever side of the House they sit. That proposal was that the licence should be fixed not on the buildings, or the rental, or the proportion of the drink to the total receipts, but merely on the total amount of drink sold in the course of the year. If a settlement of that kind could be adopted by the Government a difficulty in Scotland would be put an end to, and the superior class of house would be encouraged while the inferior class would be discouraged. I sincerely hope my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give this matter their earnest attention. I can assure them the whole licensed trade of Scotland are at the back of the proposal. As to the extension of the old age pensions, I was surprised to hear an hon. Member say that the putting of the cost on the taxes would not benefit the guardians, because the indoor charges in some workhouses were practically fixed. The great source of expense is the outdoor relief, and that is exactly the kind of relief which will be reduced by the payment of the old age pensions, so that the boards of guardians will be relieved in their expenditure. In regard to valuation, the increase of the area of valuation will increase the source from which the rate is derived, and will thus largely improve the position of the local authorities. I cannot understand why any hon. Gentleman opposite who understands the proposal should fail to see that the Government proposals are largely in relief of the local rates.
  Captain SPENDER CLAY: I should like to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to cases of very great hardship that have occurred owing to the licensing clauses of the Finance Act. The cases are of what is known as free houses. The free house is one which I have always understood hon. Members opposite had great sympathy with, but it is those cases which are hit the hardest owing to the incidence of the licensing taxation. Why I say that is because the tied house has the support of the brewer behind it. The brewer, although he may be severely handicapped, yet may be able to distribute his losses, and although he makes less profits, and although shareholders receive less dividends, yet he is not entirely

  2115
  knocked out of business. With regard to the free house, the case is entirely different, since the man's losses are concentrated, not distributed. He has got to depend entirely on his own resources, and if by any chance he happens to be engaged in any other business, such as the tobacco business, that business must be also injured owing to the expense to which the man is put. I wish to take a case of very real and very genuine hardship, and I sincerely hope that the Secretary to the Treasury may be able to take notice of it, and perhaps give it his sympathetic and kind consideration. It is a case in which a man has got a licensed premises, part of which are used as a bar and the other part for the tobacco business. I must quote some figures to show how intensely unfair this taxation has been in cases of this kind. The business in connection with the bar was comparatively very small. In the four years, 1907–11, the whole of the takings in the bar amounted to £1,603 17s. Id. That included mineral waters and eatables. Different brewers were paid £657 19s., and £135 was paid for mineral waters, making £792 19s. That leaves for the four years a profit at the bar of £811 18s.1d., subject to the deductions for the eatables which were supplied. The figures I have given are at the disposal of the right hon. Gentleman and also the names. I cannot give the figures as to the eatables at the bar, because I am told the figures would largely depend on the appetites of the persons. Where a man had a large meal, I take it that he was charged. Another reason why I cannot give this figure is that the man and his family eat some of the food that came from the bar, and therefore it would be impossible to give the correct figure.
  The Committee will therefore see that the profits from this business amount to £209 19s. 6d., or, rather, that amount less the cost of the eatables. Now take the tobacco business: The man's takings as a tobacconist in the four years amounted to £12,169 4s. 7d., or over £3,000 a year; so that there is a big tobacco business and a small liquor business. What is the taxation he has to pay on the two businesses? Before he gets the tobacco at all he is heavily taxed on that, and he has to take out a licence to sell tobacco. Before the Budget this man paid £3 10s. for an on-beer, licence, and, after the Budget, £46 13s. 4d., or thirteen times as much.
  2116
  What is the justification for this taxation? I have heard various proposals from Members of the Labour party as to what they would do with the incomes of those fortunate individuals who have over £5,000 a year, but compared with the wildest of those proposals this taxation means confiscation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has declared that landowners have no grievance when they say that the ½d. in the £ on undeveloped land will check its development; but what is to be said of this taxation, which amounts to 3d. in the 1s. on a man's undeveloped business? You are making this man pay a Super-tax on his business at the rate of 5s. in the £1, in addition to the 9d. which he has to pay on earned income, and his rates, compensation levy, and other outgoings. What is the effect of that? In the course of the Budget debates it was frequently stated on this side that as a result of this taxation mortgagees would get anxious. That is exactly what happened in this case. The mortgagees began to think that the place was not worth the money they had advanced; they called in their mortgage, and this unfortunate man was put to an expense of £80 to renew the mortgage. I Gave always understood that Members opposite condoned this sort of taxation on the ground that it was temperance reform. In my opinion, it is the very negation of temperance reform. It is the most intemperate legislation ever produced in this country.
  Another case which I will give very briefly is that of a hotel in a fairly large town. I imagine it was an old coaching establishment; it has good sized buildings and does a good trade. A few years ago less than ten, I think, the present owner paid a large sum for the hotel to the previous owner, and, in buying it, he naturally took into account the fact that the Licence Duty amounted to £50 a year. To-day, however, the Licence Duty is £250, and the property has, of course, depreciated in value to that extent. These cases might be multiplied indefinitely. They may be found in every constituency, and similar instances were constantly brought forward by Members on this side of the House in the course of the last two Budget Debates. I sincerely hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give some sympathy to these cases of real hardship. I shall be glad to place all the figures at his disposal, and I think he will then realise that, whatever his intentions may have been, his actions have been attended by hardship and oppression.
  Mr. McCURDY: My object in rising is to call attention to a number of points in regard to which I hope the Government will find it possible to amend the Finance Act of 1910. I am in the very unusual position for a Member of this House of having voted for a Finance Bill without having had any opportunity of suggesting alterations or proposing amendments thereto. Under these circumstances I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will feel that Members who like myself entered Parliament in January, 1910, ought to be allowed a fair opportunity for making criticisms upon the Finance Act which was then passed. I might define my position as that of a Radical Member, sympathising with the taxation of unearned increment even to a much higher degree than the 20 per cent. embodied in the Act, and also sympathising with the proposals for the nationalisation of land. Approaching the Budget from that point of view, I have one or two criticisms to make. I heartily sympathise with the object of the Land Taxes as repeatedly laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Take, first, the Increment Value Duty. It has been stated on every platform of the country when these taxes have been explained, that by the Increment Value Duty it was the purpose of the Government to obtain for the community a portion of the unearned increment due to no expenditure or labour on the part of the owner, but entirely to the expenditure or enterprise of the community at large or to the growth of population. Section 1 suggests that it was the intention of the draughtsman to carry out that purpose, for it is there stated that. "subject to the provisions in this part of the Act, there shall be charged, levied, and paid on the increment value of any land, a duty … at the rate of £1 for every full five pounds of that value." The question then arises how is it proposed to ascertain whether there has been any increment of the kind contemplated by the Government when the Budget was being defended. The obvious method would have been to have provided for a valuation, to ascertain whether or not any unearned increment of the kind I have defined had in fact accrued. Unfortunately, that method was not adopted by the draughtsman. In Section 1 we have the declaration that unearned increment is to be taxed, and there the draughtsman leaves it for ever. In Section 2 he provides that, for the purposes of this Act, increment value is to be deemed to be something else. Increment value is to be deemed to
  2118
  be the amount, if any, by which the site value of the land as ascertained in one way upon one occasion, differs from the site value of the land to be ascertained in another way and upon another occasion; and, unless we should still be keeping too close to the realms of reality, the site value of the land which is to be so deducted is to be taken as something else. I do not know whether Members realise what enormous trouble has been imposed upon Courts of Law, by this very objectionable way of legislating. Instead of legislating for a definite purpose and defining that purpose, you provide that one thing is to be deemed to be another, and that that other thing is to be deemed to be something else. It is as if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to be deemed to be the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition were to be deemed to be, say, the Member for South Salford. It is legal, but it is a very confusing way of arriving at what you want. But what follows? The draughtsman proceeds to substitute for an attempt to value the unearned increment this method—that there shall be imposed a tax upon a certain gross profit after there have been taken from that gross profit certain statutory deductions thereafter contained in the Act. The result of that is that in certain cases the gross profit, after the items you are entitled to deduct have been deducted, will coincide with the unearned increment which it is the object of the Government to tax; but there are undoubtedly other cases in which the result will be that a tax of 4s. in the £ is imposed upon certain gross profits from which no statutory deductions whatever can be made, and in cases in which there has been not only no increment of value whatever but an absolute decrement of value. Let me take an illustration of that with which we are all familiar. In the constituency which I represent I believe there are more freehold owners of houses in proportion to the population than in other towns in the British Isles. Take an ordinary row of suburban houses in an ordinary Midland town, laid out a few years ago when the idea of town-planning had not penetrated to this country. The houses are built out to the kerb, and average from twenty-six to forty to the acre, upon land which was doled out to the long-suffering public by a generous land-owning class at prices ranging from £2,000 to £4,000 per acre. All beyond were open fields; but this land

  2119
  was "held up" in the iron grip of monopoly. This Act, I think, will do something to break down that monopoly. The land was doled out at a price which, in my own experience, ranged from £2,000 to £4,000 per acre. This was a price at which the builder had no option whatever but to crowd upon the land houses which must inevitably, and in a short time, tend to become slums. What is the position of the small freeholder who owns a few of these houses to-day? There is, due partly to the provisions of the Finance Act, and due partly to the Town Planning Act, a breaking-up of this monopoly of building estates around our great towns and cities. There is to-day plenty of land in the market on the outskirts of Midland towns which can be purchased at half the extravagant and extortionate prices which were obtained by landowners for their land some ten years ago. The effect is—so far as the purchaser of these houses is concerned—that the land upon which the houses stand would, of course, if unbuilt upon, command a lower price in the market to-day than the price actually paid for it some years ago. As has often been pointed out, bricks and mortar have a tendency to depreciate rather than to appreciate. Let me give the case of a class of house of which I am thinking in a Midland town. The land and house together cost £200 or £250. Probably to-day the market value of that land and house is something like 20 or 30 per cent. less than the sum originally paid. This class of case is one in which hon. Members will observe there has been an actual decrement in the value of the land in question. What happens under the Act? I should be very sorry to repeat with any confidence the interpretation of any Clause, because, by common consent, the Act shares the characteristic of nine-tenths of the Acts for which this House has been responsible during the last twenty years. It is difficult to construe the meaning of the Act in this most difficult and complicated subject. What would be the position? Let us take £1,000 worth of this property, houses and land. Assume that this block cost £1,000 ten or fifteen years ago. The site value has been assessed, and the Government valuer has put that site value down at £200. The owner takes advantage of the clause in the Act which was meant for his protection. He says: "I have paid this money within twenty years, and I am entitled to have the site value as it was when I bought it." "Very
  2120
  well," replies he valuer." I value the house with the land to-day at £700: £200 for the site and £500 for the house. You say the site was worth £300 when you bought it; have it so. That brings the figure to £800"—£300 for the site and £500 for the house. Supposing the owner sells the property for £900, he loses £100. Then says the Commissioner, "Bricks and mortar cannot increase in value; we valued your bricks and mortar at £500 and your land at £300 at your own request. The bricks and mortar must still be the same; your land must have gone up." Consequently, that provision which was undoubtedly intended by the Government to give protection to the purchaser of property within the last twenty years, when it comes to be construed—and it must be construed—turns out to give him no protection whatever. On this part of the case let me point out another section of the Act, which reads very extraordinarily when one considers how this Act may be made to apply to small houses. If we turn to the Valuation section, Section 25, Subsection (4), paragraph (e), we find that for the purpose of arriving at the site value of the land that there should be deducted,
  "Any sums which, in the opinion of the Commissioners, it would be necessary to expend in order to divest the land of buildings, timber, trees, or other things of which it is taken to be divested for the purpose of arriving at the full site value from the gross value of the land, and of which it would be necessary to divest the land for the purpose of realising the full site value."
  6.0 P.M.
  Just see how that applies. It is quite easy to see how it does apply in the case of a place with a few farm buildings. The Government desire, and properly desire, to ascertain the site value as building land. Before the roads can be made, and before the new estate can be developed, it is necessary to clear away some of the existing buildings in order, as the words of the Act put it, "to enable the owner to realise the full site value of the land." Now let us take the case of our small houses. Take the case I have quoted. The site value is now declared by the Government to have risen from £300 to £400. The value of the house is put at £500. The owner is entitled to take into consideration the cost of taking the house down for the purpose of arriving at the site value, but what about the loss of £500 involved in the operation? As the Act is drawn, the

  2121
  owner of house property will be taxable upon an increment whenever under the circumstances of the case the value of the property exceeds the amount of the site value, though it is demonstrably impossible for him to realise that site value. So long as only cottage property is on that land the value is fixed by the land which can be obtained. Assuming that the site value is maturing, is ripening, and becoming suitable for either shop or business purposes, it is impossible for anybody to realise that site value until it has passed beyond the value of the house property which it would be necessary to pull down in order to secure it. There is another class of case in which I am afraid the Act requires considerable amendment. That is the case of building estates. One of the unfortunate results of the method adopted by the draftsman of the Act is in Clause 2 to ascertain the increment value: "That it shall be deemed to be the amount (if any) by which the site value of the land, on the occasion on which Increment Value Duty is to be collected exceeds the site value on the 30th April, 1909," is that the valuers are invited to do a subtraction sum in matters which are not fairly capable of being subtracted one from the other. One of the first results, if that section referred to stands without amendment will be that, whereas the original site value will have been made upon a wholesale basis, the subsequent site value from which will be deducted the increment, will have been made upon a retail basis, and there will be an apparent increment which does not exist at all. Let me give the House a concrete illustration. A building estate of sixty acres, at Esher, in the county of Surrey, was bought, some eight years ago for £600 per acre. The owner spent £200 an acre in making roads and sewers. That brought the expenditure up to £800 an acre. At the time that the owner purchased that estate for the purpose of developing it and of building houses upon it the retail price of the land in the same parish ranged from £1200 to £1,500 per acre. The draftsman of this Act does not appear to have grasped the fact that there must necessarily be a wholesale and a retail price for land wherever it is sold. Because the price of land—that is, what it will fetch—depends entirely upon the rate at which you can rely upon its being taken up in plots for building purposes. The
  2122
  calculation of the purchaser of that estate was that if he could sell his land for £1,200 or £1,500 per acre—which was then the price ruling in the neighbourhood—that payment of £600 would enable him to develop the estate and in a sufficient number of years to make a profit on the transaction. What is the net result? To-day an acre of land will be sold on that estate at £1,500. The owner is entitled now to have it valued. He is entitled to arrive at the assessable site value, and to take from that something in respect to the £200 per acre which has been spent on roads. I am not aware of any other deductions to which he is entitled. Apparently the £600 taken as the original site value in 1909 stands, and, if a good plot is sold for £1,500 under this Act, apparently the difference between the two sums is to be treated as gross profit upon which a tax of 4s. in the £ is to be levied. I need hardly say that is not the intention, as everyone present knows, of either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or of the various hon. Members who from this side of the House and in and out of the House have supported this measure and these taxes. Amendment is clearly necessary, for under the Act the owner of that estate is entitled to no allowance for the necessary loss of interest which he must be subject to in the course of the development—assuming that development takes place normally and in the ordinary course. I come to another difficulty in the Act which I suggested to the Chancellor of the Exchequer requires amendment in the interest of people who are actually endeavouring to develop building estates in this country. It is that as regards building estates where, say, there are 150 plots of land to be disposed of on varying terms in the course of a year, it should not be necessary, on each transaction, with the possibility of delaying the completion of the transaction by waiting for duties to be assessed——
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: You need not wait a single hour, so long as you supply the particulars. When the particulars are supplied there is no need to wait at all. It is a matter entirely for the vendor. I have been making some inquiries into this matter, and I find the system works admirably. There is no delay upon that account.
  Mr. McCURDY: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and I fully acknowledge the accuracy of the correction;

  2123
  but at the present moment I think I am accurate in saying that we have arrived at a stage at which actual claims for Increment Value Duty are being made in connection with these matters, so far as my information goes, it may be exceptional, but such claims are made. I entirely withdraw my suggestion that there may be harassing delays in having the matter dealt with, but I still suggest that at any rate as regards building estates, it would be a very much simpler and more satisfactory method of procedure if once a year, or once in two years, or once in three years, or whatever the period that may seem good to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Government Department could be compelled to make a valuation showing what is the increment value obtained on an estate in the past twelve months, and let that apply to all transactions during the following twelve months, and so onwards. One of the grave and serious difficulties is this, that when a man is engaged in developing an estate at the present time, he has no means of knowing what is the claim that will be made against him in respect of any transaction, and although that may be unfortunate with regard to an isolated transaction, it is much worse in the case of a man whose profit depends upon the margin he will obtain upon a multiplicity of transactions on an estate.
  I ask the Government to consider one or two other points on which I suggest amendment is capable, and would be reasonable. In the first place I regret the method which has been adopted by the draftsman for carrying out the avowed purpose of putting a tax upon Increment Value. I think it is a method which will not operate in the way in which it is desired to operate on all occasions, and I suggest if Section II. is, as I assume it is, to remain the law as to the method of ascertaining the Increment Value under that section, there ought to be an overriding Clause providing that in cases where no Increment Value has in fact accrued, no Increment Value shall be levied, giving in all cases to persons chargeable with Increment Value Duty the option of having a valuation with the view to finding whether there has been any Increment Value or not. I suggest that in order to meet the hardship, I pointed out in the case of small houses, there should be an amending proviso to the Act, by which
  2124
  it should be provided that Increment Duty shall not be chargeable upon Increment Value which it is impossible for the owner to realise. The principle of this is admitted in Section 25, Sub-section (4) (e), and it only wants to receive a reasonable extension to do away with what I believe is a very great hardship in the case of small property owners in this country, because it must be remembered that while the Act places a tax of 4s. in the £ on the profits of the dealers in small houses, where no possible Increment Value in the land can be suggested, it gives no allowance or corresponding abatement in case of loss which may have been made in other similar transactions. Finally, I suggest that the option might fairly be given to the owner of a large estate to have a periodical valuation made by the Government at certain intervals. It makes the greatest possible difference to any one dealing with land to know that he will only have to pay one-fifth or one-third, or even the whole of the ascertained Increment Value that has accrued, instead of an unascertained sum payable out of gross profits, irrespective of whether they represent a profit to him, and wholly irrespective of whether there is any increment value or not.
  There are one or two points with regard to Undeveloped Land Duty which I shall mention quite shortly. A case has been put to me by a number of builders in my own Constituency. They say we purchased building land ten years ago for the purposes of our trade. They did not buy it at agricultural value; they bought it at its building value, and have been doing their best with it ever since. They lost the interest on their money, and they say, "We would lose money now if we sell it, and we do not see why we should be called upon to pay Undeveloped Land Duty. We pay the full value price on which we are doing our best to get a profit." I suggest that is a case which might be met by providing that the Undeveloped Land Duty should only be paid upon what I may call the agricultural value of an estate, and that where the holder of land can show that he has paid the full building price, no Undeveloped Duty shall be charged for a period of years. Where the price paid is a price between agricultural and building value, the value could be ascertained.
  I regret that the Act should, in my judgment, require amendment, or require the frank criticism which I have endeavoured to give it. The Solicitor-General will

  2125
  understand that I am speaking only too accurately when I say that in recent years there have been cases, not one only or a few, but many cases in which the expressed intention of Parliament, as understood by those responsible for piloting a particular Bill through the House, and as understood by those responsible for criticising it in its passage through the House, is repeatedly set at naught when the Act comes to be construed in the courts. Every hon. Member can think of an instance for himself. That is a deplorable fact with regard to ordinary legislation, but I venture to think that in a Finance Act imposing taxes upon the subjects of the Crown it would be more deplorable than in any ordinary Act if it should be found that when the Act came to be construed we have been placing a burden upon industry and upon individuals which was never contemplated by the Government which introduced the measure or by hon. Members who took part in the Debates. For that reason I venture to press upon the Government that they should, as far as possible, by Amendments, which I regard as of a purely declaratory character, make it perfectly plain what is the Increment Value they seem to tax and make it clear that the form adopted by the draftsman shall not be allowed to operate in the unjust way I venture to think it might do as it stands.
  Mr. CAVE: We have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member opposite, who is, I understand, a supporter of the principle, if principle be the right word, of these Land Taxes, and who has obviously special knowledge upon the subject. He has made an impartial study of the Act, and he has found that the result of the Act is to produce in certain instances great injustice. The result is, he says, that Increment Value Duty is levied where there is no Increment Value, and that in that and in other respects hardships ensue. I feel bound to say that important as are the points which the hon. Member has read, there is not one of them that was not raised on this side of the House during the course of these Debates. But I am gratified that of late hon. Members opposite are giving a fair consideration to these points, and if the hon. Member who has just spoken, and others who think with him, will put down the Amendments which they think right, they will be supported by Members on both sides of the House who share the same view with them.
  2126
  I want to bring only two points before the Committee which arise upon these Resolutions. One is, I hope, non-controversial. The other may have some controversial matter in it. I understand it is proposed to deal with Reversion Duty in cases where the lessor buys out the lease, or where the lessee buys the reversion. I did not gather from the right hon. Gentleman that he proposed to deal with the case where the lessor accepts the surrender of existing leases and grants new leases instead. On many excellently managed estates there is a continuous process going on of accepting the surrender of leases with perhaps forty or fifty or more years to run, and granting a long lease, in some cases running into 999 years, nearly equivalent to the freehold. I think that that is a process to be encouraged, because it gives greater security to the lessee who is glad to have a longer lease, but this Act is operating towards hampering and preventing transactions of that kind, in this way. When you take the surrender of a lease you are treated, of course, as having succeeded to the property in possession, and you are chargeable with Reversion Duty upon the value of the property in possession under a clause of the Act. I know you are allowed discount of 2½ per cent. for every year unexpired of the lease surrendered. There is this limit upon that discount: that whatever the number of years to be surrendered is, you cannot get a discount exceeding 50 per cent. of the Reversion Duty. That operates very harshly, because 2½ per cent. per annum on a maximum of 50 per cent. does not give you more than twenty years in all. If you take a surrender of a lease forty, or fifty years old, then you are not getting full discount, and you are paying Reversion Duty on a value which you have never received That has actually arisen in practice. I have had quite a number of letters about it, and now the Government are dealing with the Reversion Duty I hope they will consent to deal with that hardship to which reference was made the other day. That point I think is non-controversial.
  I want to refer to another point which has a little controversy in it, and that is the Amendment which is going to be made in the Act relating to Licence Duties, a change which has been necessitated by the decision in the Wrigglesworth case. I think the facts of this case ought to be pointed out more in detail. The new Licence Duties are levied upon the annual

  2127
  value of the premises. In some cases it is half the annual value, and in the case of beer-houses one-third of the annual value. There was in the Finance Bill a provision providing that the duty on the licence should not be allowed as a deduction. We pointed out until I am afraid we wearied the Committee how unfairly that would operate. Everybody of experience knows that before the Act, when you were determining the annual value of premises, you did take into account the fact that the premises were licensed, and therefore capable of earning considerable income. On the other hand, you were bound to take into account the fact that in order to earn that income the licensee had to pay Licence Duty, and it was suggested as being grossly unfair to assess a man on the value of his house as a licensed house and not allow him to deduct the amount paid for the licence, without which he could not get his profits at all. The answer given by the Law Officer on behalf of the Government was that they were only perpetuating the existing practice. There seemed to be an impression that under present conditions there was no deduction of Licence Duty, and that this proposal made would make no difference to the practice. Our arguments were not acceded to, and the Bill went through with those words in it of which we complained. What happened? Very soon after the Bill became law a circular was issued by the Inland Revenue Commissioners giving to the Finance Act exactly the interpretation which we had ventured to place upon the Bill, and repudiating the contention put forward from the Treasury Bench. What did the circular of the Board of Customs and Excise say? It said:—
  "The Board accordingly will not recognise any claims to a reduced rate of Licence Duty for 1910–11 solely on the ground of a reduction in the assessment upon which Licence Duty is based; they will only entertain such a claim to the extent that it can be shown that the reduction of the assessment is due to causes other than the increase in the Licence Duty."
  For the purpose of the Licence Duty they say "you must not deduct the amount of the Licence Duty from the assessment." "We will assess you upon the basis of the full assessment without any deduction of the Licence Duty." That was directly contrary to what was said in the Debate, and it meant simply throwing over the interpretation which was put upon the Bill by the Government. I want to know how that circular came to be issued. Of course,
  2128
  complaint was at once made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it was pointed out to him what the Law Officer had said and that the Board of Customs and Excise were acting directly contrary to what was said in the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer took some months to consider the matter, and then he wrote saying that:—
  "He sees no reason to withdraw or suspend the issue of the demand notes for payment of Licence Duties, which are in accordance with the usual legal practice: but that if, as the result of any legal decision given in the near future, it should be found that the mode in which the annual value has been determined is not correct (which he understands is not anticipated by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, having regard to the terms of Sub-section (1) of Section (44) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910), any charge in excess of the charges declared to be illegal will, if paid, of course be subject to subsequent adjustment."
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer said in effect, "We do not believe the circular is wrong, but if it turns out to be wrong there will be a subsequent adjustment." The extra duties were paid in the month of July last, and another moiety was paid in October last upon the higher basis. Then came the decision of the court. The matter had been taken into the court in the case of the King v. Wrigglesworth, and the court was asked to say exactly what this proviso meant. The Government have not been very fortunate in their appeals to the courts, for there has been case after case within the last few years where some Government Department has received the condemnation of one or other of our courts for its action mainly because the present Government, more than any of its predecessors, is rather apt to endeavour to override what we all of us think to be fair to individuals. They are not careful enough of the interests of the individuals, and too anxious to get something extra in the shape of money or power. I can mention two or three such cases. There was the Swansea case, where the Education Department had to be told by one of our courts that they must do equal justice.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That case is under consideration in the House of Lords, and it will be argued to-day or to-morrow.
  Mr. CAVE: I was not aware of that fact, and, therefore, I will leave the Swansea case alone. There was the Weir Hospital case, in which the Charity Commissioners got into a certain amount of hot water. Then there was the Archer-Shee case where the Admiralty took a technical point in answer to the claim of a subject and they were told by the Court of Appeal that they must allow

  2129
  the facts to be tried before the technical point was dealt with and they could not be allowed to put an, end to the proceedings until the facts of the case were actually ascertained. We shall hear more of that case before many months have passed. I need not refer to Form IV. case, another celebrated instance in which the Government attempted to stop litigation at the outset and to prevent the question being determined by the Court. Leaving other Government Departments, look at the Inland Revenue Commissioners themselves. There is the case known as the Crown Brewery case which went into Court with the result that costs were awarded against the Commissioners on the ground that they had acted unreasonably. What happened in the Wrigglesworth case? Their fate again was rather curious, because, while Mr. Justice Channell agreed with the contention of the Treasury as to the meaning of the Finance Act, he made certain observations as to what the effect of this construction was, and his observations have brought about the proposal which is now before us. What did Mr. Justice Channell say? I will read a few words of his judgment. He is referring to the proviso dealing with the deduction of the Licence Duty:—
  "But then what in the world do the words mean? It says: 'In the determination of that value the duty on the licence is not to be allowed as a deduction.' I cannot think that one can say that that is from mere ignorance."
  That was rather hard upon the Government, because those words were found in the original Bill. Mr. Justice Channell goes on to say:—
  "I think it was very possible it was—but somebody who did not understand it (I am sure I do not know and I do not care, and it is not material to know what the real history of this Act is), possibly may hare suggested an amendment. But the words have got there, and I do not think one is justified when interpreting them in saying that they have no meaning. Whatever their meaning is—I confess I do not know what it is—it seems to me to alter the basis of valuation. The valuation for this purpose is something different to what it was before. I think it is arbitrary if it means that which is suggested, that in getting at the value you are to bring in on the one side the profits which are obtained by means of the licence, and yet are not to put on the other side the Licence Duties you pay in order to make those profits. That is obviously unjust, there is no doubt about that, and such as one would not think any body of honourable men could deliberately have intended."
  We have the Court itself saying it could not believe that any body of honourable men meant to take the course which in fact the Board of Customs and Excise were taking and which in practice was supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is not only a justification of the course which we took in this House,
  2130
  but it has had the effect of producing a complete change of front on the part of the Government, and the right hon. Gentleman is now proposing to alter the law in the manner we suggested. The right hon. Gentleman said that all the Government proposed to do was to clear up the doubt which existed as to the meaning of the statute. I am not at all sure that that is quite the appropriate expression. There is really no doubt what the statute means. It means an unjust exaction from members of the trade which the Government no longer see their way to making. I want to make it quite clear that the change proposed is no concession at all in the ordinary sense of the word. To some extent, although not to the full extent, it is simply bringing the law in accordance with what the Government said when they introduced the Bill, and I do not think it is right to call it a great concession to the trade or to anyone else. I think we ought to know how it came about that the circular to which I have referred was issued. How is it, when in this House a Minister has put a certain construction upon a Bill and the Bill has been passed on that basis, the Government issue a circular on the very opposite basis? How is it that the circular was not either stopped from the beginning or immediately disowned when action was called to it, so that the word of a Minister in this House might be made good? If you admit that the exaction made has been an unjust exaction, and one which you did not intend, how cart you keep in your pockets sums which were levied by that exaction? The proposal is to adjust the figures as from 1st October last. A moiety was paid on the 1st October upon the higher scale. It is proposed to adjust that when the second moiety comes to be paid and only to ask for the difference between the amount actually paid and the full amount upon the lower scale now proposed. That, of course, so far as it goes, is perfectly fair, and I have not a word to say against the fairness of the basis now proposed for the future. What I want to point out is that on the 1st July last the sum which the Government estimate as in question, £400,000, was exacted from the licensees and exacted from them upon the footing of a construction of the Act which they themselves now repudiate. If that is an improper and unfair exaction, are you or are you not going to refund it? I cannot see how the Government can fairly answer

  2131
  that question in the negative. One would like to know exactly what the Government propose. If they are going to retain this sum, and therefore swell the receipts from this source, which do considerably exceed the estimates on which the Bill was obtained, how do they defend their action in this House? This is a matter which I think we are entitled to bring forward, and it is one on which we are entitled to have an answer.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Before I proceed to deal as fully as I can with the questions which have been raised, I should like to refer to what happened earlier in the day, when an hon. Friend (Mr. Atherley Jones) moved the adjournment of the House. An understanding was come to—if I may for a moment address myself to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Austen Chamberlain)—that we should take the whole of to-day for the discussion of these Resolutions. The adjournment having been granted, that arrangement has been somewhat interfered with. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman opposite and to hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, that, if they, in order to bring the discussion on these Resolutions to an end to-night for certain, would consent to give us all the Resolutions by 8.15, we, on the other hand, would give them an undertaking that at the close, after the discussion on the Adjournment, we would ask for no other business at all, and we would give them to-morrow a time equivalent to that consumed to-night by the discussion on the Adjournment. I hope I make myself clear. I think that would be a fair equivalent. If they would, if I might so suggest, at the end of to-morrow's discussion give us the Report Stage of these Resolutions, the remainder of to-morrow would be taken up with the usual discussion upon the Supplementary Estimates.
  Mr. FELL: That would be curtailed.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am not quite familiar with all the arrangements for business, but I rather think that is not the final day for the discussion of Supplementary Estimates. I hope, before I proceed to discuss the Debate this afternoon, I may obtain some answer from the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think the Government and the Committee are put in a position of some difficulty through
  2132
  no fault of their own. On Monday we had more than two hours subtracted from the time which the Government had proposed to allot to us that day owing to a question of privilege, and at the close of the evening I appealed to the Prime Minister for further time in consequence of that interruption. He was good enough then to propose that we should Report Progress at 11 o'clock, and continue the Debate on the Resolutions on Thursday, giving the whole of that day to the Committee for discussion.
  "If we do that,"
  he said,
  "I hope the Report Stage will he taken pro forma on Friday. If that is the general understanding I will move to Report Progress."
  After consultation with as many of my hon. Friends as I could manage to consult at the time, I, on their behalf, accepted that arrangement, but, of course, we did anticipate we should have had the whole of to-day. Now, again, through no fault of the Government, and certainly through no desire of theirs, but by one of those Parliamentary accidents to which these arrangements are liable, the evening sitting is practically subtracted from our to-day's work on financial business, and we are placed in this difficulty. By general consent at that time, and as one of those arrangements made across the floor of the House which all parties most scrupulously keep, we agreed to finish the discussion tonight. If we carry it on after 3.15 that may be beyond the power of any one, for if the adjournment lasts up to eleven o'clock, as the Eleven o'clock Rule is not suspended, we cannot resume these Resolutions, and the arrangement which we made would break down.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee will remember we cannot, in respect of financial Resolutions, take the Report on the same day that the Committee stage is ended.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: We could not make good the failure to finish the Committee Stage to-day by taking the Committee and Report Stages to-morrow. The right hon. Gentleman, under those circumstances, proposes, on behalf of the Government, that, instead of taking the Report Stage pro forma, as we had previously arranged, we should have time given us at the commencement of business to-morrow equivalent to that which we

  2133
  lose to-night. If we lose to-night from 8.15 to eleven o'clock, we should be entitled to have about two and three-quarter hours' discussion at the opening of business to-morrow on the Report Stage. I think, under the circumstances in which we are placed, that is a very fair offer from the Government, and I think we on this side of the House, ought to accept it. There has been, as the right hon. Gentleman has seen a great desire to speak on these Resolutions on both sides of the House, and I am afraid, whatever arrangement is made, all the speakers who have something worth saying will not get in at this stage. I think, however, that is a fair proposal on behalf of the Government, and that we ought to accept it. I hope those, who, on one side or the other, find themselves precluded from bringing their points before the notice of the Committee at this stage will have ample opportunity when we come to the Budget Bill.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: One other word, in order that there may be no misunderstanding. Of course, the arrangement we make does not cover the Supplementary Estimates.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I quite understand.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Of course, I am very anxious to accede to the arrangement proposed, but it seems to me, hon. Members are being asked to give up a good deal. They are asked to give up the Committee Stage, which is a valuable stage because they have an opportunity of getting an answer from the Minister. I would ask whether the Government could not see their way to let us have the Committee Stage continued to-morrow (Friday), on the understanding that some day next week the Report Stage should be taken pro forma.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I quite appreciate the difficulty in which hon. Gentlemen opposite are situated, but I do not think we could really agree to that, and for this reason: As I pointed out, we cannot take the Committee Stage and the Report Stage on the same day, and, if we give the whole of to-morrow for the Committee Stage, we lose a whole day on the Supplementary Estimate, whereas, under the arrangement I have suggested and which the right hon. Gentleman opposite is good enough to accept, we only lose half a day on the Supplementary Estimates.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: If there was an understanding that the discussion on the Supplementary Estimates should begin at three o'clock to-morrow, we could take more time for the discussion of the Resolutions in committee.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is practically what we are offering. As a matter of fact, I do not think any Members of the Committee have spoken more than once this afternoon.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Except the right hon. Gentleman himself.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not think, except for an interjection across the floor of the House, that I have intervened all day. I can assure the Committee that, for my own sake, as well as for theirs, such remarks as I may make to-night will be as brief as possible. I think, on the whole, we must adhere to the arrangement which I have suggested, and which has been accepted on the other side. The hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last (Mr. Cave) concluded his remarks in almost the same strain as that in which the Debate was opened, by saying the Government were making no concession to the Licence Trade. Now is not the time, if I may use the expression, to split hairs as to whether when you give back to a trade or to a particular interest a sum of £400,000 a year you do or do not make a substantial concession; but of this much I am quite certain, that if that amount had been continued to be taken out of the resources of the trade we should have heard a great deal of the pecuniary hardship and injustice inflicted upon them, and no one would have more eloquently and ably put forward that case than the hon. and learned Member himself. Therefore, whatever view we may take of the decision of the House on the Finance Act, or whatever view we may take about the language of Mr. Justice Channell, I think it must be conceded we have conferred a considerable boon upon the trade. I will only venture to say, with regard to the language of Mr. Justice Channell, that I do think it is very regrettable that any person occupying a judicial position should make use of that judicial position to reflect upon the intentions of this House.
  May I say something about the Reversion Duty, which was also alluded to by the hon. Member opposite? He wanted to know whether the statement which I made upon the Reversion Duty included

  2135
  the case where the lessor accepts the surrender of the lease with a view to granting a new lease. Anyone who has studied the working of leasehold tenure of land in this country must be aware of the great number of cases where it is to the distinct advantage of the occupants of houses that as occasion arises the lessor should, as a matter of fact, come to terms with the lessee for the resumption of the lessee's interest. One can easily imagine great building estates, and small ones if you like, where the landlord is anxious to get the outstanding lease into his possession in order that he may rebuild the property and put it in better order than it is at the present time. For my own part, I confess I should be very anxious that that case which has been put by the hon. Gentleman should be included in our Clause, and his suggestion, which was already in my mind, will certainly be taken into account when we come to draft the words of the Act. The hon. Member added something about discounting 50 per cent. It is not our intention to limit the discount in the way he suggested The hon. Member may rest assured that the discount will be on the basis of 4 per cent.
  Mr. CAVE: I should like to be allowed to say I hope it will not be thought that in my observations I suggested that the learned judge cast any reflection on the intentions of the House. Nothing was further from my intentions.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I should like next to deal with the speech made by the hon. Member for Dudley (Colonel Griffith-Boscawen). The hon. Gentleman talked about "preposterous propositions," about "crumbs of comfort," and "imaginary gifts." I do not think anybody who followed or who has read the remarks I made at the beginning of the week could really call the contribution which the taxpayer is making to the ratepayer a small crumb of comfort or a preposterous proposition. The hon. Gentleman talked about the taxation of land values for the purpose of relieving the rates as being a preposterous proposition. Has he ever studied the report of Mr. Chaplin's Commission, which, if my memory serves me aright, suggested that land values should contribute no less than one-half for that purpose. If the hon. Gentleman will only read the report of that Commission he will, I am certain, withdraw the expressions he made use of earlier in the evening.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: The hon. Member is not in his place, but the right hon. Gentleman is, I think, misrepresenting what he said.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think not. I took down the expressions the hon. Member used at the time.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: To what Commission is the right hon. Gentleman referring?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: To the Local Taxation Commission. We have given substantial relief to local rates. I have not the actual statistics for the various towns and boroughs throughout the country, but when you take off from the guardians of the poor a charge which, at the lowest computation will amount, before the 1st January, to £1,500,000, it must be quite clear there is a substantial contribution to the rates and a very great relief to the ratepayers. It has been suggested that my estimate is greater than is justifiable, but I can only take the actual figures of the cost so far as we can gather them, and I say that on the lowest possible basis it amounts to the sum I have stated.
  Mr. HARDY: I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will give us the proportion of indoor and outdoor paupers who are calculated to come under the scheme.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have not got the actual figures, but if the hon. Gentleman will put a question down on the Paper I will endeavour to get the information. I was asked the other night by the hon. Member for East Mayo as to how Ireland would be affected by this question. My information is to the effect that there are something like 17,000 disqualified pauper pensioners, 16,000 of whom were in receipt of poor relief immediately before the 1st January, and the estimated saving to the rates in respect to these people may be put down as £114,000, and in respect of the potential paupers it may be put down at £104,000, so that properly speaking the saving to Ireland through our proposal will be £220,000, a very substantial contribution to the ratepayers of that country.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: Will the ratepayers receive the whole of the £1,500,000 which the Treasury will save?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes. There is no doubt some saving clause with regard to persons who contribute to the cost of

  2137

  maintenance of relatives in the workhouses, but, against that, the expenditure of ratepayers in various localities will cease to that extent. We do not give them back the money which they are spending, but they will cease to expend it. Then, too, there is the question of the cost of Poor Law institutions. That is included in the sum which we have quoted. It is really no imaginary gift that I have stated we, as representatives of the taxpayers, are making to the ratepayers of the country. I wish to say a word as to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, who was a little bit afraid of the effect on the ratepayers of the reduced assessment of houses. But as has been pointed out, this concession of £400,000 must indirectly come back to the ratepayer as, while the licensee is relieved of taxation to that amount, he is able to pay, and does pay, an increased rent upon which rates will be levied, and thus to that extent the ratepayer will be indirectly relieved. One of the hon. Members for Liverpool, speaking on the licensing question, suggested that the Government was intentionally hard upon the licensed trade, and that it was in consequence of the legislation of the Government that there had been a considerable fall in the values of licensed property. It so happens that within the last few days there appeared an interesting article in "The Times" pointing out what are the real causes of the fall in the securities of the brewing trade. I took note of it at the time. I had become so familiar with the accusations brought against us that I thought it was worth while to study an article written from a purely business point of view and not from a party point of view. The writer, like all writers of these articles, is anonymous, but he pointed out that there were several causes which contributed to the fall in value. The first, he said, was the severe competition among the brewing companies for the acquisition of licensed premises, a boom which led to fancy prices being paid for tied houses. For a time, he added, real values were left out of consideration, but the inevitable reaction followed, and the fall was due to that and not to hostile legislation.
  Mr. YOUNGER: Hostile legislation had not taken place then.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Perhaps the hon. Member will let me finish what I was saying. There was a boom and there was a reaction——
  Mr. YOUNGER: It was before the Budget.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will listen to the words of a contributor to "The Times," a business statement by a business man writing and speaking for business people. It was a special article in the Commercial Supplement to "The Times," which I think may be regarded as even as great an authority on business as the Noble Lord the Member for the Thirsk Division of Yorkshire.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Why not?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The article goes on to deal with the subsequent history of these undertakings, and points out that, although there was a recovery in brewery stock, there followed another fall consequent on dread of legislation. Legislation came, and what then took place? There was a recovery of brewery stocks, and it will be noted that that recovery dates from the time of this imaginary gift, this trifling concession of £400,000. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Well, that is stated clearly in black and white.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Because it is in black and white it does not follow that it is correct.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It really is interesting. But I would like to ask the question, is it a fact that brewery shares have gone up, or have they not? The hon. Member opposite laughs. I repeat the question.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I laughed at your taking as your authority an article which may be intended to sell shares.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I did not know that "The Times" had fallen quite so low as that, and I doubt very much whether any other Gentlemen in this House would make such a suggestion. It may be some may, but I confess I should have thought not. What is curious is that there is this recovery after legislation and not before. I only desire in reference to this matter to bring to the attention of the House not a statement made for party purposes, not a statement by a partisan, or by a Member of the Government, but the actual facts in connection with this question.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. YOUNGER: Will the right hon. Gentleman assume a V-shaped depression? The introduction of the Budget sent down all these brewery stocks to a certain point.

  2139
  They have risen to a certain extent, but not anywhere near the point at which they stood before the introduction of that legislation.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That may be true. No shares jump up in the market and fall, and recover in ten days or a fortnight. But the tendency is upwards. The fall was not due to legislation. The original fall was due to over-speculation and bad trading, and that fact has become more widely known.
  Mr. YOUNGER: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstood my interruption.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: My hon. Friend who sits for Argyllshire (Mr. Ainsworth) drew attention to the case of a Scotch license-holder, and he suggested to us that the License Duty should be fixed on the total amount of drink sold. I think he will remember that a discussion on that point took place in the House when the Bill was going through Committee, and my right hon. Friend clearly stated then that he did desire that the license holders should pay a direct contribution, and that they should not put it off on the consumers. He was not able to accept an Amendment which was then moved. I have not had an opportunity of consulting him since, but I cannot at the moment hold out any hope that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer rejected many months ago, he will accept now.
  Mr. AINSWORTH: Will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to consult him again?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes. Then the hon. Member for Tonbridge drew the attention of the House to a case of licensed premises being used partly for the purpose of licensed trade, and partly for the purpose of some other business, I think particularly for the sale of tobacco. As he explained the case, I confess that upon the first blush of it it appeared to me to indicate some degree of hardship but I should have thought, from the description he gave of the case that the owner was protected under one of the sub-sections of the Act. If however, he will bring the case to my notice, I will very gladly go into it myself, and see whether it is possible under the general principles of the Act to meet the particular hardship of which he complains. Then we had a very interesting speech from the hon. Member for Northampton, who raised a great number of points in connection with the operation of the Act as it applies to site values and original
  2140

  site values, and he gave me an intimation that later on he intended to move certain Amendments in the Act. In particular he dealt with the case of the difference between the rise, fall, and rise again of the site value. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt with that particular case under the twenty years' Clause, and he gave an undertaking to this House. I repeat that pledge on his behalf, and I think if it is carried out in the spirit in which it was offered it probably meets the whole of the case, which was so well put by the hon. Member in the House this afternoon. I am anxious not to detain the House, as there are several other Members who wish to speak, and our time is somewhat limited. No doubt we shall see Amendments foreshadowed in speeches this afternoon put down when we come to the Committee stage of the Bill. It is easy in a great measure of this sort to point out errors and mistakes. I do not know a Government which has not had the misfortune to run up against errors and mistakes—mistakes of judgment and errors of fact—but considering the wide range of legislation and the number of subjects dealt with, once the principle of the Act is admitted. I think there have been as few blunders and errors and as few hardships in administration under this Act as under any Act that has ever been passed.
  Mr. HARDY: Before answering the right hon. Gentleman I would refer to an interruption I made a few minutes ago, and I think it would be very desirable that this House should be very clearly informed as to how the estimate of the Government has been obtained in connection with what is called the relief of local taxation. The right hon. Gentleman in his Budget speech took it at £1,500,000 real saving, £500,000 potential saving, making it £2,000,00, and that sum has varied backwards and forwards, and it has changed, and on one occasion it came down to £1,250,000.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I may point out that so long ago as 1909 the sum of £2,000,000 was mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and was repeated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement this year, and those statements do not vary from the statements which I made in introducing these Resolutions and subsequently.
  Mr. HARDY: I should like to know how-it is confirmed by the facts, and how the expectations are maintained, now that they are realisable, because the whole

  2141
  question depends upon the proportion which has reference to outdoor relief, which can be reckoned, to indoor relief, as to which there would be serious doubts in ascertaining it with anything like accuracy. We know that there are many elements to be considered in connection with indoor relief which make it impossible to say how far the guardians are going to receive the benefits which it is stated are going to be given to them. Already it is the fact that of those who took pensions, and who were in the first instance tabulated as a relief to the rates, a number have come back to the workhouses again, and claimed relief from the guardians. Therefore, it is not a matter in connection with indoor relief which can be treated in the light manner in which the Government have always treated it in giving us various round sums without any details of the manner in which they have been built up from estimates. I desire, notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman has said, to still make the protest in this House, that the House in no way, in all the discussions on the Budget did accept the contribution to the guardians as part of the old age pensions scheme. It has always been stated by the Government, that the House came forward and accepted that, but it has always been protested against by a very large number of Members in this House, and as soon as the country knew anything of it, there was an almost unanimous protest sent forth by the Guardians as to what was almost entirely an Imperial contribution Therefore, I think it is necessary to emphasise that matter so as to make it clear what our position is when we come to deal with the larger question of local taxation. Knowing that the time is extremely limited I only desire to raise at this moment one special case for the right hon. Gentleman's consideration in connection with the Mineral Rights Duty. I did raise the question at the time when the Budget was before the House, pointing out the hardship which is now involved by the fact that the Mineral Rights Duty is charged exactly the same upon the owner who works his own minerals, and the owner who leases his minerals. That puts the mine owner, who has bought minerals and who is working those minerals under an unfair handicap with his competitor in trade who leases his minerals from a lessor. I am not going back upon the justice of the tax. I do not wish to argue as to that, but it is quite clear, if you take the simplest case of minerals, say worth £100
  2142
  in the case of the lessee, he knows exactly what value he has to put on his minerals when he works them—namely, £100. Supposing the minerals belonged next door to a lessor he cannot take them at the same price as his competitor, as he has placed upon him the extra Mineral Rights Duty, which he has to pay. Whatever may be the effect in the future I only ask the Government at the present moment to protect those who entered into engagements in the past, and to say that they, at all events, should not be placed under an unfair handicap with competitors in the same trade by having to pay this additional Duty, which their competitors have not to pay. If the suggestion of the hon. Member for Argyle is to be carried out, and the Mineral Duty is to be the one to fall back upon when the Government desire more money, then I say that this grievance will become a very much more serious one, and will involve the abandonment of seams which are not of a particularly lucrative character. This has been a matter of correspondence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I must say I was rather surprised that in the reply to a question which was put to the Chancellor his Secretary put this position, that there was no hardship because the lessor in leasing his minerals would be very careful to put the tax upon the lessee, and by that means avoid paying Duty himself. Therefore, it was said there was no real grievance, because the lessee had to pay the money, but I thought that the whole object of the Government was to secure that these taxes should not be placed upon the coal, which is the raw material of every industry in the country, but here we have the Government themselves suggesting that it is quite clear that the lessor may shift the burden upon the lessee and lessor and lessee are in exactly the same position. I am surprised that the Government did take up that line of answer in regard to what I consider a real grievance, and I wish the right hon. Gentleman to look into this, and so far as past contracts are concerned to secure that the owner, who is taking the whole risk and responsibility of a very risky trade, should not be handicapped and prejudiced by this tax, which the Government has merely put on for the purpose of charging a certain amount of taxation on the men who take no risk at all. On that ground I venture to put the case before the right hon. Gentleman.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I should like to mention the point connected with the Land Taxes which was referred to by the

  2143
  Secretary to the Treasury in replying to the very able speech of the hon. Member (Mr. M'Curdy). I am sure we on this side welcome the hon. Member as a new recruit to the critics of these Land Taxes of the Government, and I think I shall not be alone in expressing the wish that he had been here during the Parliament of 1909 in order to try and persuade the Government, perhaps more effectively than we were able to do, as to the injustice which would accrue from some of those taxes. It appears to me that the hon. Member is one of the first land nationalises holding these views whom I have heard, and into whose mind some glimmering has begun to enter that theory is a very different thing from practice. If he can draft such Amendments as will carry out the theory which he has in view, and yet not work the injustice which he has so ably exposed, I am sure the House will congratulate him as a very clever Member indeed, for so far no one has been able to do so. The Secretary to the Treasury has repeated to-day, with emphasis, the pledge, and I think it is a very satisfactory pledge, given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to what is called the twenty years' back clause, and I hope when the Bill comes to be amended the Government will insert some amendments which will really ensure that no Increment Duty under any circumstances shall be payable if, as a matter of fact, the owner has lost money instead of snaking it over a particular property. Another question which I raised on the Debate on the Address, and to which hitherto we have had no answer, was the question of deductions. I introduced to the notice of the House certain letters which prove that in estimating site value the valuers were, according to my views, going contrary to the Act in that they were setting off the value of the materials against the estimated cost of removing them in order to arrive at the site values. Any one who has read the Act will think that the owner is entitled to have deducted the cost of removing the materials which are on the site in order to arrive at the site value, and I read letters in which it was stated by a certain owner of property that the valuer told him he had instructions to set the value of the materials against the cost of removing, and to assume therefore that there was no deduction to be made, as the Statute expressly declares. I should like to
  2144
  have an answer from the Government as to whether that is the Government's interpretation of the Act. We asked the Attorney-General upon that point, but he was unwilling to give us an answer, because he said he had not formed a considered opinion upon it.
  I wish to say a few words upon the relation between the local authorities and the Imperial Exchequer, and in spite of the satisfaction with which the Secretary to the Treasury regards the position, I am bound to say that in my opinion the Government seem to have been rather shifty over the whole question of what was to be done with the proceeds of the Land Value Duty. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) the other day said he was speaking from memory, but he believed that the promise to give half the proceeds of the Land Value Duties to the local authorities was long precedent to any mention of any deficiency in the whisky money, and I think it was suggested by the Government that that was not the case, and that the promise had always been that the whisky money deficit should be made up by the proceeds of the Land Value Duty. That is not the case, because I have here the words of the promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was made on 22nd June, 1909. That was on the second day of the Committee stage of the Budget. I will read it:—
  "There are Amendments down on the Paper for the allocation of a portion of these Land Taxes for local authorities. That is a matter which has been pressed upon me, notably by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean, in almost every discussion we have had. I agree that it is a matter of the first importance. I cannot now discuss the merits, bat I have always thought localities have an undoubted charge upon these Land Taxes, and the Government are disposed favourably to consider the Amendment, which, I think, stands in the name of the hon. Member for Bolton, for dividing these taxes equally between the locality and the Exchequer. I cannot at the present moment enter into the reason for the special division, and I cannot discuss at present the methods of allocation. The Government are prepared to accept the principle of that Amendment. (An hon. Member: Of all the taxes?) Yes of all the Land Taxes, Undeveloped Land, the Mineral Tax, the Reversion Tax—the whole of the Land Taxes."
  That was the first occasion, as far as I have been able to trace, when this promise was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is obvious that there could have been no mention of the whisky money at that time, because the deficit in the whisky money did not occur until a year afterwards. If any further confirmation is needed, I have here a copy of the financial Resolutions passed by this House:—
  "That there shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund in each year a sum

  2145
  equal to half the proceeds of the duty levied in respect of ground values, including Mineral Eights Duties, under any Act of the present Session, and that sum shall be divided between England, Scotland, and Ireland in such manner and paid into such separate accounts for the benefit of such local authorities as Parliament may determine."
  That was on 20th April, 1910. Even then there was no mention of the whisky money deficit. The first mention by the right hon. Gentleman of the Land Taxes being given as a set-off to the deficit of the whisky money occurred on 30th June, 1910, exactly a year after the original promise had been made. Then, speaking of the deficit of the whisky money, he said:—
  "It is unsatisfactory that the efficiency of education in this country should depend upon the quantity of alcoholic liquor consumed. Therefore I think the time has arrived for putting these things on a firmer and more permanent basis. I promised last year that part of the Land Value Duty should be allocated for this purpose."
  I ask hon. Members to notice how erroneous that statement of what his promise had been really was. He said:—
  "I promised last year that part of the Land Value Duty should be allocated for this purpose."
  He promised nothing of the kind. What he promised was half the Land Value Duties without any bargain whatever, and it was the distinct understanding on which these duties were passed, certainly on the part of Sir Charles Dilke, that half of these duties should be allocated to the local authorities without any conditions whatsoever. Now they seem to shift their "view upon the point every day, because only last Monday the Secretary to the Treasury, speaking of this, also seemed to confuse the Land Value Duties and the whisky money. And he said, speaking of the amount which he gave to local authorities in lieu of whisky money this year:—
  "We resume half the Land Value Duties from 1909–10. £245,000, and for 1910–11, £300,000. That comes to £545,000, so that there is a small balance in favour of the local authorities of £40,000 a year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1911, col. 1589.]
  He takes up what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in June last, and makes out that the deficit of the whisky money is being made up in lieu of the Land Taxes. That position was thrown over altogether by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at question time to-day, because in answer to a supplementary question from me he said "No; but what we did say was when we brought in our Budget in 1909 we would charge the local authorities something for the removal of the pauper disqualification
  2146
  for old age pensions." Now it is upon that ground that he is putting it—that he is not giving half the proceeds of the Land Value Duties to the local authorities. If we received a contribution from local funds, which will be a substantial equivalent for the relief which would be afforded by withdrawing such a large number of paupers from the rates, something might be done to remove a crying hardship.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not quite understand what the Noble Lord's complaint is. Is his complaint as to amount or as to machinery? I understand it is as to machinery, and not as to amount. It is not that faith was not kept with the local authorities as to the extent of the relief, but he disapproves that we shifted our ground as to the machinery adopted or as to the way in which local authorities will receive that relief.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I will show in what way I object to the proposal, and why I think the Government have been shifty upon it. It is only mentioned now for the first time that this relief of the paupers is going to be a set-off against the half of the Land Value Duties which they were to have had. I object to it because it really amounts to very little at all. In the first place, no one ever thought, in spite of that vague enunciation in the Budget speech, that the local authorities were going to be asked to contribute. I do not think anyone in the local districts ever thought for a moment that they were to be asked to contribute to the happiness of those who were then disqualified. They may have thought they would have to continue paying a smaller amount to the pensions instead of to the maintenance of the paupers in the workhouse, or for out-door relief. But although that concession may be of certain value in large towns, it is of really little value whatever in the rural districts. As far as I know, it would have been far preferable if the Government had stuck to their original intention. At all events, it seems to me that the whole position has been very unsatisfactory, and in any case I should have thought the Government would be compelled to make their pension scheme take over these paupers, and that, in addition, we should have had what was promised; and this is the real reason of my complaint. The proceeds of half the Land Value Duties were promised by the Government explicitly, without any condition of any sort or kind. It is not only amount, and not only

  2147
  machinery, but it is a bit of amount and a bit of machinery, and I certainly think the local authorities, far from being grateful, have no cause for gratitude in any shape or form.
  I am very disappointed, after what has been said in the Debates during the last few years, that no reform of local taxation has yet been brought in by the Government. The position seems to me to become worse and worse. A Resolution was passed in 1908 by this House that that reform demanded the immediate attention of Parliament, but so far that immediate attention has not been given to it. In the course of the Debates this Session the question of local taxation has occurred once or twice. I do not think anybody has pointed out, so far as I am aware, what proportion of these national services are paid out of local resources and what proportion is paid out of Imperial resources. I think the figures are very striking. Of the total expenditure of the local authorities 82 per cent. is defrayed from local sources and only 18 per cent. out of Imperial taxation. That includes education. In the matter of education actually more comes out of the Imperial purse than the local purse, and if you exclude education the percentages are 92 per cent. out of local sources and 8 per cent. out of Imperial taxation. That is for those services which have been described as national in character, namely, education, Poor Law relief, police, and main roads. The cost of pauper lunatics is included in Poor Law relief. Therefore, the position is that with every Act passed in this House, and every stiffening up of Administration which the President of the Local Government Board is compelled to make the burden upon the local authorities becomes greater, and I am disappointed that they are only to get this modicum of relief, which is far less than they were led to expect by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that no reform is yet in sight.
  As regards the grievance of the agricultural ratepayer, it is greater than that of the urban ratepayer. I am not going into the whole question, but the fact remains that the agricultural ratepayer, in spite of the Agricultural Rating Act, pays now eight and a-half times more than anybody else possessed of a similar income, and but for the Agricultural Rating Act he would be paying seventeen times more. That is because the agricultural tenant has
  2148
  to use so much more rateable property. I think no reform will be satisfactory which does not manage in some way to put some of this burden on personal property. The Royal Commission reported that the difficulties were almost insuperable. I cannot accept that view, and it seems to me that a local Income Tax must be brought within the region of practical politics. It is only by assessing people according to their capacity to pay that you will put local rating on a satisfactory basis. As to the increasing expenses put upon local authorities, I will give the right hon. Gentleman one instance. The collection of charges for licences, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, was imposed upon local authorities. They were given a grant which was supposed to be adequate for the purpose, but in my own county there is a deficit as between the grant given and the expense actually incurred of £226 6s. 3d. Hon. Members may say that is very little in the huge sums dealt with by county councils. That may be, but it shows what is being done. It shows that the grant is inadequate, and that the extra burden has to fall upon the ratepayers.
  I should like the right hon. Gentleman, or whoever answers for the Government, to give us some more information about the Committee which was promised the other night to inquire into the question of local taxation. We should like very much to know what sort of committee it is going to be, what is to be its constitution, and what is to be the reference. Personally, I do not know why a committee is to be appointed. You have the Report of the Commission of 1901, and I do not know that much is to be gained by this Committee. There is a point with regard to Income Tax I should like to state. The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that farmers are assessed under Schedule B, which is practically an automatic assessment—that is to say, they pay on income calculated at one-third of the rent. They are subject to the usual abatement, and if the rent is less than £480 they do not pay any Income Tax. In 1907 there came the question of earned and unearned incomes. Incomes assessed under Schedule B were certainly earned and ought to be charged at the 9d. rate, but it was provided by the Act that claims had to be put in before 30th September in order to prove that the total income was below £2,000. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, farmers do not realise the necessity of making returns, and, as a matter of fact, they do not make them. Though no returns were made, the sur-

  2149
  veyors allowed the usual abatements which the farmers were accustomed to have and assessed them on earned income at the 9d. rate. That happened only last summer, and that confirmed the farmers in their belief that it was not necessary to make claims before 30th September. Last year was the year of the new Quinquennial Assessment. Every farmer who did not make his return before 30th September this financial year is charged under Schedule B at 1s. 2d., because he did not make a return. That is a considerable hardship to farmers who did not realise the necessity of making the returns. It is obvious that the income of a farmer is earned, and, as a matter of strict justice, it should be assessed at the 9d. rate. It is hardly credible that they have been assessed in some cases at the 1s. 2d. rate, even where they have been allowed abatements. It is obvious that if they are allowed abatements on the new assessment their income cannot be £2,000. Even when this has been brought to the attention of some of the surveyors the farmers are still being assessed at the 1s. 2d. rate. I think, in the circumstances, the least the Government can do is to extend the time during which farmers may make a claim to be assessed at the earned income rate, or, still better, they might say that income assessed under Schedule B, which is the farmers Schedule, should be held to be earned income. There is not one farmer in a great many who has an income of £2,000 a year, and if he has that income, the rest of it does not come from farming, and Income Tax is tapped at the source. Even if the Government did lose a little on the few isolated cases where there are incomes of £2,000, I think they would only be doing an act of justice to farmers by assessing income under Schedule B at the earned rate. I hope I have made that point clear. It is a grievance which is felt considerably by a great many farmers, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take whatever steps he can to prevent the continuance of the injustice.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Just now I interrupted the Financial Secretary when he was reading an extract from "The Times." I did not know whether it was from an advertisement in "The Times" or a leading article I have ascertained since that it was from a leading article. I should not have made the remark I did make, had I known it was from a leading article.
  Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: An hon. Member opposite referred to the hardships in connection with the taxation of mining royalties in England under the Budget. I do not think the hardships are very severe in England. I think, considering the source of the income it is a moderate tax. I would remind English mining royalty owners that they get off easier than my fellow countrymen. The Scotch mining royalty owners pay their share of local rates, while the English mining royalty owners do not. I agree with the hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Ainsworth), who said that if a system of licences could be devised on a scale to put the levy on the amount of liquor sold it certainly would be a satisfactory way of dealing with many of the difficulties with which we are confronted under the licensing system. I understand that there are difficulties but certainly from the point of view of local administration the suggestion is one which is worthy of the fullest consideration. The Noble Lord (Viscount Helmsley) has referred to the incidence of local taxation, and to the fact that local authorities would be placed in a serious position in the country districts but for the Bating Relief Act. Had it not been for that Act I believe there would have been ere now an adjustment of local taxation. As regards the incidence of local taxation, I would ask how local authorities will stand in the matter of their half, as they regard it, of the Land Values Duty under the Act. I think the speech of the Secretary to the Treasury will alarm a good many local authorities. The view I took was that In return for the Old Age Pensions Act the local authorities should give up all claim to their half of the Land Value Duty, but the local authorities are not inclined to give away what they imagine to be their part of the bargain under the Budget. They view with great alarm any proposal to take away their share of the duty. Although the relief to the poor rates will be very considerable under the Old Age Pensions Act, I do not think it is possible yet to estimate what the economy will be. I think it will take some time to find out. Nor do we know at present what the Land Value Duties will be. They may be only half a million to-day, but they may be five millions before very long. I think as a temporary measure for the Treasury to take the Land Value Duties might be quite defensible, because the difficulties of distributing these duties after they receive them would be very considerable. I do not see

  2151
  how for a year or two they could be distributed on any sound footing. What the local authorities are anxious to know is that if these Land Value Duties are drawn by the Treasury and not distributed, that does not mean that there is a bargain between the local authorities and the Treasury now which upsets the old understanding that half of these Land Value Duties should be used for national services which are performed locally.
  The cost of these national services performed locally is increasing enormously. It has increased rapidly since the year 1901. In 1901 we had the Report of Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Commission and the Report of Sir George Murray, in which the increase on the local authority was clearly set forth. Since then the increase of local burdens for Imperial services has progressed rapidly, and it is becoming very difficult for the local authorities to find money in order to carry out the minimum of local requirements. Therefore if, as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury said, it is very undesirable to raise more taxation, I say from the point of view of the local authorities it is certainly no less undesirable to have to raise additional rates. I do not think that the local authorities would mind their half of the Land Value Duties going to the Treasury if it was understood that it was a temporary expedient. On that understanding I think there would be no opposition to the proposal. At the same time, on behalf of these local authorities, with which I am very closely connected, I would express the hope that we shall be able to deal before very much longer with this whole subject of the incidence of local taxation. We shall have to deal with it at the earliest possible moment. I do not doubt the earnestness of the right hon. Gentleman in endeavouring to carry out a reform of the incidence on a comprehensive scale. Owing to the elections and the difficulties of distribution of the proceeds of these taxes, there is no blame to the Government on account of the delay there has been in tackling this matter. All we should like to know is that at the earliest possible moment it will be carried out, and that due consideration will be given to the fact that national service cannot be financed entirely out of local resources. We shall have to have, I think, something in the nature of an Income Tax for local requirements. Taxes fall so unevenly, very heavily on the slum and on the poor man
  2152
  and the thrifty, and comparatively lightly upon the great financial houses in the city, that the community should pay for national services as they pay for Imperial taxation, according to ability to pay. In that way only will the local authorities be relieved from a condition of great financial embarrassment and be able to carry out their work. I think the House will agree that the work of the local authorities is one side of progress which we can least afford to see weakened. The action of local authorities is even more important than the action of this House, and a fair adjustment of the whole system of local taxation would do an immense deal to strengthen the efficiency and activity of the local authorities.
  Mr. HUGH BARRIE: As I do not think that any Irish Member has spoken this afternoon, I wish to refer to the local taxation account, and how the Government propose to deal with the exhaustion of that fund which has so upset the finance of Irish departments during the financial year about to end. Although local authorities in Ireland had been informed by certain asylum authorities who were closely watching the finances of the local taxation account, it was not until September last that we received an intimation from the Government that, owing to the exhaustion of the usual amount flowing into that fund, the Government would only be able to provide us with 68 per cent. of the Grants which we had calculated as certain to be received in the financial year. Protests were immediately made from all local authorities in Ireland. The Chief Secretary received a deputation of the representatives of these authorities, and it then transpired that it was the intention of the Government that the usual extra sum of £79,000, which, under the Local Government Act, was specially provided for this fund should be paid in the usual way. Now we find, in the financial clauses which we are considering this afternoon, that the Government propose to reinstate the local taxation fund to the amount that they have lost through the diminution of the Whisky Duty and of that only. I say that this certainly will be disappointing and discouraging to Irish local authorities, because, so far as we can make out—and the Treasury has not shown any great willingness to give us the necessary figures on which to base our calculations—we shall find ourselves docked of something like 16 per cent. of the sum necessary to meet our financial obliga-

  2153
  tions for the year ending 31st March, and we shall be docked in the next financial year even of a larger sum, because we have to admit regretfully that the demands upon the local taxation fund are annually growing in Ireland. I think the Chancellor in his short speech on Monday, when he referred to the wastefulness of the present system of these grants, did not intend to convey any reflection, as his remarks were interpreted to convey, because I venture to say that no greater care could have been taken by local authorities throughout the country, and I believe in Ireland fully as much as in England and Scotland, than has been taken by these authorities during the last ten years. I am here to-night on behalf of these local bodies to say that we hope that even now it is not too late to appeal to the Chancellor, when he is making this reinstatement of the money lost through the operation of the Budget, that he should contribute the sum which we roughly calculate at £30,000, which would place the fund at least on a sound basis for the next few years. It is not a large sum for one who is dealing with so many millions as he is, but if the fund is left as he now proposes to leave it, what is going to happen is that we shall find ourselves—I speak for the moment as a county councillor—forced to strike a rat" of at least 2d. extra in the coming year to meet this deficiency. If that necessity is thrust upon us it will be a discouragement to local authorities to go on with the work which we have been doing with so much efficiency in recent years. We cannot hope to improve our services particularly in regard to raising the general standard of our own lunatic asylums, and do all the other work which has been laid on local Boards unless we get this recognition from the Government. There is, in addition, which I venture to say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer he has not taken into account, an obligation undertaken by the Chief Secretary on his behalf the other day in this House. The authorities of the Richmond Lunatic Asylum have taken legal action to recover one quarter's Government allowance which was never paid for the first quarter of 1899. They have succeeded in that litigation, and the Chief Secretary intimated from his place the other day that the Government did not propose to contest that decision. That involves a new demand upon the local taxation account of £37,000. If that Resolution is left as at present it will involve a still further increase in the local ratings
  2154
  for the coming year. I venture to appeal very respectfully to the Chancellor that he will bear these matters in mind, and that when he is giving this additional Grant to Irish authorities he may add for this year the £30,000 which we calculate we shall be short to the £37,000, so that we have the amount necessary to put our funds in proper shape for the current year.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is necessary for me to speak now, as we hope to conclude the Debate by a quarter past eight o'clock and to have a discussion on the Report to-morrow. With regard to the questions that have been put by the hon. Member who has just sat down about the Irish demands, I will promise to consider very carefully the suggestion which he has made. They are matters of very great importance, and I should not like to give a decision upon them without very much more reflection than I have been able to give up to the present moment. I should like to say a word about what fell from the Noble Lord (Viscount Helmsley) with regard to what happened in the case of Schedule B in reference to the farmers who through pure inadvertence have not put in their claims and have not got the full benefit of the reduction they would otherwise have been entitled to. Unfortunately, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) knows from his experience at the Treasury, these cases of inadvertence are constantly cropping up through persons not making their claims in time, and if you begin making exceptions it breaks down the whole machinery of the Income Tax. The Noble Lord suggested that in this case the farmers had a very good excuse for supposing that it was not necessary for them to put in their claims by the prescribed date. If that is the case, then I admit that they are in a totally different category from the cases of inadvertence. I shall certainly look into the matter with a desire to meet the views of the Noble Lord on that point. He also asked me another very important question with regard to local taxation. I have myself appointed something in the nature of an informal Departmental Committee to go into the whole question of local taxation. That was at a time when I was still under the impression that it could be dealt with this year. It was a committee of experts, town clerks, clerks to county councils, and people who had expert acquaintance with the working

  2155
  of local taxation. Until the matter had been fully investigated the Government would have been very ill-advised in framing their particular scheme or method of dealing with this question so full of difficulties and pitfalls.
  8.0 P.M.
  Therefore, it was very desirable to take the definite advice of men who had spent their lives in dealing with this problem. There are the questions of Land Value adjustment, the broadening of the basis of taxation, and many other questions arising under the present grant on which it would be very well for the Treasury to have expert advice. I am not sure even now that it would not be infinitely better to have a Committee of that character appointed than anything in the nature of a Commission to take evidence. That is really what is wanted, to get men like these to give advice as to the best method of dealing with the points from a practical point of veiw. I think it would be best to have a Committee on which such gentlemen could be appointed. I must not be taken, however, as announcing the decision of the Government, but rather as offering a suggestion for the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that of the Noble Lord (Viscount Helmsley), who has taken a very keen interest in this matter, in order to see whether they will not agree that the appointment of such a Committee would be the best means of dealing with the subject.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the particular importance of agriculture being very well represented on that Committee. Although, of course, other ratepayers have also their grievance agriculture has a special case.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I quite agree; I really had that in mind. I meant to have on the Committee the Clerk of a county which was of a purely agricultural character. I will take into consideration the Noble Lord's representation on that subject. As to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Munro-Ferguson), I thought I made it clear the other night that the retention of the Land Duty by the Imperial Exchequer was regarded by the Government as a purely temporary expedient. It is a very difficult matter to know how to deal with Land Values for the simple reason that we cannot say whether the value has been created
  2156
  by the particular community or locality in which they arise, because increment of great towns may spread miles beyond the boundaries. The first question to consider is not merely when you come to an allocation of the whole of the Land Duties, but when you come to consider the whole problem, the much more difficult question of whether or not you are going to broaden the basis of taxation and the trouble which will arise on the question of area. These two questions which are full of difficulty can only be settled by having the practical advice of experts—men who have been in this business all their lives. I will bear in mind the suggestions of the Noble Lord.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: There was the other point which I put to the Attorney-General—whether the cost of the value of materials can be considered?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a legal question, which I have left to the Law Officers, and it will be dealt with by the Attorney-General to-morrow, as it involves a legal opinion.
  Mr. A. C. MORTON Mr. A. C. MORTON rose——
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: We have to get these Resolutions through by agreement by a quarter-past eight, and as it will take some little time to put them to the Committee, I hope hon. Members will allow them to be taken.
  Mr. A. C. MORTON: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by agreement? We settled on Monday that there should be none of these agreements. I have been waiting here two hours, and I have as much right to speak as anybody else. It is all very well to say that there will be a discussion to-morrow, but the right hon. Gentleman surely knows that frequently to-morrow never comes in these matters. To-night is what I have to deal with. It is all very well to make an agreement to finish by a quarter-past eight o'clock so that Members can go away, I suppose for the rest of the night, and do not care what happens after. What I object to is what we have been told about the agreement as to when the Vote was to be taken. I do not at all recognise the right of anybody to make such an agreement as will shut hon. Members out from speaking on matters in which their Constituents are concerned. With regard to the incidence of local taxation, I have heard talk about it as long as I can remember. I do not wish to blame the present Government

  2157
  too much because, unfortunately, the Irish question and the House of Lords question seem always to take up our time. Until they are disposed of I suppose we never shall have time properly to consider what concerns the United Kingdom. I remember, as long ago as 1880, going with a deputation to see Mr. Gladstone on this very subject of the incidence of local taxation. He told us he quite agreed with our statements, but he said the Irish question blocked the way; and from 1880 to the present moment the Irish question has continued to block the way, and I suppose will block the way until it has been disposed of.
  There is no doubt at all that this matter of local taxation ought to be attended to. My hon. Friend has mentioned the Scottish case with regard to licences. How are you to calculate the true licence value? The trade interest in Scotland, I think, have put it very well, namely, to calculate it on the amount of liquor sold. I believe that it is the only fair way. If you put the Licence Duty on both food and temperance drinks in licensed houses, I think it is hardly a fair method, unless you are going also to put a Licence Duty on temperance hotels and institutions of that sort I do hope, therefore, that the Government will consider the case, and will endeavour to meet us when the Bill comes up. Much as I am in favour of Temperance I do not believe in persecution, and I would act fairly to the drink interest. In regard to the reduction of assessment by the new Licence Duty being deducted from the rateable value the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury told us that there was some recompense in some way which, I confess, I could not understand. But I know we are told, on very good authority, owing to the new Licence Duty, that the general ratepayer will lose in London about £155,000 per annum. I should like to know how that is going to be remedied. The Government, who are taking the licence money, ought to recoup the local authorities for any loss occasioned by the new legislation. I hope the Government will not take away what they promised to the local authorities, namely, one-half of the Land Tax. That was a promise which ought to be fulfilled. The mere fact that the Government are going to do what they ought to have done at first, to give relief in regard to paupers in connection with the old age pension,
  2158
  ought not to affect their promise with regard to the Land Tax in any shape or form whatever We do not want the old age pensions mixed up with the Poor Law. In conclusion, I do not wish to delay the Committee in coming to a decision on these Resolutions, but I do hope that this is the last we shall ever hear of any agreement made behind our backs which would prevent our having liberty of speech.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  II.—REVERSION DUTY.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGEmoved, "That it is expedient to make provision with respect to the Reversion Duty to be charged on the determination of a lease before the expiration of the term thereof, owing to the vesting of the lessor's interest in the lessee or the lessee's interest in the lessor, and with respect to the persons from whom that duty is to be recoverable."
  Question put, and agreed to.

  III.—SUPER-TAX.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGEmoved, "That where the additional duty of Income Tax at the rate of sixpence is chargeable on the joint income of husband and wife a part of that duty proportionate to the wife's income may be assessed on and recovered from the wife."
  Question put, and agreed to. Resolutions to be reported to-morrow (Friday); Committee to sit again to-morrow.

LOCAL TAXATION ACCOUNT (GRANT).
Considered in Committee.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley) in the Chair.]

LOCAL TAXATION ACCOUNT (GRANT).

  I.—LOCAL TAXATION (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) DUTIES.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGEmoved, "That the sums to be paid in respect of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Duties into the Local Taxation Account and the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account and the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account respectively shall be a sum equal to the amount of the English, Scottish, and Irish shares respectively of the proceeds of those duties during the financial year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and nine, and that there shall be paid into each

  2159
  of the said Local Taxation Accounts during the current financial year out of the Consolidated Fund any amount by which the sum payable into that account in respect of the proceeds of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Duties in the financial year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and ten, fell short of the amount of that share."
  Question put, and agreed to.

  II.—LOCAL TAXATION LICENCES (CARRIAGE DUTIES).
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGEmoved, "There shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund and paid to any council of a county or county borough in England or Wales any sum by which the proceeds of the duties on carriages (including motor cars) levied by that council in any year are less than the amount of the proceeds of those duties levied in that county or county borough during the year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and nine, and there shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund and paid into the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account in each year a sum equal to the proceeds in Scotland of the duties on carriage licences (including motor cars) during the year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and nine."
  Question put, and agreed to. Resolutions to be reported to-morrow.

HESWALL REFORMATORY SCHOOL (ADMINISTRATION).

  MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
  And, it being a quarter past Eight of the clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10,
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONESmoved, "That this House do now adjourn."
  I wish at the outset to say that I make this Motion in no spirit of hostile criticism towards the right hon. Gentleman (the Home Secretary). I fully recognise that whatever criticism has been directed against him, has been directed because he has endeavoured to discharge in the highest spirit of humanity the duties of his very difficult office. Neither do I approach the conduct of the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend, with any like spirit. I
  2160
  have read with the greatest care the report which he has made to the House after long and careful investigation, and I willingly bear testimony to the zeal, care, and impartiality which he displayed in the discharge of a very difficult task. What I do allege, and the reason for my making this Motion is, that there is in the public mind a feeling of very great uneasiness as to the manner in which the Heswall Reformatory School has been administered. And I think that it will be satisfactory not merely to the House, but to the public at large, that we should have from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State and also from the Under Secretary, a little further exposition of their motives in the decision which the Home Office arrived at than what we gather from the Report. It is perfectly true that the Home Office has no immediate and direct power over reformatory schools, but under the Act of 1866, which is the governing statute for reformatory schools, there is the power vested in the Home Office which operates just as effectively as power of dismissal, discharge, or suspension over any officers of reformatory institutions. The case which I wish to present to-night is that in my humble judgment, and I say this with the greatest respect, the hon. Gentleman, the Under Secretary, has failed to fully appreciate the gravity of the charges which were levelled against the superintendent of that institution. I shall tell a very plain unvarnished narrative to the House, and I may at once state that the observations which I have to make will be based entirely upon the Report and the facts contained in that Report which are accepted as true by the hon. Gentleman. I need hardly say that from divers other quarters information has been available and placed at my service, and which involved much controversial matter. I shall not touch that material. I shall merely confine myself to the findings of the right hon. Gentleman, and upon those findings I shall venture to express the opinion that a certain course ought to have been pursued that has not been pursued, and I shall hope to receive from the right hon. Gentleman a statement which will resolve, which I have no doubt that statement will resolve, a feeling of uneasiness in the country among the people of the same character which I unfortunately entertain with regard to those proceedings.
  Heswall Reformatory School is a voluntary school, and is one of four schools which are under the control of the Liver-

  2161
  pool Reformatory Association. It is as I have already said, subject to the surveillance of the Home Office, and its officers by the indirect process which I have indicated are removable by the War Office. The school is an admirably equipped school, so far as the building is concerned and so far as the sanitary arrangements It is a building constructed at great cost, and the general routine of the school, as provided for by its regulations, is, as far as I can tell, an admirable routine. There fore, no exception can be taken to the in stitution, and my criticism is altogether levelled against the responsible chief officer of that institution. Early in 1910 various complaints were made of improper conduct in the treatment of the boys of this school by the chief officer of the school, whose name, I think, is Mr. Beuttler. At once let me concede that the task of managing a number of boys, all of whom have been convicted of some criminal offence, is a task of great magnitude and great difficulty, and undoubtedly requires that measures of a very strong character are necessary for maintaining the school in a state of efficiency. Of course, one cannot weigh in golden scales the conduct of officers of the school in their treatment of the boys. In consequence of the complaints which were made to the Home Office, and which were published in many of the newspapers, my knowledge of the matter was in its inception confined to a statement in "The Times" newspaper, which purported to be a short précis of the report of my hon. Friend the Under Secretary. I was so struck with the statements that I hope the House will give me credit that, actuated by motives of humanity, I found it my duty to raise this matter in the House. That view was strongly confirmed upon reading the reports, which is, as I have said, the very careful and painstaking report of the hon. Gentleman, and which a few days ago was placed at the disposal of Members of the House.
  Complaints were made early in 1910, and in July there was a preliminary investigation when a gentleman was sent down from the Home Office. I may say that very much to the right hon. Gentleman's credit he was not satisfied with the report which had been made, and he directed a further and fuller investigation to be entered upon, and he requested my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to go down himself and conduct that enquiry. He was accompanied in that investigation
  2162
  by two permanent officials of the Home Office and by the medical officer of one of our largest prisons, Wormwood Scrubbs. Whatever charges or complaints I have to-make are founded upon the findings of the hon. Gentleman. The discipline of the school, as indeed of all reformatory schools, is provided for by rules which receive the sanction of the Home Office. These disciplinary rules provide for limitation of food as one form of punishment, for confinement in cells as another, for birchings in the case of serious offences, and for canings in the case of less serious offences. The number of birchings is limited to eighteen strokes, and the number of canings to eight strokes. In the matter of canings, I might draw attention to what I conceive to be a grave abuse of the power vested by the Home Office rules. The medical officer of Wormwood Scrubbs, in a perfectly impartial report, states that the cane was much too heavy, that the cane which had been in use in the school for some time had been shown to him, that it had been split at the end, and was bound up by whipcord, which, he adds, made it a great deal more unsuitable for the use to which it was applied. About caning I have very little to say. Many Members here have their own school recollections of what canings were.
  The doctor from Wormwood Scrubbs examined the bodies of some eighty-eight boys who had been caned during the previous twelve months, and he found that on no less than twenty-seven the canings had left injuries of a permanent character, that is to say, scars, which showed that the canings had been altogether unreasonable and excessive. It was also proved in evidence that Mr. Beuttler, in whose presence or by whom these canings were-inflicted, had on several occasions caused the cries of the boys to be stifled by covering their mouths with blankets. I do not want to press the question of canings too-hard, but I put it to hon. Members, whether they were educated at public elementary schools or at what are known as the public schools of the country, that for permanent wounds to be left on no less than 33 per cent. of the boys who had been-caned is a thing which in itself is monstrous, outrageous, and unjust. That alone, to my mind, should have caused my hon. Friend to hesitate as to whether it was desirable to leave the official responsible for those canings in charge of the boys. Mention was made of these canings-in the report for the year 1910. I attach

  2163
  no importance to that, except that it was in the beginning of the year 1910 that public attention and the attention of the Home Office was directed to the abuses existing in this school. I think I am right in saying that in April, 1910, or about that "time, the first letter was directed to the Home Office, and before then the matter had been discussed in the public Press. The canings which had been 160 in 1909—an enormous percentage—fell in the year 1910 to 72. I will not make any comment of my own; I will leave the facts to the judgment of the House to speak for themselves.
  To my mind, by far the most serious charge in relation to the conduct of this superintendent is that which I am about to mention. Apparently there had been very great difficulties in maintaining adequate discipline in the school. There had been what are called defaults. We do not know the exact nature of the offences, some were trivial, others, doubtless, were serious. These defaults had obviously been confined to a comparatively small percentage of the whole school. At any rate, they did not cover the whole school. What was the punishment inflicted? I am bound to say it was shocking. In these reformatory schools many of the inmates are boys who, from heredity and very often from environment, are weak and sickly, of very little stamina, and—I have examined the dietary—fed barely sufficiently to maintain them in a healthy state. These boys, irrespective of age and physical condition, for an offence which was committed by some—it may have been a grievous offence; I say nothing on that—were, by the direction of the superintendent and under his immediate supervision, made to stand up, each boy by the side of the hammock in which he ought properly to have been sleeping, from ten o'clock at night until five o'clock the following morning, alternately for fifteen minutes at attention and for fifteen minutes at ease. These poor little wretches, for whose unhappy lot I am sure the House is moved with the deepest sympathy, were compelled to submit to this terrible ordeal, and on the following morning were sent off to perform their ordinary work. If I allowed myself to give way to my own feelings of indignation, I should use very strong language with regard to that treatment. All I say is that whatever from any other point of view might be urged in favour of the superintendent of the school,
  2164
  that one action alone would be sufficient, in my judgment, to warrant his instant and ignominious dismissal. I again acknowledge that my hon. Friend did most carefully and painfully weigh this matter; but he attached too much importance to the record of the school, and to the testimony of witnesses who were no doubt of irreproachable character, but at the same time, at any rate, in one notable case, personally interested—I refer to the manager of the school. My hon. Friend attached too much importance to that testimony, which blinded him to the, to my mind, paramount duty of at once terminating the connection of that man with the school. There is another case. A boy committed an offence—I do not care what it was, we are not told—but we may assume it was a very grave offence. This superintendent receives a large salary. He is a man of experience. He has been at the school since 1907. Of course, in all public institutions or quasi-institutions it is necessary that the rules of punishment should be strictly observed. What does he do with the boy? It is like a romance. Instead of caning him or confining him to a cell as he might have done he orders that poor little wretch to be taken out on a night in November, and directs his schoolfellows to go out into the yard and throw pails of cold water over him. Fifteen pails of cold water were thrown over the boy. That is inhuman treatment. No word can be said in extenuation. I wish to make it clear that I assure my right hon. Friend that I believe he is actuated by the best intentions, but I say that that case, standing by itself, is one which should have led to the immediate and peremptory dismissal of the superintendent. That really covers the case. I have not gone into debatable points, and those questions which involve controversy. But there is one other extremely pathetic incident which has impressed me, and I am sure it will impress everybody in this House when I recite it. Among the boys of that school there was a lad named Brooks. I am not in a position to say whether the mortality at the school, compared with the mortality at other reformatory schools, was high or low. But I want to point out to the House what a terrible risk there is in the way of sacrificing human life unless greater care is taken by those responsible than was taken in the case of this boy Brooks. Let the facts speak for themselves. They will speak far more eloquently than I could do by adding epithets. On 23rd February, 1909,

  2165
  the boy was ill. The doctor of the school, whom the Under-Secretary tells us receives a very moderate salary—though that cannot be urged in extenuation—was sent for. He saw the boy, and found that there was something wrong with his lungs. But in some unaccountable way he came to the conclusion that the boy was well enough to go about his work. He did not order him into the hospital. He did not order him to rest, but he sent him about his duties. On 24th February the superintendent of that school ordered that boy to be caned. Fortunately, a gentleman who has been somewhat conspicuous in bringing this matter before the country intervened and saved the boy that caning. On the morning that he was to be caned, that boy was dying. At four o'clock on the afternoon of that day he was dead. I do not want to exaggerate that, but I am profoundly impressed with the conviction that it is not the only case—I am not going to deal with others—of death rapidly supervening in the school. What I do say is this, that if so little care and attention can be given to a sick boy, that such a result as this is possible within a period something longer than twenty-four hours from the time he was examined by the doctor, there must be something radically wrong with the management and discipline of that school, and for that wrong the superintendent of the school must be held responsible. That does not by any means exhaust all the details. There is evidence that rope ends were used by another official of the school to the boys; that the boys were "clipped" on the ears by that official—who still remains there; and that he used coarse and brutal language to the boys. There are many other unsavoury details with which I need not trouble the House. I only invite my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to make some explanation. I repeat that in no spirit of hostile criticism, certainly not of animosity do I raise against my right hon. Friend this Motion! It is in sheer and sole solicitude for the boys and in order to secure that these things should be impossible for the future. For my part, I cannot help thinking that it would have been more satisfactory to the public at large, whatever testimony might have been given as to the general fitness of this superintendent in other directions, that the man who had been guilty of these acts of brutality which I have described to the House should have been relieved of his duties. That is all I have got to say. I hope I have avoided the use of any acri- 2166
  mony and have stated the case fairly. I assure my right hon. Friend that I look forward with confidence to an assurance from him which will make it unnecessary to prolong what must be a painful debate, and which will at the same time afford full security against a recurrence of a grievance of this kind. For mark, in the case of these poor helpless children such occurences ought to be most carefully guarded against by those who are placed in authority over them. If they fail in their duty they ought to be visited with just retribution by those Members of the Government who are responsible for the conduct of these institutions.
  Mr. RADFORD: I beg to second the Motion. In doing so, I disclaim most heartily any animosity towards my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. For him and for all his works I have the greatest admiration. I have, I may add, the same kind of admiration for my hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary—for his humanity and brilliant qualities. It is unnecessary for me to say more than a few words, because the ground has been so well covered by the hon. Gentleman who has preceded me. He has confined his attention to those points in the Report which have been confirmed by the Under-Secretary as facts, and corroborated by Dr. Paton, the medical officer. The Report is largely taken up with reputed newspaper stories and exaggerations, but when these fictions and stories of journalists have been disposed of there remains a residuum of fact to which I think this House ought to give serious attention. I am not sure that we are quite certain from this Report that we know the worst. I observe that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary at the Home Office says in the course of the Report that he had no power to examine witnesses on oath, but he adds, the evidence was fortunately not conflicting, except in some subordinate details. I hope that is so; but, assuming that it is so, we are still confronted with improper punishments, cases of unnecessary violence, acts of carelessness, to put no worse name on them, on the part of the Superintendent of the school, and I cannot but think my hon. Friend shows some indication of uneasiness in the course of the Report itself. I will only give one extract from the passage in which it refers to the conduct of the superintendent. My hon. Friend in that passage is speaking of keeping the whole school standing on a night from ten o'clock until five the next morning, and he says he might have added similar instances of

  2167
  it, not in the case of the whole school, but that sections of the school were subjected to the same punishment. My hon. Friend (Mr. Atherley-Jones) referred to the extraordinary and brutal episode of a boy, for I know not what offence, having been deluged with fifteen buckets of water, and the Under-Secretary, in his Report, says:
  "If punishments either of standing boys all night or of throwing water over boys had been in habitual usage, I should certainly have recommended the dismissal of the present superintendent."
  I ask the House to consider how frequently the superintendent has authorised or allowed to be carried on these extraordinary proceedings. I venture to think that there are many Members of this House who would think that even one isolated act of that description was sufficient to convince them that the man who indulged it was unfit to occupy such a post.
  Mr. GERSHOM STEWART: As this school is in my Division of Wirral, and as the matter was brought to my notice on one occasion, I wish to say a few words on the subject. I think it would have been only fair if the hon. Member who moved the Adjournment of the House had given me some indication that he was going to take that action, because I was under an engagement to speak for a brother Member, a friend of mine in Buckinghamshire; and it was only purely by good fortune that I happened to come into the House this afternoon and learned that the hon. Gentleman opposite was moving in this matter. Otherwise my Constituency would have had good cause for complaint that I was not in the House when a question of this kind concerning them was brought before the public notice. I am not concerned in any way in defending the Home Office—they can take care of themselves—but I am concerned in endeavouring as far as possible to secure fair play for everybody and for the authorities under whose rule this school is managed—the Local Reformatory Association. This school came under my notice last summer, when the Committee approached me, having heard that charges were levelled against the school; and the reason they approached me and asked me to approach the Home Office was that the first inquiry might be held with as little delay as possible.
  The position was a difficult one for the superintendent. The school had been removed from the ship, which I think had been burned by the reformatory boys in the neighbourhood of this district of Hes-
  2168
  wall, and naturally the school was not ready to receive the boys. No doubt they had to be kept under canvas, with a good deal of discomfort; and it resulted, I am afraid, in a very considerable amount of illness. One must admit that the superintendent of a school of this nature, with the class of boys he has to deal with, is in a very difficult position. He gets boys of sixteen and sometimes seventeen years of age, who are rather hardened in iniquity, and who are likely to corrupt other boys, and who if they get the slightest encouragement will set all order at defiance, and if they have to suffer it may be in the long run for the best. We all deplore these physical chastisements, which, according to the regulations, are allowed, but we cannot shut our eyes to the occasional need for it. I was over this school, and was much impressed with it. It struck me as a most admirable place for strong boys. I admit I do not think the regime was suitable for weakly boys, and I am glad to see that in the Under-Secretary's Report he notes that, and I am sure if the weaker boys could be handed over to more gentle treatment we should be all very grateful. One thing that struck me about the school was that the boy who had done wrong had placed at his disposal a better training than the law-abiding boy. If you eradicate the evil from such a boy he will have, when he reaches twenty-one years of age, a better training than a boy who led a good life. That is a sort of injustice which it is difficult to remedy unless we can obtain some better mode of training for all boys than we have at present. The regulation on page 5 of the Report in regard to corporal punishment is about the same as I myself and other Members of this House had to undergo when we were boys at school. It is distinctly unpleasant, but it is not entirely without some good. The case of punishments outside the regulations referred to on page 9 seemed to me to be the crux of the whole matter. The night punishment was undoubtedly a severe one, but when you bear in mind that the school was getting out of hand, and that the superintendent in his Report says he was absolutely tired of repeated flogging, and when you remember that the officers stood by with the boys, and that it was a summer night in July, perhaps the hardship was not so great as when stated without mentioning these facts. I have no doubt that the superintendent being a sailor looked back to some days in his recollection when the

  2169
  mutineers had to stand by their guns when the drum beat to quarters. I do not defend the thing at all, but we may be running away with exaggerated notions of hardship which in the real circumstances were not so great as they seem. I have nothing to do with that. I do not know what the penalties are for offences outside the regulations, but the Committee have considered this matter fully; they have exonerated their superintendent and their action has been backed up by the Home Secretary. There is no doubt a mistake was made by the superintendent, and it is a question whether punishment should be in the form of retribution, and perhaps that would be a useful lesson to him. It is possible if you carry this Motion, you may have the whole Committee, whose action will be condemned, resigning in a body, the superintendent dismissed, and the boys will be probably left in a position less favourable than they are at the present moment. The hon. Member rather over-stated Dr. Paton's Report. He said Dr. Paton stated that caning was unsatisfactory, but he does not say that he inflicted a much severer punishment than was intended. If there be severity on the one hand, no doubt the charges have been very much exaggerated on the other. Mr. Adam, who brought these charges in his letter, says he considers the rule could not possibly be improved. After reading the Report most carefully myself, I have concluded that the Committee faced openly a very disagreeable question, and their Report has let in the light of the day. There is nothing hidden about it. I think after the matter has been discussed in the way it has been to-day, substantial justice will be met if the Motion is withdrawn.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. PICKERSGILL: I desire to call attention to one aspect of this question which has not yet been mentioned, and it is that the Home Office was involved in these complaints. During the whole of the time whilst these occurrences was happening, the school was visited by Home Office Inspectors, and all the punishments were entered in the punishment book, which was signed by those inspectors. The case does not rest there. The complaints included a direct and very unpleasant reflection upon Mr. Robertson, the Chief Inspector of Reformatories. That being so, I think it is very much to be regretted that the Home Secretary associated Mr. Blackwell with this inquiry. He is a distinguished public servant and a
  2170
  high official at the Home Office, but he is also a member of the Bar, and I am informed that in this inquiry Mr. Blackwell did, in fact, act as counsel for the superintendent of the school. I have no objection to the superintendent of the school having counsel, but if he has counsel then there ought to have been counsel for Mr. and Mrs. Adam to watch their interest and the interests of the boys, and to watch over the paramount interest of the public. The Home Office is rather accustomed to act in this way. Recently, a case arose at the London Sessions, in which a complaint was made that the police had been acting as agent provocateur. The Chairman of the London Sessions was so impressed with the case that he requested that an inquiry should be made. Inquiries were made, conducted by a police inspector. One of the most serious charges which can possibly be brought against the police is advanced, and yet a police inspector is brought in to make the inquiry. With regard to the report, I have read many such reports, and I have often taken a part in discussing them in this House, but I do not think I am doing any injustice to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Ham, when I say that I do not remember a report in the whole of my experience which better deserved to be described as a white-washing report. There is one sentence to which I should desire especially to call the attention of the Home Secretary. It says:
  "If the punishment cither of standing boys all night or of throwing water over boys had been in habitual usage, I should have recommended the dismissal of the present superintendent."
  Having regard to similar cases in the past, I respectfully submit that the hon. Gentleman misconceived what his duty was. In all previous inquiries the duty of the gentleman who makes the inquiry is to find the facts, and not to make any recommendation as to what is to be done to the person against whom the complaint is made. Really, my hon. Friend has placed the Home Secretary in a position of considerable embarrassment, because now the right hon. Gentleman's hands are somewhat tied because his judgment has been anticipated, and if now he should dismiss the superintendent he is placed in the embarrassing and painful position of throwing over his subordinate.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. Friend forgets that I had an opportunity of reading the report of my hon. Friend before it was published, and I accept the fullest responsibility for everything in it.
  Mr. PICKERSGILL: Upon previous occasions the gentleman who has made such an inquiry has never thought it his duty to recommend what should be done to the person against whom the complaint is made. He should only find the facts, and leave it to his chief to deal with the matter. My hon. Friend has stated the case with such admirable lucidity and brevity that I will not discuss the matter further. He has rightly placed his finger upon the two facts—namely, ordering these boys to stand for seven hours, and allowing a boy to be drenched with fifteen buckets of water by his fellow-pupils. He says those are the only two cases. I think there are some cases of such a nature that if they occur only once they show that the person who allows them is absolutely disqualified from occupying the position of superintendent of a reformatory school. We know what enormous power, within certain limits absolutely arbitrary power, a person in that position possesses, and I think when a man has been proved guilty of such acts as these he ought not to have the opportunity of repeating them. There are in this Report many cases in connection with the proceedings in the school for which the superintendent was not directly and immediately responsible. There is, for instance, the very painful case of the boy Brown, and there is also the habitual conduct of the officer under the superintendent. My hon. Friend, in defending the case of the superintendent, was strong in giving him credit for what was good in the school, and quite rightly; but then for the same reason we ought to put down to his discredit these incidents which seem to indicate that, although the school was in some respect well conducted, it was also very loosely and badly conducted in others. For these reasons I venture respectfully to think the Home Secretary would be well advised, and would be carrying out and acting in accordance with the general opinion of this House, if he took the necessary steps to secure the dismissal of the superintendent of this school.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I think no one can read through this Report that has been made in such a painstaking manner by the Under-Secretary (Mr. Masterman) without seeing that he has not only devoted a very large amount of time to the case, but has also studied out a number of very serious questions that are evidently involved. Those of us who are practically acquainted in many districts of
  2172
  this country with institutions of this kind—whether we are on committees, or are visitors, or governors—know the great difficulties there are in dealing with institutions of this particular description, and I do not suppose the difficulties of any approach the difficulties in this particular case. When we consider the class of boys who are sent up after some criminal offence to a school of this description, where there are a large number of other boys, and the habits which he probably takes with him into that school, and when we consider the necessity of preventing the other boys being further contaminated, not only in the interests of the other boys but also in the interests of the boy himself, we must realise the necessity for something in the nature of extreme discipline. All these things joined together show the gravity of the position and make us sympathise—we are bound to sympathise—with the committee of the institution in their serious task, and also with anyone entrusted for the time being with the management as superintendent.
  Admitting all that, I am bound to say there are things in this report which no-one could possibly justify. The fact that out of some eighty boys punished with birching of the cane twenty-seven have been admittedly found to bear permanent marks, marks which they will bear as long as they live, shows that, as a rule, the corporal punishment administered in the school was excessive and inhuman. I do not think anybody can possibly justify punishment of that description. It does not matter what the offence was. I think we are all agreed that no possible circumstance whatever could justify having inflicted general punishment upon boys that were innocent as well as upon those that were guilty, upon those that were weak as well as upon those that were in good health, and having made them all stand up from ten at night to five in the morning, sometimes with their heels together at attention, and sometimes for a quarter of an hour with one foot out a little bit, which is supposed to be at ease. When you read this report, it is a very sad thing to look at the deaths of some of these boys. The Mover of this resolution has been, I think, exceedingly and carefully fair in the way in which he moved it. He did not bring to the attention of the House a single item upon which there is any dispute or difference of opinion.
  When we look at the deaths that have happened, we see that every one of them

  2173
  have been sudden deaths. In the majority of cases the boys were only ill a day. I was very much struck, in considering the report, with the question of these deaths. There is the death of the boy Brooks, who died on 24th February, 1909. He was examined by the doctor on the previous day. The doctor did not find that there was anything the matter with him, apparently dismissed him to his ordinary avocations in the school, and the boy died the following day. The doctor, as I understand it, did not see him in the meantime, and yet, in some astounding way, he is able to give a perfectly satisfactory certificate as to the cause of death. I do not understand that. I confess it strikes me as being a very difficult and awkward thing to attempt to justify the giving of the certificate under those circumstances. There is the case of the boy, Mills, who died 21st April, 1909. He was a boy who never ought to have been sent to the school at all, because of his physical condition. He entered the school with a slight skin disease; a couple of months afterwards he collapsed from debility and heart weakness, and he was kept in bed, and then he died. He is about the only boy on this list of deaths who had never received any punishment. The reason seems to have been that he only lived for about three or four months after he got into the school. Yeadon died 15th December, 1909. Here again you have the case of a weakly boy—probably a boy of degenerate type, utterly unfit for sea-life or ordinary industrial training. Why did that boy die at school? The reason is given in the Under-Secretary's report. The Home Office authorities were in correspondence at the time about moving him to some other institution. I do not know how long that correspondence had been going on, but, at all events when the attention of the Home Office was called to the matter, the correspondence was allowed to go on sufficiently long to permit the boy to die, and thus the case became disposed of in a way which relieved the Home Office of the need for further intereference.
  There is the case of the boy, Brown. Brown, poor little fellow, saw his comrades going off for an excursion. He asked for permission to go with them on the very day he died. There cannot have been very much the matter with him—at all events, in his own estimation—when he asked to be allowed to go with his comrades on an excursion. It was refused. Something happened to the poor lad, and the officer left in charge ordered two of
  2174
  his comrades to take him into some room, where they proceeded to drench him with water. In consequence of this he died in twenty minutes. I will not continue these harrowing details. I think it will be admitted by everybody that a state of affairs has been disclosed in this school—it does not matter who the Visiting Committee were, what the character of the superindent is, or whether the regulations were approved by the Home Office, I believe at this stage in the history of civilisation and the advanced state of public opinion in regard to matters of that sort—a state of affairs has been disclosed which every Member of this House will say ought to be put an end to. Representing as I do one of the Divisions of Liverpool associated with this school and in close proximity to it, and however anxious I might be to exculpate the committee from blame, I feel bound, when the attention of the House of Commons is called to a matter of this kind, to join with those who say it is time these things should be stopped. We should have been all the more satisfied if the Under-Secretary, in the conclusions of his report had so far given way to public opinion in this matter as to make somewhat more drastic recommendations.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman): I do not make any complaint, certainly? should be the last to do so, because the hon. and learned Member for North-West Durham has raised this subject. So long as there is any suspicion of any cruelty or injustice being continued in connection, with any institution for which the State is responsible in any way, so long it is the duty of the House of Commons to ventilate the subject and see that any wrong is redressed. I should like to thank the hon. and learned Member for the moderate tone he adopted in his criticism, and for the kindly references he made to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and myself, and I should also desire to thank hon. Members who have spoken, and who have been kind enough to realise that the report I compiled was an honest report, and' that the verdict I gave was animated by a sense of justice. The hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Mr. Rutherford) commented on the desirability of satisfying public opinion. I do not undervalue public opinion, but the object of my report was to give a true account to my right hon. Friend, and through him to the House of Commons, and if possible to do justice first to the boys and then to the

  2175
  management. I think the House should be clear as to what the position of the Home Office is with regard to this particular type of schools. They are private schools, privately owned and privately managed by groups of philanthropic persons, who not only make no profit out of them, but contribute largely when any deficit is created. Unless they receive the certificate of the Secretary of State cases which may be sent to them by the magistrates cannot be sent, and the Secretary of State at six months' notice may withdraw his certificate. On the other hand, the Secretary of State has no concern, and the Home Office has no concern, in the administration of the schools, and he cannot technically demand the dismissal of any official in a school. If he thinks the school is carried on under conditions which are harmful to the boys or to the public he can withdraw his certificate, and the directors might in that case, of course, close the school altogether. He could stop boys being sent to it by magistrates, but he could not stop boys being sent otherwise. I want the House to be quite clear as to the possibility of the direct dismissal of the superintendent by the Secretary of State.
  A statement has been made to-night, founded on the Report of this Committee, and I would ask anyone in judging my conduct in making that Report to remember that they should not be convinced by certain statements selected from a great mass of evidence, but that they should read the report as a whole. If they do that they will find that certain things are definitely censured, and that there are certain other things as to which there is a conflict of evidence. Here I would like to repudiate the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill) that I took anyone down to help me in sifting the evidence who was counsel on the side of the superintendent. If the hon. Gentleman had been present when the superintendent was under cross-examination he would have been under no such delusion on that score. The first charge is in connection with corporal punishment. I dislike corporal punishment in public schools, and I dislike it still more in reformatory and industrial schools, and I have said I would almost be prepared to judge of the efficiency of the superintendent of one of the latter class of schools by the degree or number of cases of corporal punishment. I find that in regard to this matter
  2176
  the present superintendent has made a remarkable change, a change brought about not from the time when public attention was called to these specific charges. In the year 1907—in the last six months of that year, which was before the school was under its present management, the number of corporal punishments administered was 119, whereas in the last six months of 1909 the number fell to fifty-six, and six months later it came down to thirty-five. That is a very considerable diminution, and it seems to redeem the superintendent from the charge of having some unnatural delight in the administration of corporal punishment for the boys. The difficulties of the situation were pointed out to me when I came to consider the thirty-five cases of punishment. Seven of the thirty-five, which I think was the number administered in the first six months of the year, were administered upon boys in consequence of a most disastrous revelation of organised immorality in which a large number of small boys were involved, and which was a corrupting influence to the whole school. Under the ordinary method such corruption, if it ever occurs, is removed from a public school, but that is altogether impossible here. Such things occur in a public school, and certain boys vanish, and are heard of no more, but in a school like that of Heswall, a boy cannot be expelled, and in consequence the manager in all these cases has to consider the very difficult question how far he has to temper the punishment which he gives in order to eliminate not merely the crime which is committed by the individual boy, but crimes which run, like a corrupting fever, throughout the whole school. I only explain that as an example which has to be kept in mind by hon. Members when they consider these matters. As to the punishments inflicted, I went very carefully into the condition of the punishment book, and carefully examined all the boys to find if any punishments had been administered which were not entered, and I found that there were not any such punishments, nor was it alleged. The punishments were legal, except one, which I found had occured a good many times in other institutions, under a similar idea, and that is the substitution of the cane for the birch under the idea that it is a more humane kind of punishment. When I was Secretary of the Local Government Board I had to reply to similar allegations made about schools under that Department. Certainly it was given under the idea that it was a less

  2177
  severe sentence, and that it was a humane change, and not a brutal or cruel one. In the particular cases but for which my hon. Friend says he would not have brought forward his rather strong indictment tonight, he is concerned with two instances of punishment outside the regulations, and, as anyone who has read my report will acknowledge, I have to offer no kind of justification for those punishments. The first was a comparatively trivial matter, not entirely accurately described by the hon. Member—a trivial matter in itself, although very serious if it had been an habitual occurrence. The boys were playing in the yard, and a boy was reported for filthy language. The superintendent told the other boys to throw water over him, and they did so until they were told to stop. The boy was then sent to dry himself. I am not defending this; I severely censured the superintendent. I saw the boy myself, and he had received no harm, and this was a year and a half ago.
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: That is a year before the investigation.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: There was no opportunity of any investigation before, and the superintendent himself acknowledged the extreme folly of it, and regretted it. He had never done it before, and he has never done it since, and the gentleman who was leading the case for the prosecution said that it had not been done before or since. But I agree that it was a reprehensible thing, deserving of censure, though, as I say, it may not have been more cruel to the boy himself than if he had been summarily summoned the next morning and given sixteen or eighteen strokes with the birch. The second instance was that which has been mentioned again and again, where the school was kept standing one summer night till five o'clock in the morning as a disciplinary measure under circumstances which were described to me as of great difficulty. And here once more I do not want to offer a justification. I only want in fairness to the man impeached to give his explanation. The school had been under very difficult and serious conditions in camp, where there was no kind of proper accommodation, and it had got into a serious condition. Here I may mention that the Inspector of H.M. Reformatories in the division stated that Mr. Beuttler's conduct of the school was by far the most wonderful thing that he had ever seen in a re-
  2178
  formatory. On this occasion there were many defaulters, until there had been 140 in a week. Mr. Beuttler said he was sick of reporting these boys for corporal punishment, and said that he had heard of some general scheme of keeping boys standing to assert authority. The boys and masters alike were submitted to this scheme, but it was never done again, and it had the effect which it was intended to have. It was reported in the log book for the management to see and criticise.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: It was not in the punishment book.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: In the punishment book only punishments of individuals were chronicled, but the log book is kept as to the discipline of the school. I am not defending this. I am only doing my best to put the case before the House, and there was no defence at all. Gentlemen behind me asked me how many times did I expect this punishment should be repeated before I recommended my right hon. Friend to take action, and I think I may say that if either of these punishments had been repeated once I should have recommended him to take action; but when it came to be a question of a particular action on two isolated occasions which referred to a year and a half ago, then it became necessary for me to weigh up other considerations and other lines of evidence before I gave the verdict which was embodied in that report. What were those other lines of evidence? First of all, I found in Mr. Beuttler a man who had made the immense reduction of nearly a quarter in the corporal punishments which he found to exist in the school to begin with. That alone seemed to be one point of evidence on his side. Secondly, I found universal testimony to the immense transformation in the school under his influence and guidance. Before he came the school was in an utterly rotten condition. By all the testimony he dragged it out of the slough and redeemed its name, and at the same time brought it up to a condition now which I must confess amazed me—I spent many days there—as a possibility, considering the boys from among which the school was recruited. Thirdly, I found universal praise for the boys of the school among residents who had formerly opposed the idea of a reformatory school coming into the neighbourhood. Many of these had an opportunity of seeing the boys as they went to the village, and of talking with them, and they expressed the pleasure

  2179
  which they found in the improvement and the happiness of the boys; and the testimony even of those who disapproved of the conduct of the school was that whatever Mr. Beuttler had done, he had put down two evils which were the most common in these segregated masses of boys—bullying and immorality. Again, I found that the system which he had created in this school was one which has transformed, or is transforming, all the reformatory schools in this country. By installations of wireless telegraphy and the latest developments of signalling he has enabled these boys to go from that school, although sent there for a particular crime, and earn immediately 30s. or £2 a week, and have prospects before them for life. I talked to the boys themselves. I found there were complaints, but not the complaints advanced by the hon. Member. I found them happy in the school, proud of the school, not in the least anxious to be removed from the school, with more of that esprit de corps and public spirit and loyalty which exists in public schools than I ever expected to find in any institution to which boys are committed by the State for a period of years which is practically a period of imprisonment. Of many evidences I have been given of the truth of these statements I may perhaps be allowed to read one, and that was from the chaplain, who has only been there a few weeks, a University man, who is not interested in denying the truth:—
  "When I first came the thing that struck me most was the happiness and general content of the hoys. My friends had seen things about the school, and they said to me: 'You had better keep your eyes open to see if anything is wrong.' Since I came here I wrote to various friends saying that the thing that struck me so much was the general happiness of the boys, and that there cannot be anything wrong with the conduct of the place."
  If hon. Members are inclined to say this after all is merely the testimony of terrorised boys who are afraid to speak, because of their fear of the superintendent, I procured a very large number of letters from old boys to the superintendent. I find there expressions of affection, respect and gratitude, pride in the school, pride in the knowledge which they obtained in the school, and thanks for the education which they had received there. I think the man who could produce such results is a man whom we should pause to some extent before dismissing from the school, who, with a very meagre salary and the no prospects which are attached to such schools, has taken up the work where it
  2180
  is very difficult to obtain men, and has put enthusiasm and self-sacrifice into it. I realised at the first that the question was not condonation of these irregular punishments, the question was expiation of them; the question was whether it was just to the boys in the school, whose interests I put first, that the work which had been initiated and carried on by this man should be still carried on, and whether, in the attempt to inflict punishment and penalties for what happened a good time ago I should not be doing a fundamental injustice to a man who is doing good service to the State. I acknowledge the great difficulty of the decision. I think the House will give me credit for believing that no one hates cruelty more than I do. I weighed carefully the evidence submitted to me; I made myself assured that such irregularities should never occur again; I issued, as the House will also, I believe, agree with me, apart from the criticism behind, no whitewashing report, but a plain statement of facts of the case I believe, after hearing nearly 100 witnesses, occupying many weeks in this investigation, I am right in saying that if any other Member of the House had done the same as I did, he would have come to the same conclusion, and I ask that the House may approve of my conduct.
  One other point I wish to make. Certainly my investigations showed me that in spite of the large ground covered by the Committee on this subject fifteen years ago there was very considerable reason to justify a further investigation into the whole conduct of reformatory and industrial schools, whether or not the punishment inflicted against the regulations and whether the punishment permitted by the regulations is not too severe in view of modern conditions and modern ideas, whether there should not be more consistent medical examination, whether there should not be more consistent Home Office examination, for at present the Home Office is hopelessly understaffed in its inspectorate department, and whether above all some system cannot be devised which would, I believe, solve these difficulties, that is a system whereby there should be some kind of automatic separation of these boys into institutions which may be more suitable to them than reformatory schools. In this particular school where cruelty and horrors are charged considerably more than half the boys have never had any corporal punish-
  2181
  ment at all, and considerably more than three-quarters have only had one administration, and that a light one, of corporal punishment, and that seems to show that for the great majority as I saw them at their work and their play this is doing an exceeding amount of good in creating really the atmosphere of the best type of public schools. Locked up with these boys and with no power of getting away from them, there are a number of hoys who are obviously feeble-minded or of vacant mind, there are a large number who are not in the least degree suited for the public life of a kind of public school, and who ought to be segregated in a kind of modified Borstal prison, and there are boys of specially delicate physique who are un-suited to the bracing air round Liverpool, and might be better and more healthily committed to institutions in other parts of the country. It is in the hope especially of finding some way of relieving what must be a good deal of unknown unhappiness, and also of relieving these great institutions from those who necessarily make the discipline in them more rigorous than it might otherwise be that my right hon. Friend has been, I think, inspired in recommending, as he has already done, that as speedily as possible a strong Departmental Committee shall go into the whole question. The more the House can assist us in that matter the more public attention is called to these schools, and the more, through public attention being called to them, the work of voluntary visiting and assistance can be stimulated in the country, the better for the reform that we all have at heart.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: To defend the action of the right hon. Gentleman and his Department is no great pleasure for me. It is certainly not a part of my habitual practice, and I do not think even the right hon. Gentleman would think it the bounded duty of my party. But I am bound, knowing what I do of these schools, to disassociate myself in the most emphatic terms from the condemnation which has been passed upon their management. It is all very well to say the hon. Member (Mr. Atherley-Jones) introduced this in moderate terms. In introducing it he drew a picture which was reminiscent of Dothe-boys Hall under the management of Mr. Squeers. What are the real facts as to the origin of the whole of this long trail of gossip and lying which has arisen about this school, because I shall use no mild
  2182
  words in regard to it. Who is the source of the difficulty in relation to the school? A teacher who left on his own account, whose wife afterwards left, and who no later than March last declared that the school was all that could be desired, and that he parted from it with the greatest regret. But a personal quarrel arose, and the man began to find out all sorts of stories against the man who had been the chief teacher of the boys. What does he say when he is asked to point out the flagrant inconsistency between his story of March last and the information he supplied to the gossiping Press of London—that sort of Press which is represented by a paper which, I believe, bears the name of "John Bull," a paper which reproduces it according to its own scrupulous and carefully truthful method. The man tells us in his evidence that when he wrote this flattering report he thought he was doing well for all round. But at the investigation before the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman) he brought forward a certain number of purely fictitious instruments of punishment which were proved not to have been used. That is so. This is the man who is the source of the information, and who is compelled to adopt those methods in order to bolster up evidence against this beneficial and carefully worked school of which we have had such a lurid picture presented by the hon. Member for Durham. This is the man who invented false instruments in order to damage the character of the school and those responsible for the management. He went further. Either he or his truthful emissary in the Press, represented that many deaths had been caused by the treatment the boys received in the school. The hon. Member for the West Derby Division (Mr. W. Rutherford) was not ashamed to renew this charge against the school, though he had not read the report. Had he read the report he would have found the refutation which was given by the witnesses who were brought forward. Referring to the charge that deaths had been caused, the report says:—
  "I could find no attempt at justification. …
  Mr. Adam himself repudiated this charge, saying: 'I don't say that everything in that article in 'John Bull' is correct. That is a bit of journalism. I suppose. I have not done that; I have too much sense to put down a thing like that. As far as I know it is not true.' "
  Yet this is the charge the hon. Member for West Derby repeats.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I did nothing of the sort.
  Sir H. CRAIK: The hon. Member adduced these charges as if they lay against the superintendent of the school, though the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Master-man) has reported that there is not a vestige of ground for them, giving detailed reasons for saying so, and showing the loose way in which they were concocted between this man and the newspaper. I do not know whether this is the sort of thing that is likely to encourage those who give time, money, trouble, thought, and anxiety in managing these schools. It is an ill-paid and thankless work that is discharged by those who are placed in the position of superintendent of the schools. It has been my lot during many years to read hundreds of reports on schools. I know the difficulty of dealing with the class of children you have to deal with there. I know the ingenuity for mischief, and the proneness to neglect which make discipline anything but easy. I know—and it has moved my admiration over and over again—how self-sacrificing, cheerful, hearty, and courageous is the work carried on by these men. I wish the House to know that I know nothing of this school myself except what I have read. I know none of the managers or members of the staff. I ask the House whether, after such stories had been invented, and such charges as have been easily and recklessly brought—the foundation for which was not for a moment examined—a man can carry on as heartily and with as much courage and goodwill as you would wish a work which to many seems almost hopeless. It is the dreariest of work you can possibly conceive. Those engaged in it have a hard task. They require trust and confidence. Two instances have been mentioned in the lurid picture which was drawn by the hon. Member. He stated that in one case fifteen buckets of water were thrown over a boy. Was he any the worse for it? He was carefully dried, I understand. In another case, it was stated that a certain number of boys, where order had been absolutely set at defiance, were kept for some hours standing on their legs. It was an unwise and imprudent method of punishment, but it is not averred that a single boy was hurt by the actual discipline inflicted in the school. The deaths which occurred took place from natural causes, in spite of all care. The hon. Member for Durham showed some animus He spoke of a boy of the name of Brooks having been ordered by the superintendent for punishment in the morning. What are the real facts? When the superintendent came
  2184
  down to the school Brooks apparently was under sentence. The superintendent had not been in the school when sentence was passed. It was never carried out. I am glad that the hon. Member has stood by his report. If you are constantly making investigations into a man's conduct, sooner or later you spread an evil report, and in that way you hinder his work and raise difficulties between him and the pupils, and in the long run ruin his school and drive him out of it. I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman and his superior have stood by the report and refused to sacrifice to what I believe to be an unreasonable cry a man who is eminently fitted, so far as I know, for the position he occupies. He has done good work, and he is supported by a good committee in carrying out what is one of the most irksome and responsible duties that can be laid upon any man in this country.
  Mr. BYLES: I am very glad my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Atherley-Jones) has thought fit to bring this matter before the House of Commons and that the House has had the opportunity of looking into the affairs of this nautical school. I cannot take the view which the hon. Member who has just sat down has presented to us. I think there is quite enough in the Report of my hon. Friend (Mr. Masterman) below me to show that the school is not, or has not been, at all in a healthy condition, that discipline has been far too harsh, that the vigilance of the officers, in regard to health especially, has been far too lax, and I think we may congratulate ourselves that this matter has been brought to the notice of the Home Office and that the inquiry has taken place. I was extremely in sympathy with the very wise sentences which fell from my hon. Friend below me at the close of his address just now. I am very glad that the attitude of the Home Office towards these reformatories, as indeed it is towards other punitive establishments, should be so humane and so progressive and should show such a growing and strong desire to mitigate the sufferings of those whom we have to withdraw from society. I will not associate myself with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Durham and others who have spoken in demanding that Mr. Beuttler should be dismissed, or in expressing the opinion that he ought to be dismissed. I will not pretend to judge my hon. Friend who has made this inquiry. He has had much better opportunities than

  2185
  any of us have had of forming an opinion. I have faith in his judgment and wisdom, and certainly in his fairness in the inquiry which he has made. He may, perhaps, have been a little too generous, but for that I would forgive him more readily. But there are some small points which he has not satisfied me about in the explanation which he has given to the House. My hon. Friend beside me mentioned, I thought very properly, that the Inspector of the Home Office had been, or ought to have been, a regular visitor at this school and ought to have become acquainted with and reported the evils which obviously were going on there. No explanation of why these things were not brought to the notice of the Home Office by their own inspector has been offered. It seems to me that if the inspector had been doing his duty all the time such an inquiry as has been held would have been quite unnecessary. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill) mentioned that the Home Office were represented by counsel in the examination of witnesses. The Under Secretary (Mr. Masterman) told us that that was not the fact. But Mr. Adam alleges most plainly that he was denied the opportunity of having anyone to assist him by legal advice. I have here his letter to the Home Secretary, in which he says:—
  "This inquiry, like the previous Home Office one, was a secret inquiry. I was not allowed to have access to the school hooks which ought to have been open to the inspection of both sides. I was not allowed to examine any of my witnesses. I was not allowed counsel or any assistance; but Mr. Masterman allowed Mr. Blackwell of your legal department to badger my witnesses, passing over the main charges as rapidly as possible."
  10.0 P.M.
  That, I know, is only what Mr. Adam said. It is in a letter to the Secretary of State, and I think that it is applied to Mr. Blackwell. In the Report itself I notice, on page 13, that it speaks of one of those poor boys who died, the boy Severn. He had only once been caned, and that was nine months before his death, for planning to abscond. There has been a great deal in what has been said about this affair which shows that the boys are only too ready to abscond. Why do they want to abscond? Boys do not want to abscond from Rugby or Harrow. [Laughter.] I do not know exactly why that should be a cause of laughter. This is a Reformatory School. If you put boys there you ought to have the conditions of the schools such as would make them love their school and willing to stay there.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Does the hon. Member suggest any similarity between Rugby and Harrow and a reformatory.
  Mr. BYLES: I do not know what hon. Members who laugh may have been subjected to in their schools, but I do say when the State undertakes to take boys into a school and to reform them the influences around them ought to be such as would make the place attractive to them. There is one other observation which made me a little nervous. On page 18 of the hon. Member's Report he says that:—
  "A small section of these boys are either unsuited to the life of such a school, or have got into such hopeless disfavour with the officers, as to have become sullen, depressed, and hostile to any efforts made to reform them."
  It is not a good thing for a schoolmaster to have favourites, and to make some boys so happy as to justify the evidence which has been read by my hon. Friend below me about the happiness they enjoy, their excursions and so forth, while another set are sullen and depressed, and out of love, and out of favour with the officers. I am very glad that an inquiry has been held; I am glad that the whole system of reformatory treatment has been brought before the House, and that the eyes, not only of the Home Office, but of the country, should be directed to the way in which they are treating these boys. The House will remember that the boys in these schools come from the very poorest classes of the community. Their environment, their heredity, and their chances in life have been such that it is almost impossible that they should display the same qualities which we look for in our boys. They ought to be treated with tenderness, with consideration, with scrupulous care, and it is because I believe that in consequence of this Motion that has been made to-night, and in consequence of this inquiry which has been held, their lot will be looked at with more favour by the general public and those who are responsible for them, that I am very glad that this Debate has occurred.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I wish hon. Gentlemen to understand distinctly that in what I am about to say I make no personal attack on the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman who are directly concerned with this matter. I think hon. Members will certainly welcome what the Under-Secretary of State said in regard to looking into the question of reformatories. I think, however,

  2187
  that what we have read in this Report today gives us a great deal of room for reflection. I do not in the least wish to pose as a humaritarian. I am one who has certainly gone through the mill of school discipline, and I do not think I am any the worse for it. The real point is this: The hon. Member for Durham, when he moved the Adjournment, was naturally almost boiling over with indignation in regard to the punishments of which he had read in this Report; but the real reason of his moving the Adjournment was not so much because of the punishments as because the Home Secretary refused to give him a clear answer to the question he had put to the right hon. Gentleman. That is the real reason why the hon. and learned Gentleman moved the Adjournment to-day. It was really rather curious that a night or two ago hon. Gentlemen opposite laughted at an extremely good joke from the Home Secretary when he was speaking of the boys at Pentonville, one of whom was punished for using obscene language. The other night the right hon. Gentleman was posing as the official protector of boys who used bad language. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] Why did you laugh at it then? To-night it is apparently a case of Satan reproving sin, and he seemingly thinks that fifteen pails of water is a most excellent deterrent of bad language. In a certain sense I agree with him, but I think it is quite possible that there are other means which would be equally deterrent of bad language, and also cause the boys to respect the man giving the punishment more than probably was the case in this instance. The right hon. Gentleman tried to avoid the subject. He said it was "merely a matter for censure," which satisfied a great many of us until we had time to read the report. I think the right hon. Gentleman evidently did not wish to face a discussion, because he tried to get out of it on a quibble of order. As I have said, however, I do not wish to make any personal attack in the matter, but I think the Debate will have done good from the point of view of ventilating the whole question of reformatories in this country. If it is possible for this sort of thing to go on in schools which are under private management the sooner it is done away with and they are placed under State control the better. Certainly the treatment which has been meted out to these boys is more severe than that of the criminals in whom
  2188
  the right hon. Gentleman takes such great interest in the prisons of this country.
  As to the report itself, I think the Under-Secretary has taken a very lenient view of the circumstances, probably rightly; at the same time, I do think that the superintendent of this school has been extremely fortunate to have a gentleman of so much self-restraint to look into the question. We find first of all on page 8 of the report that he said he could find no evidence of deliberate cruelty on the part of Mr. Beuttler, and that Mr. Adam himself had confessed that he would term him "callous" and not cruel. But it is not really a question of deliberate cruelty, it is a question of whether there has been cruelty at all, and whether the man so accused of cruelty, be it little or not, is fit to be in charge of these boys. On page 11, the question of filthy language is brought up, and it says:—
  "On the whole, I am inclined to think that he has been roughish in his treatment of the boys."
  I want to ask if he thinks it simply roughish treatment——
  Mr. MASTERMAN: If the Noble Lord will examine my report he will see I made a distinct recommendation in regard to the management of this school on that point.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: The Under-Secretary says in his report that he—
  "recommends the committee should attempt to find a fresh man."
  Other hon. Members, no doubt, know more about the subject than I do; but, fortunately, I do not happen to have any political connection with this particular charge, and, therefore, I think I am perfectly entitled to speak my own mind on the subject. The hon. Gentleman stated that he thought the question of punishment had been rather overdone, and that there were cases where there were boys had been caned instead of being birched. I should like to put this proposition to him—I speak from experience, not departmental experience, but experience of a different kind—that it is not so much whether it is a cane or whether it is a birch which is used, as the kind of cane or the kind of birch which is employed. I maintain that it is absolutely downright cruelty to use a cane which is split at the end and tied up with string and made of too large dimensions. I should like to draw the attention of Members of the House to the description of birch used on these boys.

  2189
  There are birch-rods and birch-rods; but I think it is going a little bit too far when the birch rod used is of green willow twigs and hawthorn branches of the kind mentioned. The system of torture the right hon. Gentleman has recommended for use in reformatories, if that were the sort of discipline that was used in our prisons, I do not think we should have the right hon. Gentleman speaking as he does of all the reforms that are going on in prison life. I have no wish to make any personal attack on the right hon. Gentleman, but I do think he might have shown a little more sympathy in the question before he is brought to book on a Motion for Adjournment, and appears to show sympathy simply because an hon. Gentleman below the Gangway moved. I will also say that the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway said that it was not an attack on the Home Office, and tried to get out of his vote of censure on the Home Office as mildly as he possibly could. I hope hon. Gentlemen will put their humanity before their party feeling.
  Mr. LEES SMITH: I desire to ask the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman) two questions concerning the very important statement with which he concluded his speech. He told us during the earlier part of his remarks that these reformatory schools are under the management of private committees. The point I wish to make clear to the House is that, while they are under the management of private committees, far the greater part of their funds come from public sources. A school with which I am acquainted, and which I believe is typical, has an income of some thousands, of which £80 alone comes from private subscriptions. The remainder comes from the Treasury grant and from grants from the Borough Council and County Council of the district near which it is situate. In spite of the fact of the proportion that comes from public sources, those schools are managed without, I may say, the assistance of any local public authority. The first question I wish to ask is whether the Departmental Committee which he is going to appoint will inquire into the question as to whether there should not be more adequate representation of the local authorities on the committees of management of reformatory schools——
  Mr. SPEAKER: That question hardly seems to be relevant to the Motion now
  2190
  before the House. The hon. Member is entering upon a much wider field than the terms of the Motion which has been proposed.
  Mr. LEES SMITH: I am sorry I trespassed outside the proper limits of the subject, but as the hon. Gentleman made an important pronouncement I thought I might avail of what he said to mention the question. There is only one other suggestion I wish to put before the hon. Gentle man. We have had an inquiry and De bate with regard to reformatory schools. There is no difference between reformatory schools and industrial schools. There is a difference mainly in age rather than in the type of boy, and I wish to suggest that the Committee of inquiry should in quire——
  Mr. SPEAKER: Again the hon. Member is getting outside the proper area. When there is a Motion for Adjournment upon a particular subject, the Debate must be limited to that particular subject. I do not say for one moment that the inquiries which the hon. Member wishes to make are not proper inquiries, but they are not proper at this particular moment.
  Mr. LEES SMITH: I am sorry I have again trespassed beyond the confines of the subject. I hope I have made clear to the hon. Gentleman what I intended to convey, and that he will give me an answer.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put his questions on the Paper.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: The Under-Secretary alluded to the report made by the last chaplain, but he did not give the report made by the first chaplain. This is how the hon. Gentleman, in his report, describes Mr. Kittermaster:—
  "Mr. Kittermaster, ex-chaplain of the school, was at: Buenos Ayres, but in response to a telegram, he sent me a very full and interesting report concerning his experience of Heswall. Mr. Kittermaster had been responsible for the revelation of the abuses in the old 'Akbar' ship, was highly spoken of by all parties, and I attached great importance to the evidence which he furnished me."
  What is the evidence which this gentleman, gave?
  "Mr. Kittermaster recognised that 'something was wrong with the school,' and 'he felt it so much that he lost all heart,' that the boys were 'smarting under a sense of being unfairly treated,' and that, although no officer of the school was purposely cruel, and though he could not say that any of the punishments given were undeserved and actually unfair, or tell me of any instance of actual bullyings, yet 'in spite of all superficial smartness and paper returns, we were turning out heartless and hardened boys.' "

  2191
  I commend this to the Home Secretary, especially in view of the instructions he has been kind enough to send to magistrates during the last six weeks:—
  ".. 'heartless and hardened boys, in essentials unreformed.'"
  There is also a statement that Mr. Adam asserted that the superintendent had "stamped the life out of the whole gang," and made them "quite indifferent—a trembling, cowering mob." The point, to my mind, is this: No doubt, in a school of this sort, very strong discipline must be used if the boys are to be kept in order. The Under-Secretary says that, in his opinion, corporal punishment is wrong.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I said that I disliked it.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I presume the hon. Gentleman dislikes a thing that is wrong; he does not dislike a thing that is right. I hope hon. Members opposite have not descended so far that they dislike a thing, therefore it is wrong. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Do you like it?"] No; but I do not think corporal punishment is wrong. I think corporal punishment is a necessity in a school of this sort, provided that it is administered in a proper manner. I think it is far and away-better than drenching boys with fifteen buckets of water, because they have used obscene language, or shutting them up in a room, and instructing other boys to wash them and do other things to them, from which room they come out and in a few short moments die.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: That was never done as a punishment at Heswall School.
  Sir F. BANBURY: It is in the report.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Not as a punishment.
  Sir F. BANBURY: What was it done for?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Bead the report.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Was it done as a reward?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I did not want to go into the disgusting details of the report.
  Sir F. BANBURY: These details have been discussed. The fact remains that the boy had used certain language and was reported to the office for having done so. The officer ordered two other boys to take
  2192
  him into a room. That officer remained outside the room for a certain number of moments and then went away. The boy came out of the room, and within twenty minutes died, and so on. You cannot get out of that by saying that the details are disgusting. But the point I want to make is this: it would be very much better if this sort of punishment were done away with and for corporal punishment—which hon. Members opposite object to—in mode ration to be substituted under proper safe guards. I cannot understand the action of the hon. and learned Gentleman who brought this question before us. I hope I do not do him an injustice, but he is an old Parliamentary hand, and his actions recently mean, I think, that he is going to withdraw. He brought this case before the House, having obtained a certain amount of support; and I do not wish to say anything unpleasant, but no doubt the conduct of the hon. and learned Gentleman will be noticed in the local papers. Having brought this matter forward, the fear of injuring the Government—however wrong they may have been —is uppermost in his mind. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is going to say that the explanation of the Government is satisfactory, because no explanation has been given at all except that this gentleman, Mr. Beuttler, is to be retained in the school. I do not know whether he considers that satisfactory? If not, I am at a loss to know why he is going to withdraw. We had last night an example of what the Government does in the cause of humanity —when they think they can get something out of it. I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he had remitted a sentence of a month's imprisonment imposed for a worse offence than obscene language without asking the magistrates their opinion? He was asked if there had been previous convictions, and he replied that he did not know. Then he looked at his despatch box and could not find the despatch because it was not there. Then he said I was discourteous——
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No, no. I absolutely deny that I have suggested that of the hon. Baronet.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman thinks so now. He certainly said it yesterday. On reflection he withdraws, and I accept his withdrawal. [HON. MEMBER: "Oh, oh."] Nobody can object to that. What does all this

  2193
  mean? It means that a little public advertisement can be got out of the matter. The "Daily News" and the "Daily Chronicle" will be filled with the "beneficent activities" of the Home Secretary! He goes about like an Eastern Sultan at night investigating the sentences of the wicked rich magistracy upon the deserving poor! Thus the right hon. Gentleman is full of humanity! But when he comes to a matter like this and he does not think there will be very much publicity attaching to it the right hon. Gentleman sees no case. Twenty-eight boys have been permanently marked, a doctor certifies that they are marked for life; one boy is punished in a most extraordinary manner and there was the punishment of the boys by being kept up all night, yet the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary backs up the Under-Secretary, who says it is not a course to be approved of, but at the same time he is not going to do anything, and he is going to leave the superintendent of the school in his position. I am very glad the case has been brought forward, because if it did not do anything else it demonstrates the hollowness of all those humanitarian pretences on the part of the Government and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Dr. HILLIER: I think the Mover of this Motion for the Adjournment of the House is to be congratulated upon having had adduced in the course of this Debate ample evidence in support of his contention that this is a matter of great importance and urgency. I confess there are moments when the solid, united phalanx which is said to repose upon the benches opposite does not appear to great advantage, and I begin to fear this is one of these moments. The phalanx appears to be periodically seized with what I may describe as internal convulsions. Several of them have already occurred in this Parliament, and I have no doubt they will become more frequent and acute as time goes on. On this occasion on a question which, as far as I can see, is the last question to be made a party question, I think that we who sympathise with the Mover of the Motion are entitled to ask him whether he is going to press for a Division. If he is not what really fair and reasonable ground can he offer for not doing so. There are certain things in this report which are extremely interesting to all those who, like the Home Secretary, take, and I believe genuinely take, an interest in the lot of prisoners and those in our re-
  2194
  formatory schools and other institutions of that sort. I find, according to one witness, that in certain conditions a happier lot of boys could not be found in the United Kingdom than in this school. That must be a matter of great congratulation to the right hon. Gentleman. But I turn to another side of the picture with regard to which I confess I feel very strongly. We have in the report a statement of the various forms of punishment in vogue in this establishment, and amongst them we find provided as punishment for young boys in the course of their education and growth no less harsh a thing than confinement in a lighted room or cell, and we find that confinement may be extended to seven days. I say that is a most harsh and inhuman provision, and quite apart from the overwhelming evidence of extreme hardship in the treatment of these boys adduced and supported by the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Liverpool, who is acquainted with this institution, and not dependent for his information on sensational reports in any journals, there are provisions in the code of treatment for these boys which most seriously demand consideration. On those grounds I appeal to the hon. Member, even though he be a Member of a solid and united phalanx, to put humanity and common justice before party, and allow this matter to be carried to a Division.
  Mr. ARTHUR ALLEN: I understand from the statement of the Under Secretary to the Home Office that we are to have a Departmental Committee to inquire into the general question of reformatory schools. It seems to me the superintendent of this particular school has anticipated to some extent those reforms which those of us interested in reformatory schools have-long been anxious to see carried into effect. There are three points on which we are exceedingly anxious. The first one-is the question of corporal punishment in those schools; the second is the question of education; and the third, the obtaining of decent situations for the boys when they leave the schools. On all these three points Mr. Beuttler has shewn a distinct advance on what has generally been the practice of superintendents of reformatory schools. I am not attempting to defend such conduct as making the boys stand up all night and throwing water over them, but certainly those who are genuinely interested in reform know that a keen superintendent can never hope to get through his school life without

  2195
  making some mistakes. I admit those are bad mistakes. When we look at his conduct with regard to corporal punishment, we find he has introduced for the first time a system of rewards which has been highly successful, and which, in this particular school, has enabled the superintendent to reduce corporal punishment to half of what it was with his predecessor.
  On the side of education everyone knows that these schools have been greatly behind the standard which they ought to have reached. Every testimony all through that very able report goes to show that on this question of education Mr. Beuttler has made a real start which has raised the whole standard of education in the reformatory schools throughout the country. With regard to the disposal of the boys when they leave the schools, nothing has been more difficult in the past than to find situations for boys who have been educated m reformatory schools, because of the bad name they have, and partly because in the past their education has not been sufficiently technical. All that has been altered now, with the result that the best shipping companies are all anxious to take boys from this particular school, and now they have no difficulty in getting situations. We have also the testimony that old boys who have left the school have written in the most affectionate and proud terms of their old school. I ask the House to set against the faults of the superintendent the fact that he has been most enthusiastic in his work and has done a good deal to raise the standard of education in reformatory schools in the country. For these reasons I ask the House to allow the decision which has been come to by the Home Secretary to stand, and come to the conclusion that Mr. Beuttler has received enough punishment by the publicity which has been given to his case.
  Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: I would not have intervened in this Debate if I had not rather an important interest in it as Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Liverpool Corporation. We not only find the money for the school, but we contribute to a very large extent towards the boys' help and maintenance. There is one question we always have before us when these funds have to be provided, and that is the conduct of the school and the happiness of the boys; and I may say that during the long course of years I have been chairman of the finance committee we
  2196
  have never at any time had any complaint about the treatment of the boys, nor has there been any question raised that they were not treated in a way that boys ought to be treated. I am not only in that position, but I happen to have lived for many years within three miles of the school. The school originally used to be in a ship, the reformatory ship "Akbar," and I venture to think it was better managed and that the boys were better kept when they were under the regulations of that ship. After being there a certain time they were fit to undertake the duties of sailors, for which there is a great cry and want at the present time. The time came when that ship went adrift or took fire, and the boys had to be brought on shore. I had a little game preserve in the district, and I had a great deal of trouble with poaching. The boys seemed to get out of control, and my rabbits, hares, and other game suffered in consequence. There were other matters of complaint. These boys are not sent there because they are angels. They are boys with a natural, and many of them with an unnatural amount of wickedness in them, and from the district round I had frequent complaints that housemaids, nursemaids, and others were very much alarmed owing to the conduct of the boys, because they were not under that control which was desirable. Afterwards these complaints became less and less, the boys were got under better control, and the management of the school, to my mind, was exemplary. There were on the Committee who managed the school some of the best-philanthropists of Liverpool, who are as good philanthropists as you will find anywhere in the kingdom. I venture to think if there had been any of these hardships, oppressions, and maltreatment we have had mentioned, and which have been in the papers, to the disgrace of those papers who have published them, and who have listened to the tittle-tattle of servants who have been discharged, those men—there is Mr. Stolterfoht, one of the philanthropists of Liverpool—would have raised questions in the city of Liverpool, and it would never have been necessary to come to the House of Commons to bring them before Parliament. Those questions did not arise. The boys were not maltreated. The boys were boys, boys with enthusiasm—ill-directed enthusiasm which required treatment, in the way in which they were treated, I venture to think many hon. Members of my age, and many younger than myself, remembering what we had to

  2197
  stand when we were boys, consider the acts of oppression towards these boys nothing compared with the acts of oppression we had to put up with even in the best schools of the United Kingdom. What I venture to say is that this report is absolutely justified by the facts. I think the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary have done their duty; they have made a very close and complete inquiry; ascertained what the condition of these boys is and how they have been treated. They have made suggestions; they have shown there has been none of that oppression and maltreatment which was suspected. Municipalities do not receive very serious consideration in this House, but it is a fact that they watch most closely the interests of those committed to their charge; they see that these interests are not neglected, and, undoubtdly, those who find the money for these institutions carefully watch its expenditure. He should understand the position of these boys. They require control and strict treatment; they are not innocent boys; they need to be under some show of authority. But there is no necessity for this House to suspect that they are subject to harsher regulations than are necessary. I fear political objects have animated those who have brought forward this Motion, and under the circumstances I shall give my vote to the Home Secretary.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The Home Office has certainly no reason to complain of the treatment meted out to it this evening by the House. The Debate from beginning to end, with scarcely an exception, has been conducted with an entire absence of party feeling, and I fully recognise the propriety, and indeed the necessity, for the discussion which my hon. Friend has made himself responsible for. I have only a sentence or two to say after the statement which was made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. When complaints first reached me in official documents with regard to this school, I felt that a very searching inquiry was necessary, and I took a very unusual step. I did not send down a permanent official, although I have great confidence in the permanent officials, on whose opinion I rely at the Home Office. I thought it was a House of Commons matter, a matter on which the House would prefer to be satisfied by one of its own Members, and I asked the Under-Secretary to undertake the very laborious and unpleasant duty of making full investigation into the case. Hon. Members
  2198
  who were present when my hon. Friend spoke will know how full and complete the investigation was and how honest and fearless were the conclusions to which he came. And if those who were not present will spare the time to read the report—full and exhaustive as it is—they will see there was no disposition on his part to shirk or conceal the truth. Neither was there the slightest disposition on his part to allow any injustice to be inflicted upon those who were serving at the school. It would be a very easy matter for the Minister who fills my office to take such action in regard to this school as would lead to the dismissal of the superintendent. But I believe that any Member who reads the report fairly through from beginning to end will see that it would not be a proper or just thing to do when all the circumstances for and against, the irregularities which this man has undoubtedly committed, and the good work which he has done at the school. When all that has been judged and surveyed it would not be the proper thing for me to do to put pressure on the governing body of the school to take this step against him. An hon. Member said we ought to give way to public opinion, but in matters of justice one ought not to do so. You ought, perhaps, to give way to public opinion in regard to leniency, but not in the way of severity.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I said satisfy public opinion.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: You ought to satisfy public opinion, but you ought not to go beyond what meets the necessities of the case. The Adjournment of the House was moved because I had not seen my way to recommend the dismissal of Captain Beuttler, but I think after the discussion which has taken place my hon. Friend who moved it may be inclined to think that he may leave the conduct of the school and the decision of this matter safely in the hands of the governing body. They are a disinterested body; they reap no benefit from the school, they are some of the most valued and respectable citizens of Liverpool; they are as anxious as anyone can be for the rectification of anything which has taken place, and for the credit and reputation of the school. They now have placed before them on the authority of my hon. Friend an ample report from which they can judge their future course of action, and with these remarks I hope the House will allow the specific question of Captain Beuttler's

  2199
  position to pass from its mind. As it has been referred to, I should like to say that this case which has been brought before us ought not to end merely with the specific incident. There is no doubt whatever, to my mind, from investigation which I have been making into the subject that there is a great deal more flogging going on in these reformatory schools than is necessary or desirable. There must be corporal punishment, but the regulations under which it is administered appear to me to fall altogether short of the requirements and conditions which modern opinion imposes, and which the necessities of the case demand. I have been carefully considering for some weeks past the issue of new regulations which, I think, will have the effect of restricting the use of corporal punishment in the many reformatory schools throughout the country, and of securing, above all, that such punishment as is administered shall be strictly in accordance with regulations which are laid down by the Home Office, and with instruments which are all approved and of standard pattern, and do not take the undesirable and excessive forms revealed in this report. In addition to that, we must consider the question of the control which should be exercised by the Home Office over this great number of industrial and reformatory schools; and lastly we must consider the question of classification, which in this, as in the treatment of crime and its attendant problems, is, after all, the first necessary step to be taken. My hon. Friend's report throws a light on many of these subjects. You could not take a better text as the beginning
  of a further study and a stepping-stone for further action. I have decided to appoint a strong Departmental Committee, which, should be able to go into the whole question of the present methods of maintaining discipline in reformatory and industrial schools, and which will deal with the methods by which these schools should be brought into close and suitable contact with the Home Office, which at present has a great deal more responsibility in regard to them than is really justified by the amount of direct control or power which it exerts. I hope the House will feel that it is right that when such a Debate as this has taken place it should not close without the House recognising that the managers of these bodies, who give so much voluntary service and throw so much personal enthusiasm into it, ought not to feel discouraged in any way by the censure and criticisms which have been passed, and although the methods of control must be improved, there are no grounds for reproaching these gentlemen, who have-taken, and are taking, part in this work with any want of humanity or of zeal in discharge of the duties they have so worthily assumed.
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: After the very-full vindication by the Under-Secretary, and after the assurance which has been given by the Secretary of State, I have no desire to make this question, which I raised on the ground of humanity, a party question, and therefore I ask leave to withdraw it.
  Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
  The House divided: Ayes, 67; Noes, 244.

  Division No. 21.]

  AYES.

  [10.59 p.m.

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

  Grant, J. A.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hambre, Angus Valdemar

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Barnston, H.

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich)

  Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bird, A.

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Spear, John Ward

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stanier, Beville

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

  Boyton, J.

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R

  Swift, Rigby

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Touche, George Alexander

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'm'ts, Mile End)

  Tuillbardine, Marquess of

  Compton, Lord A.

  Martin, J.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Welgall, Capt. A. G.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Winterton, Earl

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Younger, George

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Craft, H. P.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Col. Chaloner and Mr. Watson Rutherford.

  Falle, B. G.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Fell, Arthur

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

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

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  O'Shee, James John

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

  Hackett, John

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Hamereley, A. St. George

  Pearson, Weetman H. M.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Anderson, A. M

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pirle, Duncan V.

  Armitage, R.

  Harmsworth, R. L.

  Pointer, Joseph

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Harvey, A. G. C (Rochdale)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

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

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

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

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

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

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Radford, G. H.

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

  Hayward, Evan

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Hickman, Colonel T. E.

  Richards, Thomas

  Barton, W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Seale, W. P.

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Hinds, John

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneslde)

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

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Hohler, G. F.

  Robinson, Sydney

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Boland, John Pius

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hudson, Walter

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Isaacs Sir Rufus Daniel

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburghshire)

  Rutherford, John (Lanes., Darwen)

  Brady, P. J.

  John, Edward Thomas

  St. Maur, Harold

  Bring, Sir John

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushclifle)

  Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Jones W. S. Glyn- (T'w'r H'mts, Stepney)

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

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jowett, F. W.

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Keating, M.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

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

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Kelly, Edward

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Campion, W. R.

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cassel, Felix

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Lansbury, George

  Summers, James Woolley

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Leach, Charles

  Sutton, John E.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Clough, William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

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

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Thorne, G. R, (Wolverhampton)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lundon, T.

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Cotton, William Francis

  Lynch, A. A.

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Craig, Norman (Kent)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Toulmin, George

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Cullinan, J.

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Davies, E. William (Eiflon)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Wads worth, J.

  Dawes, J. A.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Devlin, Joseph

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

  Wardle, George J.

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  Dillon, John

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Doris, W.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Duffy, William J.

  Mason, David H. (Coventry)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  White, Patrick (Heath, North)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Montagu, Hon. E S.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Elverstin, H.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Wiles, Thomas

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, H.)

  Morrell, Philip

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Muldoen, John

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Munro, R.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Falconer, J.

  Murray, Capt Hon. A. C

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

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westheughton)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Neilson, Francis

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Gill, A. H.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Goldstone, Frank

  O'Dewd, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Ogden, Fred

  Griffith, Ellis J. (Anglesey)

  O'Malley, William

HOUSE OF COMMONS (KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS).
Ordered:—That a Select Committee be appointed to control the arrangements for the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms in the Department of the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House:
That the Committee do consist of Seventeen Members:
That Mr. Bentham, Colonel Carlile, Sir Henry Dalziel, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Haworth, Viscount Helmsley, Colonel Sir Ivor Herbert, Mr. Kirkwood, Colonel Lockwood, Mr. Lonsdale, Mr. Malcolm, Mr. Patrick O'Brien, Mr. Power, Mr. William Redmond, Sir Harry Samuel, Mr. William Thorne, and Mr. Dudley Ward be Members of the Committee:
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:
That Three be the quorum.—[Master of Elibank.]
Adjourned at Twelve minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Motor Traffic in Scotland (Upkeep of Roads).
  Motor Traffic in Scotland (Upkeep of Roads).
  Yield of Taxes.
  Yield of Taxes.
  Appeal Procedure.
  Appeal Procedure.
  Irrecoverable Arrears.
  Irrecoverable Arrears.
  Repayments (Irish Land Purchase Acts).
  Repayments (Irish Land Purchase Acts).
  Nicholson Estate, Babrath, County Meath.
  Nicholson Estate, Babrath, County Meath.
  Dr. Kelly Paterson's Estate, Mullaha, County Meath.
  Dr. Kelly Paterson's Estate, Mullaha, County Meath.
  Untenanted Land, County Meath.
  Untenanted Land, County Meath.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Irish Members of Parliament (Free Travelling Facilities).
  Irish Members of Parliament (Free Travelling Facilities).
  Transit Charges (Ireland).
  Transit Charges (Ireland).
  Drummond Estate, County Kerry.
  Drummond Estate, County Kerry.
  Moorestown Estate, County Limerick.
  Moorestown Estate, County Limerick.
  County Mayo Magistracy (Licensed Publicans).
  County Mayo Magistracy (Licensed Publicans).
  Reinstatement Application, County Sligo.
  Reinstatement Application, County Sligo.
  National Education (Ireland).
  National Education (Ireland).
  Garrison in Egypt.
  Garrison in Egypt.
  Foreign Meat for Troops.
  Foreign Meat for Troops.
  Land near Kilworth.
  Land near Kilworth.
  Canvas Shoes.
  Canvas Shoes.
  Shortage of Territorial Officers.
  Shortage of Territorial Officers.
  Alien Prisoners.
  Alien Prisoners.
  United States (Proposed Peace Commission).
  United States (Proposed Peace Commission).
  Trade Boards.
  Trade Boards.
  Railway Platforms.
  Railway Platforms.
  Imports (Self-Governing Dominions).
  Imports (Self-Governing Dominions).
  British Coal (Duties).
  British Coal (Duties).
  Telephone Assistants.
  Telephone Assistants.
  London Postal Service (E.C.).
  London Postal Service (E.C.).
  Telegraph Testing Duties.
  Telegraph Testing Duties.
  Baptismal Records.
  Baptismal Records.
  Minor legal Appointments (Scotland).
  Minor legal Appointments (Scotland).

Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Enfield Gas. [H.L.]
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

LONDON CEMETERY COMPANY BILL. [H.L.] LUTON GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed.

ALEXANDRA (NEWPORT AND SOUTH WALES) DOCKS AND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
ASHBORNE AND DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
CARDIFF RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
CHESHAM AND DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
BRIGHTON, HOVE AND DISTRICT RAILESS TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
CHESTER WATER BILL [H.L.]
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (IRELAND) BILL.
LONDON, TILBURY AND SOUTHEND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL. [H.L.]
MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
RHYMNEY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
ROCHDALE MARKET BILL. [H.L.]
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
WHALEY BRIDGE GAS BILL. [H.L.]
CHAPEL-EN-LE-FRITH, CHINLEY AND DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
LUTON WATER BILL. [H.L.]
ENFIELD GAS BILL. [H.L.]
PENLLWYN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
SIDMOUTH GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
STAR LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

IRVINE BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. (No. 20)
  PAISLEY CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. (No. 21)
    AYRSHIRE (LOCH BRADAN) WATER DISTRIBUTION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. (No. 22)
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Pentland), and reported from the Committee.
PARSONAGES BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Parsonages Act, 1838, and the Church Building Act, 1839—Was presented by the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury; read la; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next. (No. 23.)

PERJURY BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD, LOREBURN): My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I do not propose to say much, but I think it is due to the House to say a little. This Bill is the first of a series of Bills which, as I have stated to the House, I propose to introduce for the purpose of the consolidation and codification of the criminal law of this country. This is a thing in itself very desirable, both for our own sakes at home and also because there has been from time to time a demand from the Colonies and Dependencies of the Crown for some statutory statement of what the criminal law of England really is, so that they might adapt it as far as they could. The Bill was read a second time in the last Parliament, and referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses, over which I had the honour to preside. We met some eight or ten times, and we did our very best simply to reproduce the existing law both statutory and common. That, I think, we have succeeded in substance in doing.
It is only right, however, to tell your Lordships that the Bill introduces a very slight alteration in the law, which arises

145
from the fact that there are scores, if not hundreds, of different Acts of Parliament which contain the laws relating to perjury and the punishment of it, and to false statements not on oath and the punishment of them, and these we had to consolidate with the common law on the subject. It so happened that those who had drawn many of these Acts in the past never took the slightest trouble to see that the punishments for the same class of offence in one Act corresponded to the punishments for the same class of offence in the other Acts of Parliament, and if, therefore, we had absolutely reproduced the offences and the punishments for them as they appear in the Statutes we would have had an enormous schedule which would have shown not any very great diversity, but still diversity, without any apparent reason and without any practical justification.
What the Joint Committee say is this—
"As the Bill was originally introduced it contained a schedule so as to preserve the existing punishments unaltered (see Clause 5 and First Schedule;, and as an example of the diversity of these punishments the Committee. would draw attention to the case of the Government Annuities Acts. By the Act of 1853 a false declaration under that Act is made punishable as perjury; that is to say, it renders the offender liable to the maximum punishment of seven years' penal servitude. By the Act of 18872 false declarations for the purposes of the Government Annuities Acts (including the Act of 1853) are made punishable with the maximum. term of twelve months' imprisonment."
They give other illustrations, and then the Committee say this, as summing up what we thought it was necessary to do—
"The Committee recognise that the amendments they have introduced in Clauses 5 and 6, for the purpose of making punishments more uniform and generalising the law so as to make it applicable to false statements under future as well as past Acts, go beyond codification and consolidation in the strict sense. But unless such a change be made the Committee consider that it would hardly be worth while to attempt to codify the law at all, and they think it undesirable that so small an obstacle should prevent the realisation of so desirable an object; the more so as the alterations they are making are merely in the maximum punishments which may be inflicted, and generally in the direction of decreasing them, and will in practice probably have little or no effect on the punishments actually awarded."
With that exception, and it was an exception absolutely necessary unless we were to introduce a large schedule which would make the Bill so cumbrous that it would be of no value to anybody, we have loyally attempted to reproduce the existing law. It has been a very laborious business
146
—twelve pages of the Bill are taken up with repeals of old Statutes—and I am sure that all the members of the Committee did their very best and we came to a unanimous decision without having differed upon any single point. I trust that, in these circumstances, your Lordships will not think it necessary in this Parliament to again send to another Committee, which would probably be composed of the same persons, a Bill which was so fully considered only last year, but will accept the finding of that Committee as if it were made this year. I understand that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice proposes to introduce one Amendment in Committee which I believe I shall be able to assent to altogether. I hope my noble and learned friend will not have more Amendments, because, if we are to try to work this business out on the floor of the House, we cannot do it. It is far too detailed and complicated, and I hope your Lordships will take it on the faith of the Committee.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD ALVERSTONE: My Lords, I wish to tender my personal thanks to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for his extreme courtesy in this matter. He was good enough not only to send me the Report of the Committee before it was published, but he also allowed me to see the draft of the Bill and the reports of the draftsmen on the various changes—a privilege I had no right to expect, but which has been of the greatest assistance to me. I should like to be allowed to congratulate the Lord Chancellor on the Bill, and to assure him, speaking for the Judges, barristers, and other practitioners, that we are deeply indebted to him and the Committee. I need only mention, as indicating the extent of the Committee's labours, that the Schedule repeals from 100 to 200 Acts of Parliament. One could never be quite certain, when one took up these Acts, that there was not some amending Act which required to be considered; and although, of course, there are valuable text books, the administration of the law with regard to perjury has always been a matter of very great difficulty. A further illustration of the value of the Bill is afforded by the fact that under Clauses 5 and 6 alone the punishments under twenty

147
Acts have been made uniform, whereas, previously, there was a discrepancy as to what the maximum sentence might be. It is very important to have such a law as that of perjury in as few clauses as possible. There is one other amendment of the law to which the Lord Chancellor has not called attention. By Clause 1, sub-clause (6) it is provided that—
"The question whether a statement on which perjury is assigned was material is a question of law to be determined by the Court of trial."
The question whether the materiality of a statement should be treated as a question of fact and left to the jury or should be decided as a matter of law has been a good deal discussed for many years. This Bill decides, rightly in my judgment, that materiality should be a question of law, as it is difficult to convey to juries what is material. There may be statements which are morally wrong, but which, after all, may not be essential or material. I sincerely trust that this Bill, which is only the precursor of many other Bills, will not only be read a second time, but will be passed into law.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I listened with interest to the statement of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. It is obviously impossible in the case of a Bill of this kind, which deals with a great number of Statutes, to go into detail. The Bill must be taken on trust. It has been examined by the Joint Committee presided over by my noble and learned friend; it has been read by those most competent to express an opinion on the subject; and as it has passed their criticism I am sure none of your Lordships would lightly desire to intervene in such a difficult and complicated matter. There is only one point to which I would call attention. I refer to the clause which excludes Ireland front the operation of the Bill. I always prefer, if possible, that when there is an amendment made in the law it should be extended to Ireland, rather than that a separate Codification Bill should be required for that country. I do not, however, intend to make that a subject of discussion. I merely rose to express my entire approval of the course suggested by my noble and learned friend.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Appointed: The Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee:—

E. Crewe (L. Privy Seal)

D. Bedford

D. Marlborough

D. Northumberland

M. Lansdowne

M. Salisbury

M. Bath

E. Chesterfield (L. Steward)

E. Derby

E. Denbigh

E. Jersey

E. Lauderdale

E. Waldegrave

E. Cadogan

E. Howe

E. Camperdown

E. Dartrey

E. Lytton

E. Carrington

E. Cromer

V. Sidmouth

V. Hutchinson (E.Donoughmore;

V. Knutsford

V. Churchill

L. Zouche of Haryngworth

L. Barnard

L. Ribblesdale

L. Colchester

L. Kintore (E. Kintore)

L. Belper

L. Brougham and Vaux

L. Kinnaird

L. Hylton

L. Fermanagh (E. Erne)

L. Reay

L. Newton

L. Welby

L. Ludlow

L. Pentland

L. Ilkeston

All petitions relating to the Standing Orders which shall be presented during the present Session referred to the Committee unless otherwise ordered.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
The Lords following, viz.:

E. Crewe (L. Privy Seal)

D. Bedford

D. Northumberland

149

M. Lansdowne

E. Lauderdale

E. Waldegrave

E. Camperdown

V. Churchill

L. Ribblesdale

L. Granard (E. Granard)

L. Denman

L. Belper

L. Brougham, and Vaux

L. Hindlip

L. Newton

L. Colebrooke

with the Chairman of Committees, were appointed a Committee to select and propose to the House the names of the Five Lords to form a Select Committee for the consideration of each opposed Private Bill.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Select Committee appointed: The Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President, the Lord Privy Seal, and the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee:

D. Northumberland

M. Bath

M. Cholmondeley

E. Chesterfield (L. Steward)

E. Clarendon

E. Essex

E. Stanhope

E. Waldegrave

E. Mount Edgcumbe

E. Beauchamp

E. Camperdown

150

E. Carrington

E. Halsbury

E. Plymouth

V. Gordon (E. Aberdeen)

V. Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore)

V. Cross

V. Peel

V. Knutsford

V. Churchill

L. Ribblesdale

L. Colchester

L. Rosebery (E. Rosebery)

L. Poltimore

L. Kintore (E. Kinlore)

L. Belper

L. Monk Bretton

L. Macnaghten

L. Welby'

L. Burghclere

L. Sanderson

L. Colebrooke

House adjourned at a quarter before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.