Sitting of 27 March 1911

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (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 Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Luton Water Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
Great Northern Railway Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Tamworth Gas Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Severn Fisheries Provisional Order Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday, 10th April.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Persia.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any information had yet been received regarding the outrage on two British subjects near Ispahan three weeks ago; whether there were good reasons for believing that the recent extensive robberies from caravans on the Shiraz-Ispahan route took place in close proximity to Persian troops, who made no attempt to interfere; and what further measures it was proposed to take to ensure security on the trade routes in Southern Persia?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): As regards the first point, telegraphic reports have been received from His Majesty's Minister at Teheran, from which it appears that the amount stolen from the two British subjects was £130, and that, on learning of the robbery, he at once addressed a Note to the Persian Government, urging them to send instructions forthwith for the punishment of the robbers and for the recovery of the plunder, adding that unless the local authorities succeeded in restoring it or paid compensation, he would present a claim at Teheran. The victims, who were uninjured, left for Europe on March 9th. As regards the second point, it is true that on two occasions robberies took place in the presence of some Persian troops. His Majesty's Minister states that there is no reason to suspect complicity on the part of the troops, but a representation is being made to the Persian Government on the circumstances. As regards the last point, I beg to refer the hon. Member to what my right hon. Friend said on the subject of the southern roads in the course of the debate on the 23rd instant.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he would circulate to Members of this House copies of the map illustrating the Baghdad Railway question, which were placed at the disposal of another place on Wednesday, 22nd March?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: As has already been stated, the map will be annexed to the Blue Book on the Baghdad Railway Convention, which is now in course of preparation, but a certain number of copies shall meanwhile be placed in the Library of this House.
  Mr. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to his statement respecting the laying of papers concerning Persia, that he would find out what Lord Morley had promised and whatever he had promised would be given, whether Lord Morley has promised any papers which were referred to this House?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am afraid I do not understand what my hon. Friend means by papers "referred" to this House. Further correspondence will be laid as promised.
  Mr. PICKERSGILL: The hon. Gentleman says he does not know what I mean by papers "referred" to this House. The word "referred" printed in the Blue Taper is now properly printed "refused" ill the White Paper.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I could not divine the fact. Lord Morley has not promised any papers which have been refused to this House. Indeed, no papers have been refused to this House. My right hon. Friend (Sir Edward Grey), in referring to this matter, gave his reason why delay was necessary.
  Mr. BYLES: Did he not promise papers here which had been promised by Lord Morley in the other House?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Most certainly.

  Arbitration (President Taft's Proposals).
  Earl WINTERTONasked whether any communication had passed between His Majesty's Government and the Government of any European Power on the subject of the arbitration proposals suggested by President Taft?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not aware that anything has been said by President Taft that need be made the subject of special communication on our part with any European Power, and if it were otherwise it would be premature to make any statement about it.
  Earl WINTERTONasked if an opportunity will be afforded the House before the adjournment for the Easter Recess of learning the progress of the international arbitration proposals between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States, either by way of debate or in the form of Papers laid upon the Table of the House?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not as yet in a position to make any statement.
  Earl WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this matter has been under consideration, or whether a day will be granted?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not in a position to say when the matter will be a fit subject for further discussion.
  Earl WINTERTONasked whether, before any decision binding on this country
  872
  is arrived at with regard to President Taft's proposals, the consent of those Governments of first-class Powers with whom His Majesty's Government is in alliance or has an entente will be obtained?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I think the Noble Lord must be under a misapprehension as to the nature of President Taft's suggestion; and in any case, it must be left to His Majesty's Government, so long as they retain the confidence of the House, to see that negotiations with one Power do not conflict with their obligations to any other.

  Capitulation Laws (Egypt).
  Earl WINTERTONasked whether any action had been taken by His Majesty's Government in order to bring about an alteration in the Capitulation Laws in Egypt, with a view to avoiding the anomalies referred to in successive reports by Lord Cromer and Sir Eldon Gorst?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No steps have yet been taken to bring about a general alteration in the Capitulation Laws.
  Earl WINTERTON: Have any negotiations been in progress between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Egypt?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Certain special matters in connection with those laws have been matters of discussion.

  Mexico.
  Mr. REMNANTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he would instruct His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington to urge upon the President of the United States of America the desirability of submitting the Mexican question to arbitration?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not know to what question the hon. Member is alluding. The relations between the United States Government and the Mexican Government are, according to my most recent information, quite friendly.
  Earl WINTERTON: Is not it a fact that there is a very considerable massing of troops on the frontier, with the object of bringing pressure to bear on the Mexican Government?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I cannot at all admit that assumption, which is

  873
  neither made by the Mexican Government nor by the United States.

  Canada (Trade Treaties).
  Mr. REMNANTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the intention of the Canadian Government to ask to be relieved of the obligations of a number of Imperial most-favoured-nation treaties, and the necessity that compliance with that request would involve the denunciation of all such treaties by the Imperial Government, he could state whether the abrogation of the Zollverein treaty at Canada's request in 1897 was followed by negotiations for a new treaty in accordance with the expressed intention of the British Government as set forth in Lord Salisbury's despatch of 28th July, 1897; what was the date of such negotiations; what are the reasons for the failure of the negotiations; and what is the present position in regard to the arrangement of a new treaty with Germany?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. His Majesty's Government have, however, no knowledge of any intention on the part of the Canadian Government to ask to be relieved of the obligations of any Imperial most-favoured-nation Treaties. Negotiations took place during 1897 and 1898. The main difficulty in the way of a satisfactory conclusion lay in the divergence of views between the two Governments concerning the right of the Colonies to form special arrangements as between themselves and the Mother Country, of which the advantages were not extended to any foreign country. No negotiations for a new Treaty are at present in progress.
  Mr. REMNANT: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that Sir Wilfrid Laurier has stated publicly that they intended to ask for the denunciation of these treaties?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I have seen it stated that Sir Wilfrid Laurier said so, but, as usual, about two days after that statement I saw it contradicted.
  Mr. REMNANT: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any notice from the Canadian Government that they intend to raise the question at the Imperial Conference?
  Mr. HARCOURT: None whatever.

  Hagne Convention.
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay upon the Table the Papers wherein the Government declared their intention of ratifying the Hague Convention before finding out the will of Parliament?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not know to what papers the hon. Member refers. Thirteen Conventions and one Declaration were signed by the British Representatives at the Second Peace Conference. Of these, eight Conventions and the Declaration, which did not require fresh municipal legislation, were ratified by the King on the advice of his responsible Ministers. The remainder require legislation, for which a Bill will shortly be introduced, and they will not be ratified by the King till the measure has been passed by the House of Commons. Where legislation is required, the carrying out of an intention to ratify any particular Convention is, of course, dependent upon the passing of that legislation by the House of Commons.
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked if, in case His Majesty should not ratify the Convention signed at the Hague in 1907, owing to Parliament not passing the necessary legislation, the Declaration of London would fall to the ground?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Declaration of London will not be ratified, as has been repeatedly stated, till after there has been an opportunity for discussing it in the House. Till that has taken place, it is not necessary to consider the point raised in the question.

  Post and Telegraph Offices Closed (Scotland).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Postmaster-General if he can state how many post and telegraph offices have been closed, or have been proposed to be closed, in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland during the last six months; and if he will suspend further closures until there is some opportunity for people to get a living off the land?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): In only one case is it proposed to close a post office, at Hamar, Lerwick. This office was opened when telegraph business was extended to the locality under guarantee. Only about three telegrams a week are received and

  875
  an equal number delivered from this office, and as the guarantors are unwilling to continue the guarantee, it is proposed to close the office. It could be retained, however, for postal purposes if a small guarantee were forthcoming, and I will communicate with the hon. Member as to this. In eight other cases the discontinuance of telegraph business, but not of postal business, has been under consideration. In one of these a renewed guarantee has been given and telegraph facilities will be continued. In the remainder no definite reply has yet been received from the guarantors. On the average, at each of these offices, about one telegram a day is despatched and one a day is delivered. The annual expenditure of a considerable sum of public money is not warranted in maintaining a telegraph service in these localities, unless some evidence at least of utility is furnished by the persons most benefited being willing to make good one-third of the deficiency. Even then, a substantial loss would still remain.

  Post Office Savings Bank (Secure Money-Boxes).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked whether the Postmaster-General is yet prepared to make any announcement with reference to the adoption in the Post Office Savings Bank of secure money-boxes, issued to depositors and opened by the Bank at intervals, to facilitate saving and reduce book-keeping?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The manufacture of the home safes is now proceeding, and I hope shortly to be able to announce the probable date of issue to the public, which cannot, however, be for some little time.

  Post Office Engineers.
  Mr. HUDSONasked why it has been found necessary to advertise in the public Press for Post Office engineers, in view of the number of sub-engineers qualified for this position in January, 1910, who were recently informed that there were no vacancies at present; whether it was intended to promote these existing fully-qualified officers before appointing the outside applicants; and whether it is the Postmaster-General's intention to subject these applicants to a competitive examination similar to that imposed in the case of candidates nominated from universities and colleges?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is not necessary permanently to increase the authorised complement of engineers, and such additional men as are to be sought from outside sources are required to meet a special and temporary need in connection with the telephone transfer. All the sub-engineers referred to have already been allocated to this or equivalent work, but their number is not sufficient. The temporary engineers, having no prospect of continued employment, there is no need to subject them to the educational and technical tests applied to candidates seeking established posts with ultimate prospects of promotion to higher positions.

  Telegraph Messenger Boy (Wearing Shamrock, Ireland).
  Mr. CRUMLEYasked whether the Postmaster General has yet completed his inquiries into the alleged order given by the postmaster of Enniskillen on the 17th March to a telegraph messenger boy to remove a bunch of shamrock from his cap; whether he has found the allegation to be true; and, if so, how has he dealt, or proposes to deal, with the postmaster who so far exceeded his duty?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I find the facts were as follows. At Enniskillen the majority of the Post Office staff wore the shamrock on St. Patrick's Day, without objection from the postmaster, and members of his family did the same. The telegraph messenger boy in question, however, had covered his uniform cap with a large wreath of shamrock, which gave him a grotesque appearance, and this he was told, for that reason to remove. No objection was taken to the bunches of shamrock with which his patriotic fervour had led the boy to decorate his coat in addition. It is clear that the postmaster did not exceed his duty, and if disrespect was shown to the Irish national emblem, it was by the telegraph boy rather than by the postmaster.

  Secretary to the Post Office (Scotland).
  Sir HENRY DALZIELasked whether a departmental committee had recommended that the office of Secretary to the Post Office in Scotland should be discontinued with the result that certain postal matters hitherto decided in Scotland would have to be referred to London; and whether, before coming to any decision on the matter, the Postmaster-General will endeavour to ascertain the opinions of

  877
  Scottish Members on the suggested change?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No such suggestion has been made in recent years, and the report that I have contemplated, or am now contemplating, a change of the character referred to is wholly unfounded.

  Science Museum (South Kensington).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is yet in a position to make any announcement as to the commencement of new buildings for the Science Museum at South Kensington?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): No, Sir; but I hope it may be possible to do so shortly.

  University College School (London County Council Scholars).
  Mr. KINGasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the restriction in the number of London County Council scholars who are in future to be admitted to the University College School; and whether he is taking measures to ensure that this restriction of numbers will be balanced by more places being opened in other secondary schools of a high standing in London?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that it has been decided to admit no more scholars from public elementary schools to this school. The question of securing secondary school education elsewhere for any holders of London County Council scholarships thus displaced appears to be a matter primarily for the local education authority.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that the authorities of the University College School, Hampstead, have refused to accept any further scholars from the London County Council schools who have obtained scholarships; if the college in question receives any Grant from the Board of Education, and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I must refer the hon. Member to the answers I have already given to similar questions.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the latter part of the question?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have stated in the answer to which I have referred that it gets no Grant.

  Late Chief Inspector of Board of Education (Issue of Circular).
  Mr. W. R. PEELasked whether the President of the Board of Education is now able to state how it was that the late chief inspector's circular was sent round to the inspectors without his knowledge or consent; and whether he is prepared to recommend such changes in the organisation of business in his Department as would prevent the issue of important circulars on matters of policy without his previous consent?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have already explained that the confidential memorandum to which the hon. Member refers, was sent to inspectors in conformity with the practice of the Board to encourage a free and unrestrained interchange confidentially of opinions on educational subjects between their officers—a practice which I believe to be for the good of the Service. The fact that officers of the Board do not hold identical views on all educational matters should not, and I believe does not, prevent them from loyally promoting whatever may be, for the time being, the policy of the Board. The document was printed and distributed with the concurrence of the originating officer and the sanction of the Permanent Secretary. Matters of trivial importance, of which there are many thousands, are not brought individually to my notice; they are dealt with under general authority given to responsible officers, but the consent of the President is obtained for the issue of important circulars, conveying instructions or advice, committing the Board on matters of policy. The Memorandum in question did not convey instructions or advise or commit the Board on matters of policy. Now that the publishing of confidential documents abstracted from the office of the Board has received some public approval and encouragement, I am forced to face the possibility, although I hope not the probability, of a greater risk of such publications. A Memorandum which by publication might give rise to misconceptions of the policy of the Board assumes an importance which it would not bear when confined only to those to whom it is confidentially addressed, and who can rightly estimate its importance and meaning. Bather than run the risk of pain and offence being caused, or of misconceptions arising as to the policy of the Board, I am enlarging the categories of papers which are to have my express sanction.
  Mr. W. R. PEEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether the circular, when it was sent out, was accompanied by a covering letter; and, if so, who signed that letter?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir; the circular was not sent out accompanied by a covering letter, and, therefore, no covering letter was signed.
  Mr. W. R. PEEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman tell us that the question of what class of persons should be appointed to these posts or under local authorities, and whether they should be confined to graduates, is merely a small detail, and not a matter of importance?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No; the Board has given no advice or instructions on the appointment of inspectors to the local authorities, and no intention has ever been expressed by the Board of interfering in such matters. The individual opinion of the inspectors is a matter which I believe to be of less importance than the declaration of the policy of the Board itself.
  Mr. HOARE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why it was that he inserted in his answer that these matters were trivial and of no importance?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask any further questions on the answer I have given I think he had better wait to see it in print, and with that object I propose to circulate it with the votes.
  Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: Was this alleged confidential document circulated among more than one hundred people, and does the President of the Board of Education believe that a document circulated among so many persons can remain confidential.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: There is no difficulty in answering that question. The whole of the circulars sent to the Board inspectors have previously been regarded by them as confidential, and I have no reason to believe, because they happen to be one hundred in number, that they are less trustworthy in regard to confidential documents than any other officers of the Board.
  Mr. W. R. PEELasked on what date was it brought to the right hon. Gentleman's notice that the late chief inspector's circular had been issued; and what steps did he take to counteract the effect of this circular and to explain to the inspectors
  880
  that his own policy was diametrically opposed to that contained in the circular?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I first became aware early in February that the memorandum had been sent to inspectors. At that time my attention was called to the fact that a copy of the document had been seen by some persons not in the service of the Board. In reply to the second part of the question, I took whatever steps were in my power to prevent the further publication of the document, but publication in the widest possible way was given to it by an hon. Member opposite. As the inspectors had no reason to believe, and were not likely to believe, that I shared the views expressed by Mr. Holmes, no occasion arose for me to circularise them. The inspectors understood perfectly well that the document was not intended to be an exposition of the policy of the Board of Education. In view, however, of the misunderstanding created by the publication and the pain and offence caused thereby, I have, as I explained on Thursday night, recalled all existing copies of the document still in the hands of officers of the Board.
  Mr. HOARE: Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten that his private secretary had some correspondence about this document in the middle of January?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not forget that fact. I have stated when I first knew of the document, and I have nothing to add to that.
  Mr. HOARE: Was it in February or January?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: In the first sentence of my answer I said I first became aware of it early in February.
  Sir WILLIAM ANSON: May I ask whether the documents issued by the Chief Inspector are to be accepted by the subordinate staff as expressing his views, and not as expressing the opinions of the Board of Education?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: When a document is issued by the Board of Education to make a declaration of policy, that declaration is made quite clearly, and, as the policy of the Board of Education, can only be expressed by my authority.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: May I ask the right hon Gentleman whether he will consider the advisability of reverting to the former practice of his own Board, namely, of

  881
  issuing with the Code instructions to inspectors, thus making them public property?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think I ought to receive notice of that question, which does not arise out of the reply. My hon. Friend is, I think, referring to another practice altogether.
  Mr. HOAREasked whether Mr. Holmes' memorandum was issued to inspectors other than elementary school inspectors?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir; it was issued also to the Board's inspectors of secondary and technical schools.
  Mr. HOARE: Would the right hon. Gentleman inform me what is the number of inspectors to which the circular was issued first of all, and, secondly, why it was that in his speech on Wednesday he said that it was issued to the elementary school inspectors?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir. I have looked up the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I did not. I said it was addressed to the inspectors of the Board. As to any further question as to numbers, I must ask for notice.
  Mr. PEEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman still think it a wise thing to have confidential circulars issued to several hundreds of people?

  Talacre Roman Catholic School, Flintshire.
  Mr. CROFTasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the fact that the managers of the Talacre Roman Catholic school, Flintshire, gave notice on 9th May, 1910, under the Education Act, 1902, Section 8 (1); that this notice has been supported by the county council and the local education committee; that no decision has been come to by the Board of Education, and that therefore the school is still being maintained out of private funds; and whether, having regard to these facts, he will instruct the Board to provide Grants to the school in question?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part of the question, I understand that the local education authority support the proposal subject to certain modifications. With regard to the rest of the question, the Board are awaiting the reply of the promoters of the school to inquiries addressed to them as to the capacity of the school to comply
  882
  with the requirements of the Code under the trusts which affect it at present. A letter was received from the promoters last Saturday, but it is not yet clear what the precise position is.

  New Public Offices (Great George Street, Westminster).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the hon. Member for Southampton, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, when it is anticipated that the new public offices in Great George Street, Westminster, will be completed; and what Government Departments are to be housed therein?
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Dudley Ward): The First Commissioner of Works anticipates that these new public offices will be completed in about five years' time; he does not wish at this early stage to commit himself to the exact arrangements which will be made for the occupation of this building.
  Mr. LOUGH: Will these buildings go-any further into the park than the old buildings which stood there?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: There will be a slight rearrangement of the boundary, but the general effect will be to increase the area of the park.

  St. James's Park (Proposed New Bridge).
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the hon. Member for Southampton, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he could give an assurance that no alteration to the width of the bridge across the lake in St. James's Park is in contemplation?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked (1) whether the King Edward Memorial Committee have asked for sanction to their proposal to cut a new road across St. James's Park and to build a new bridge across the lake; and (2) whether, in view of the uneasiness caused by the proposal to cut a new road through St. James's Park, the assent of this House will be secured before any such scheme is agreed to?
  Captain MURRAYasked what steps it was proposed to take to prevent the suggested erection of a wide and unnecessary vehicular bridge in St. James's Park?
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked whether consent has been given to a proposal to make a new road and bridge in St. James's Park; and whether, in view of the

  883
  dissatisfaction caused by such an interference with the amenities of the park, he will afford the House an opportunity of discussing the matter before a final decision is taken?
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTSasked whether an opportunity will be given to this House to express its opinion on the alterations proposed to be made in St. James's Park?
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked if he will take steps to stop any further developments for the construction of a road across St. James's Park and the construction of a bridge solely for the convenience of persons driving; and if he will take steps to preserve the beauty of the park and its use as a resting place and playground for the poor, especially children?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: In the first place, I should like to point out that the statements which have appeared up to now on the subject of the memorial to King Edward were not authorised by the Committee appointed to deal with that matter, and are consequently liable to convey a wrong impression. It is evident that this is the case, for I observe that most of the questions suggest that it is proposed to make a new road and construct a broad bridge across the water in St. James's Park. I have the fullest authority for saying that no proposal to make a roadway and a bridge for vehicular traffic has ever been put forward, much less considered; and I can assure the hon. Members that the First Commissioner would not for a moment consent to such a scheme, which would be exceedingly detrimental to the amenities of the park. The suggestion of the Executive Committee is that a statue of King Edward VII. shall be placed on the south side of the Mall, immediately opposite Marlborough Gate; that such rearrangement of the formation of the ground as may be necessary for the surroundings of the statue shall be carried out; and that, in order to give a vista of the statue from the south side of the park in Birdcage Walk, a footpath shall be made which will be carried over the Lake on a stone bridge, which will only be of sufficient height to admit of the passage of boats beneath it, and will thus form a distinct improvement upon the present suspension bridge, which, however practicable for the purpose, can hardly be said to be otherwise than detrimental to the surrounding
  884
  scenery. This suggestion of the Executive Committee was considered by the General Committee at the Mansion House this morning; and after the misapprehension caused by the reports to which I have referred had been removed, it was adopted at a full meeting with only four dissentients. I am to say that the Department which I represent would welcome any discussion in this House upon the project, as it could not fail to remove the misapprehensions with which, at present, it appears to be surrounded.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: May I ask whether the hon. Member lays any particular stress upon the words "vehicular traffic," because even it a road were not made for that, does he not consider that a wide road and a broad bridge would equally destroy the amenities of the Park?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: Yes, Sir, I do lay stress on that, but I must tell the hon. Member there is no question of a broad road and a broad bridge. I think all this misapprehension arose from a picture which appeared in one of the picture papers, which gave a totally wrong impression of the project.
  Lord BALCARRES: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake that no steps shall be entered upon by the Department until plans have been submitted and an expression of opinion elicited in this House?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: Certainly, Sir.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: May I ask can the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking with regard to this matter as asked in Question No. 27 (put by Mr. Whitehouse) about the assent of the House?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: I believe, strictly speaking, that the assent of the House is not necessary for the work. That is strictly speaking, but I should say as I have already said in my answer that the First Commissioner would welcome any discussion, and would, of course, be influenced by any general expressed desire on the part of the House.
  Mr. LOUGH: Does not this House find the money which is expended on the parks, and has it not the right to be heard? Can my hon. Friend say when we will have the opportunity of discussing this?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: I am not, of course, in a position to say when the House will have this opportunity. The House

  885
  finds the money for the parks, but it does not find the money for this particular work.
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: Can we have the salary of the First Commissioner of Works put down as early as possible, so that we may discuss the matter?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: I cannot give any undertaking as to that, but as I have already said, the First Commissioner will welcome discussion.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask whether the proposal involves the destruction of the present bridge; and also whether he can see his way, for the convenience and satisfaction of Members, to have the full detailed plans exhibited somewhere in the House, so that we may all judge for ourselves?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: Yes, Sir; the present proposal is to do away with the suspension bridge. Of course, before the work is undertaken, or before the plans are passed they will be exhibited in this House.

  Rosyth Works (Working Conditions).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the decision of the War Department to fix upon the Edinburgh wages and working conditions as applicable to their works near the Firth of Forth; and whether he proposes to follow a similar course with reference to the works at Rosyth?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I am aware of the decision of the War Department regarding payment of Edinburgh rates of wages at Bedford, which is about four miles from Edinburgh. With regard to the works at Rosyth, which is fifteen miles from Edinburgh on the opposite side of the Firth of Forth, there are already recognised trade rates at Dunfermline, which is three miles from Rosyth, and within the area of which Burgh it is proposed to include Rosyth. The Board of Admiralty are of opinion that under the Fair Wages Resolution the Dunfermline rates, and not the Edinburgh rates, should be the determining standard so far as Rosyth is concerned.
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Lord Advocate whether he can state the number of cases of accident and sickness of workmen employed upon the new dock works at Rosyth dealt with by the local Poor Law
  886
  authority in their workhouse infirmary since the commencement of the works; what has been the total estimated cost to the ratepayers of dealing with these cases; and what special grant, it any, has been contributed by either the Admiralty or the contractors to the local Poor Law authority towards the cost of the same?
  Mr. URE: The cases of accident, mostly slight, which have been sent by Inverkeithing parish council to the Dunfermline Poorhouse Hospital have been twenty-four, and the cases of sickness fifty-three. The estimated cost of these to the ratepayers has been £90; nothing has been contributed by the Admiralty or by the contractors.

  German Navy Law.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked whether the 1908 amendment to the German Navy Law would increase the number of German battleships?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: As explained by my right hon. Friend the First Lord in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Northamptonshire East, on Monday last, the Fleet Law of 1908 did not alter the nominal total numbers, inasmuch as it shortened the period after which battleships were to be replaced from twenty-five to twenty years, thus making the period the same as for cruisers. The result of this was to increase the number of large armoured ships laid down each year during the period 1908–1911 from three to four, thereby enabling four battleships of 4,034 tons to be replaced four years earlier than would otherwise have been the case.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Is the House to understand that the First Lord's statement was incorrect?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly not.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Not if he stated that there were four ships added?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The First Lord does not make that suggestion. The fact is that in the execution of the programme it is possible that a new battleship may come into commission before the age-limit of the ship which she will replace has been reached. Therefore, temporarily, there may be an overlapping, and the First Lord was perfectly accurate in saying that there might be an increase in the number of battleships. I hope I have made the point quite clear now.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: The hon. Gentle-man is evidently not aware that the First Lord told me, on the 13th instant., that he made a mistake.
  Lord C. BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the official statement that the German Navy Law of 1900, when complete, meant a navy of thirty-three capital ships, including "Dreadnoughts" and cruisers, as well as pre-"Dreadnoughts," he would lay a Paper showing how the discrepancy had arisen between this estimate and the German Navy Law of 1900, with amendments of 1906 and 1908, which, when complete, showed a navy of fifty-eight capital ships, including "Dreadnoughts" and cruisers, as well as pre-"Dreadnoughts"?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: In the statement to which the Noble Lord refers the number thirty-three relates to "Dreadnoughts" and "Dreadnought" cruisers only; and in order to make up the total to fifty-eight armoured ships, the Noble Lord must add to the thirty-three "Dreadnoughts" and "Dreadnought" cruisers sixteen pre-"Dreadnought" battleships and nine pre-"Dreadnought" armoured cruisers. This number of twenty-five pre-"Dreadnoughts" was covered by the words in the statement "as well as pre-'Dreadnoughts,'" the phrase "as well as" meaning "in addition to."
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Will the First Lord lay any papers, because there is great resentment in Germany owing to the inaccurate statement about the German Navy?

  H.M.S. "Defence."
  Lord C. BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the full complement of His Majesty's ship "Defence"; what complement she commissioned with; whether any men had deserted from the ship since commissioning; and whether a state of discontent existed on board this ship?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Information as to the complements of His Majesty's ships is confidential and cannot be given. The "Defence" commissioned with practically a full crew, except for a few deficiencies due to cases of sickness in the crew turning over to her. One man and one boy have deserted from the "Defence" since she commissioned. In reply to the last part of the question, full inquiry has been made, and I am able to give an emphatic denial to any such suggestion. The
  888
  "Defence" has been inspected within the last few days by the Rear-Admiral of the First Division of the Home Fleet, who reports that the ship is in excellent order.
  Earl WINTERTON: Is there any question of refusing information as to the complements of ships?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The information is confidential, and cannot be given.

  H.M.S. "Hermione" (Admission to Entertainment Refused to Sailors in Uniform).
  Mr. SANDYSasked who were the persons responsible for the entertainment at Barrow-In-Furness Town Hall on St. Patrick's Day, to which men from His Majesty's ship "Hermione" were refused admission because they were in uniform?
  Mr. MacNEILL: Before the hon. Gentleman replies, is he aware that the entertainment referred to was held under the auspices of the United Irish League and kindred associations, and was part of an Irish Nationalist demonstration, at which political speeches were delivered; that admission was limited to Irish Nationalists and persons in well-known sympathy with Irish aspirations; and that the sailors were refused admission because the hall was full, and after well-known Irish Nationalists had been refused admission for want of room?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am generally aware of that, because I heard the hon. Member say so last week. As to the question on the Paper, I understand that the entertainment was given by the local branch of the United Irish League of Great Britain. My right hon. Friend the First Lord stated on Thursday last that there is a conflict of evidence as to the reason for which admission was refused to men from His Majesty's ship "Hermione."
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: Has the hon. Gentleman yet received a report from the police of the district?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Are not soldiers and sailors in uniform habitually excluded from hotels, restaurants, and theatres in this country, and even from the gallery of this House?

  Royal Dockyards (Leather-Hose Makers).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he was aware that for many years the mechanics in the Royal dockyards

  889
  who had served an apprenticeship to the hand-sewn boot and shoe trade were classed as skilled labourers and paid as such; that in 1908 the Admiralty made them a minor trade, and classed them as leather-hose makers; that since that date the maximum rate for skilled labourers had been raised to 30s. a week, leaving the leather-hose makers no longer classed as skilled labourers, at the old rates of pay, namely, 26s. 6d. for established men and 28s. for hired men; and whether, seeing that the hose-makers' trade was ever widening and becoming more difficult, he would consider the advisability of granting a trade rate of pay of 30s for established men and 31s. 6d. for hired men?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The reply to the first, second, and third parts of the question is in the affirmative, but a few of the leather-hose makers are allowed the same maximum rates as skilled labourers—namely, 30s. a week. The rate of wages of the class in question is now again under consideration in connection with the annual petitions.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: When will the decision be announced?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say, but there will be no undue delay.

  Birkenhead Waterworks (Housing of Navvies).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he had received any communication from the Denbigh County Council with reference to the housing of the navvies employed upon the Birkenhead Waterworks at Alwyn Valley; and, if so, could he state the nature of the same?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I have received a communication from the Clerk to the Denbighshire County Council in which he states that, at the meeting of the Birkenhead Waterworks Committee of the Denbighshire County Council held at Wrexham on the 23rd instant, the county main roads surveyor reported that the contractors have at present thirty-five men on their books, that seventeen of them are staying in the contractors' huts, and the remainder living in neighbouring farms, that the present accommodation is for twenty-two men, and that the contractors informed him that this accommodation will he doubled by the end of the month. He
  890
  adds that the special committee and the county council will sec that the obligation imposed upon the Birkenhead Corporation by Sub-section (15) of Section 28 of the Birkenhead Corporation Water Act, 1907, is complied with.

  Vaccination (Conscientious Objectors).
  Mr. POINTERasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he was aware that it was stated in the Report of the Medical Officer of the Local Government Board for the year 1908 that in the counties of Bedford, Northampton, and Leicester the declarations of conscientious objection to vaccination made under the Act of 1907 had exceeded 50 per cent. of the births; and would he say whether any cases of smallpox had been recorded in those counties during the present year?
  Mr. BURNS: I am aware of the statement referred to. With regard to my hon. Friend's second question I may say that there have been no cases of small-pox this year in forty-six out of the fifty-five registration counties. These forty-six include the three counties mentioned.

  Housing and Town Planning, Act (Appeal Tribunal).
  Mr. CASSELasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he had invited the local authorities to express any opinion on the question as to whether or not they were in favour of appeals against orders under Part I. of the Housing, Town-Planing, etc., Act, 1909, being made to a judicial tribunal in substitution for the Local Government Board; and whether he was aware that several London borough councils had spontaneously made representations in favour of appeals against orders under Part I. of the Housing, Town-Planning, etc., Act, being made to a judicial tribunal?
  Mr. BURNS: I have not invited any expression of opinion from local authorities on the question referred to by the hon. Member, nor do I consider it necessary to do so. I am aware that several London borough councils have made representations to the effect mentioned, but I should prefer not to commit myself to the acceptance in its fullest sense of the word "spontaneously." I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 1st March last to a question on this subject put by the hon. Member for Hammersmith.
  Mr. CASSELasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he was prepared to initiate or support legislation to amend the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909, by providing that appeals under Part I. of the Act should be to a properly constituted legal tribunal bound to deal with the appeal in a judicial manner?
  Mr. BURNS: I am not prepared to initiate or support legislation for altering the tribunal, nor am I satisfied that there is any general demand for such alteration. The matter was fully discussed in Parliament in connection with the Act of 1909, and, as I have previously stated, there does not seem to be any good reason for altering the Act in this matter.

  Local Government Board (Appeal Procedure).
  Mr. CASSELasked whether the Camberwell Borough Council, who had made closing orders that were recently the subject of appeal to the Board, was among the authorities that have expressed dissatisfaction with the appeal procedure of the Board?
  Mr. BURNS: I am not aware that the Camberwell Borough Council have passed any resolution in favour of the substitution of a judicial tribunal for the Local Government Board as the appeal tribunal, although they have expressed some dissatisfaction with the method of procedure adopted under Section 17 of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: If the dissatisfaction of local authorities is brought to his notice, will the right hon. Gentleman give full weight to it and consider an alteration of the law?
  Mr. BURNS: Most certainly; but of the thirty-two local authorities which have already made representations, not one has had any experience under the Act.
  Mr. CASSEL: Has not the Camberwell Borough Council had experience?
  Mr. BURNS: Yes, but not on this particular point. Their representation was as to the cost of the appeal.
  Mr. CASSELasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the inspector nominated by the Board to preside at a local public inquiry for the hearing of an appeal was required to have any, and, if so, what legal or other qualifications; whether the Board claimed that the inspector's
  892
  report was a confidential commuication to itself, and that an appellant was not entitled to know its contents; and whether, after a local public inquiry had been held and the inspector had reported, the Board held itself free to make any order it thought fit, so that, if it pleased it could ignore the inspector's report?
  Mr. BURNS: The inspectors of the Local Government Board who hold local inquiries in regard to appeals to the Board against closing and demolition orders are specially qualified to deal with the questions raised at such inquiries, and were specially selected by me on account of their qualifications. They have had ample experience in connection with building construction, and it devolves upon them, when holding an inquiry, to make a careful inspection of the premises in regard to which the appeal is made. The reports made to the Board by their inspectors are regarded as confidential documents. The appeal is made to the Board, and the Board decide it after carefully considering the whole of the facts before them.

  Boards of Guardians (Support of Children Over-seas).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he would consider the possibility of so amending the Poor Law as to make it legal for boards of guardians to contribute to the support of children now chargeable to the State, and classed as orphans or deserted, in the British possessions over-seas?
  Mr. BURNS: I should doubt the expediency of amending the law in the direction indicated by the hon. Member.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it the right hon. Gentleman's view that the Poor Law does prevent boards of guardians from making such payments?
  Mr. BURNS: The Poor Law enables boards of guardians to spend money from the moment a child is adopted until it is thirteen or fourteen years of age, when the child is emigrated to any of the colonies. If the hon. Gentleman asks me, I think it is inexpedient that the contribution should go overseas.

  Measles Epidemic (London).
  Mr. DAWESasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the serious epidemic of measles prevailing at present, and the consequent mortality among London school children, he

  893
  will consider taking the necessary steps to make measles a notifiable disease?
  Mr. BURNS: I am at present considering what further steps can be taken to deal with this serious outbreak, and the question of making measles a notifiable disease will have my attention.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his inquiry, see whether one of the staff of the public health side of the Local Government Board could be used in the inquiries into the particular districts where the mortality is highest, so that we may know what the social and housing conditions are?
  Mr. BURNS: I am very pleased to say that that particular point has been dealt with at the several conferences that have taken place during the last few weeks between the officers of the County Council, the Education Department, and the officers of the Local Government Board.

  Limerick Borough Council (Housing Scheme).
  Mr. JOYCEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Irish Local Government Board have sanctioned the second portion of the housing scheme of the Limerick Borough Council; and whether, this being so, the Treasury will grant the second portion of the loan, so that this work may be proceeded with at once in the interests of the health of the people?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The Treasury have sanctioned the additional loan of £3,000, making, with the loan recently sanctioned, £4,700.

  Civil Service Estimates (Unclaimed Amounts).
  Mr. FALLEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if the numerous amounts mentioned in the Civil Service Estimates for the coming year as unclaimed are regarded as being forfeited to the Crown, or if any effort is made to find the legal representatives of those Civil servants to whom these moneys are due?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: If the pension of a Civil servant remains undrawn for a year the Paymaster-General addresses a communication to the pensioner, and in case of death this enables his legal representatives to apply for any balance of the pension which may be due to the estate. If a
  894
  pension is unclaimed for two whole years it is removed from the Estimates; but it may be restored if the circumstances-justify such a course. The amounts to which the hon. Member alludes are not the actual amounts due, but the annual rates of pensions which are reported to Parliament as no longer required.

  Retired Naval and Military Officers (Taxation).
  Mr. KERR-SMILEYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, whether, in view of the admitted shortage of officers and the contrast that is caused by naval and military service placing retired officers under taxation in any new offices or employment compared with gentlemen who, by reason of their not having served in the Army or Navy, are immune from such taxation and enjoy the full salary of any such employment, His Majesty's Government will take steps to remove this burden and place them on an equality with other persons in respect to their ability to earn a full wage without deductions in any new work after leaving naval or military service?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Superannuation Act of 1887 provides that an abatement shall be made from the salary of any officer in receipt of non-effective pay for naval or military service who is re-employed in a civil capacity. I see no sufficient reason for making any alteration in this provision, the principle of which was fully considered at the time.
  Mr. KERR-SMILEYasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state how many retired officers of the Army or Navy who have received gratuities, or who are in receipt of pensions, are now serving under different Departments of State and drawing salaries from the funds of such Departments; how many of these officers have the pay of their existing employment reduced by the Treasury orders directing taxation of their pay, and what is the aggregate amount produced by such taxation; and whether, in the case of officers whose pay is derived from a declared public fund, the whole or part of any taxation is refunded to the rates from which the revenue of the fund is-wholly or partly obtained?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The information desired by the hon. Member will be found in the Return annually presented to Parliament under Section 6 of the Superannuation Act, 1887, of which the latest is H.C. No. 264 of 1910. There is no question of a

  895
  refund. The civil salary is issued to the officer at the amount at which it is fixed after the abatement required under the statutory rules.

  Licence Duty Assessment.
  Captain WARINGasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the method of assessing Licence Duty on the basis of alcoholic trade done has the approval of the licensed trade in Scotland as the fairest way of raising the money required; and whether, in view of the fact that the licensing law in Scotland has always differed from that which obtains in England, he will consider the advisability of adopting a different system of assessment in the present case?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not prepared to propose any changes in the principles of assessment to Licence Duty until he has been able to consider the results of the revaluation now being carried out in accordance with Sub-section (2) of Section 44 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910. With regard to the second part of the question, I am not quite sure whether the hon. and gallant Member refers to the law regulating the grant of licences by justices or to the law regulating the Excise duties; but, assuming that the reference is to the Excise law, I may remind him that the duties payable upon licences for public-houses in England and Scotland have been uniform, at all events since 1825, and it is only with regard to the off-licences, formerly granted to grocers in Scotland, that there has been a difference. One of the main objects of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, was, as far as possible, to introduce uniformity in licensing taxation throughout the United Kingdom, and I do not think that a reversal of this policy can be adopted.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that the proposal in the question is approved not only by the temperance bodies, but by a large body of public opinion in Scotland, more especially in relation to the clubs?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes. I understand that is the view held by my right hon. Friend, but I do not think I can add anything to the answer I have already given.
  Mr. AINSWORTH: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered that the new system
  896
  virtually proposed in the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman would enable the authority immediately to get at the difference between a licensed and any non-licensed house; is he also aware that a deputation of the licensed traders of Scot land, at their interview a fortnight ago, were able to inform his right hon. colleague that the whole of the licensed trading and public opinion in Scotland was in favour——
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a long question; it had better be put down.
  Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with Scotland alone, or will he, in this particular matter, deal with the United Kingdom as a whole?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I cannot tell: I cannot anticipate the statement which will be made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Land Valuation (Form IV.)
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether his attention has been drawn to the omission from Form IV., as now being issued in Ireland, of question (i) in the corresponding form in use in this country, the sum for which the property is worth to be let to a yearly tenant; and whether, in the case of holdings on which a judicial rent has not been fixed, he can say what information is possessed by the Tenement Valuation Office which would enable them to arrive at such letting value without first ascertaining the value placed on the same by the owner as laid down in the said question (i); and (2) whether his attention has been drawn to the omission from Form IV., as now being issued in Ireland, of question (h) in the corresponding form in use in this country; if the land is let by person making return state whether let under lease or agreement, term for which lease is granted, commencement of term, and consideration in money in addition to rent reserved; and whether he will state in the case of non-judicial holdings the records that may exist in the Record of Title Office from which the necessary information can be obtained?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: In a small proportion of the few cases in Ireland where a judicial rent has not been fixed and the land has not been sold under the Purchase Acts it may be necessary to get some further particulars not asked for in Form IV. In drafting the Irish Form the aim of the Commissioner of Valuation was to give the

  897
  least possible amount of trouble to the owners of land consistently with getting the particulars necessary to enable him to make the Valuation required by the 1909–10 Finance Act. The information available in the Valuation and other Government offices goes to show that additional particulars, such as those referred to, need only be asked for in a very small proportion of cases; it was not, therefore, considered advisable to require all owners of property to give them.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Was not the giving of the least possible amount of trouble to owners of land a consideration in the issue of Form IV. in England?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes, I think so.

  Distillation of Wood Industry.
  Mr. WEBBasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in addition to the establishment of Government works in the Forest of Dean for the distillation of wood and the manufacture of acetate of lime, he had considered the advisability of acquiring the various existing private concerns which are carrying on this industry ill England, Wales, and Scotland, which undertakings are in a depressed condition owing to fluctuations of prices and other causes; and whether he would consider the advisability of carrying these concerns on as a Government monopoly?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I do not think the suggestion made in the last part of the question would be a practical one.

  Great Britain and Ireland (Financial Relations).
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the Prime Minister whether he can now give the names of the financial experts and other well-qualified persons, including in the number representatives of different elections of Irish opinion who have been taken into consultation by the Cabinet in connection with the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): No, Sir, I am not at present in a position to make any announcement.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: When may we hope to have this announcement?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Before long.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Are we likely to have some announcement on the subject, and
  898
  as to the result of the inquiry, before the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduces his next Budget?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That I cannot say.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Why, then, is an announcement publicly made by the responsible Minister for Ireland if it was intended to keep this inquiry shrouded in mystery?
  The PRIME MINISTER: There is no mystery of any kind whatever about it. It is an inquiry now being conducted by the Government for their own guidance and information.

  Plural Voting Bill.
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister, whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Plural Voting Bill this Session; and, if so, whether he will introduce it before the Coronation Recess?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot at present make any statement on this subject.

  Examination of Estimates.
  Mr. WILLIAM PEELasked the Prime Minister whether, after consultation with the Secretary of State for War, he has decided to set up a Select Committee for the examination of Army Estimates, suggested by the Motion of the hon. Member for West Aberdeen discussed in the House of Commons on the 14th March instant?
  The PRIME MINISTER: This matter is still under the consideration of the Government, not in regard to Army Estimates only, but to Estimates in general.

  Army and Navy Services.
  Sir HENRY DALZIELasked the Prime Minister what will be the total number of Parliamentary days devoted this Session to the discussion of the combined Army and Navy Services, after taking into account the days already given and the days to which the Government are pledged, including both allotted and unallotted days?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Including the joint discussion on 13th March six days have been devoted to the discussion of the Army and Navy Services. Three of these were allotted days. Two unallotted days have been promised—one to each Service—and also an allotted day for the salary of the First Lord of the Admiralty. But how many of the remaining allotted

  899
  days will be set aside for the discussion of Army and Navy Votes will be determined through the usual channels in the course of the Session.
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the time already given, and the time promised, consider whether it would not be inadvisable to set aside further days, in order that other departments of administration can be properly discussed?
  The PRIME MINISTER: We will endeavour to observe a due balance.

  Imperial Conference.
  Colonel YATEasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of inviting persons with present or very recent knowledge of the administration of India in India itself, of its commercial and industrial problems, and of its military and naval requirements as part of the scheme of Imperial Defence, to represent India at the forthcoming Imperial Conference?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Under the terms of the Resolution adopted at the last Conference, only Ministers of the Crown can be members of the Conference.

  Asylums Officers Superannuation Act, 1909.
  Viscount WOLMERasked the President of the Local Government Board what was the total amount contributed by asylum officers in England and Wales last year under the provisions concerning pensions of the Asylums Officers Superannuation Act, 1909; and what was the total number of officers who so contributed?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The Act has not been in operation for a complete year and the collection of the information desired would cause much trouble and considerable expense.
  Viscount WOLMERasked the Lord Advocate what was the total amount contributed by asylum officers in Scotland last year under the provisions concerning pensions of the Asylums Officers Superannuation Act, 1909; and what was the total number of asylum officers who so contributed?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): I am unable to state the total amount contributed
  900
  by district asylum officers and servants in Scotland last year under the provision of the Asylums Officers Superannuation Act, 1909, without obtaining a special return on the subject, but the amount of such contributions during the month of December last was £205. This may be taken as a fair measure of their contributions from 15th May, when the Act came into operation; and the total amount therefore is probably about £1,450. The total number of asylum officers and servants who were contributing at 15th December last was 1,110.

  Income Tax Abatements (Banks and their Employés).
  Mr. LEWIS HASLAMasked if the directors of certain banks where it has been the constant custom for many years to pay the Income Tax of their employés, and also hitherto to allow to their employés any abatements of Income Tax due to them, are retaining for the benefit of such banks the abatements due to employés who have children under sixteen years of age; and will he introduce legislation, if necessary, so that employés shall receive the benefit of the abatements referred to?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have had my attention drawn to cases of the kind referred to by the hon. Member. It is clearly contrary to the intention of the Government in allowing the abatement for children under sixteen years of age that this relief should go to benefit the employer instead of the employé on whose behalf it was granted. I may, however, add that the root of the mischief appears to me to lie in the growing practice under which Income Tax is borne and paid by persons other than those legally chargeable with the tax, a practice which is directly contrary to the Income Tax Acts.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. LUNDONasked whether the English Local Government Board has sanctioned the claims for pensions of applicants who, according to the Auditor-General and Comptroller, surrendered holdings of from forty to fifty acres of land in order to secure pensions; and, if such cases were sanctioned by the Board, why is Section 4 (3) allowed to prevent people in Ireland who only surrender fifteen acres, and that according to the old custom of the country, from obtaining a pension, especially when it is stated that the Law is the same in all parts of the

  901
  United Kingdom and when the same instructions are given to all those officers who are entrusted with carrying it out?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have no authority to call in question the correctness of the decisions given by the Pension Authorities in the cases referred to, or to discuss the principles adopted by the Local Government Boards in applying the provisions of Section 4 (3) of the Old Age Pensions Act. As regards pension officers, I have nothing to add to my answers to the hon. Member on the 23rd instant, and the hon. Member for Mid Tipperary on the 20th instant.
  Mr. LUNDON: How is it that in this country people of forty or fifty acres of land are eligible, while in Ireland people with plots of 13, 14, or 15 acres are not eligible?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: There is no difference in the administration of the Act.
  Mr. JOYCE: You somehow manage to administer it here differently.

  Canals (Royal Commission).
  Mr. BRUNNERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government intend to take any action during the present Session of Parliament with the object of giving effect to the recommendations made in the Majority Report of the Royal Commission on Canals; and, if so, what measures the Government propose to adopt?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I cannot hold out any hope of legislation on this subject during the present Session.

  London and North-Western Railway (Rest for Engine-Drivers).
  Mr. WARDLEasked the President, whether his attention has been called to the insufficient lodging accommodation provided at Stockport, London and North-Western Railway, for the purpose of rest for engine-drivers and others; and whether, in view of the importance of adequate rest being provided, he will take steps to insure that sufficient accommodation is available?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have communicated with the railway company on this matter. I have received a reply, of which I am forwarding my hon. Friend a copy.

  Board of Trade Confidential Documents.
  Viscount WOLMERasked whether, among the statements marked confidential information, not for publication, recently issued by the Board of Trade to traders, were included an extract from "The Natal Agricultural Journal," a paragraph from the Paris Directory, a statement in "The Novoe Vremya," and an item from the "Brazilian Diario Official," and, if so, what was the reason for insisting that these statements should be regarded as confidential?
  Mr. BUXTON: Such of the circulars apparently alluded to in the question which were marked "Confidential" were so marked because some of the information (though not necessarily all) was of a confidential character or consequential on earlier communications giving information of this character.

  Mercantile Marine Offices (Sunday Duty).
  Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the outdoor and transmission staff in the mercantile marine offices are frequently required to discharge onerous and difficult work on Sunday in connection with the payment off of merchant vessels, so as to secure that seamen discharging on Sunday shall go direct to their homes and not fall into the hands of undesirable persons; that the outdoor and transmission staffs receive no Sunday pay for such Sunday work which they are compelled to undertake; that other established civil servants of a similar grade are in receipt of Sunday pay for Sunday work; and whether he will take steps forthwith to secure that, so far as it may be necessary to employ the outdoor and transmission staffs on Sunday, they shall receive proper payment for such Sunday work.
  Mr. BUXTON: Out-door and transmission officers attached to Mercantile Marine Officers are, and always have been, required to discharge duties on Sundays when necessary, but I have for some time had under consideration the whole question of week-day and Sunday duties, and the remuneration of these officers.

  Labour Exchanges (Colonies).
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether any employers in the Dominions Over-sea have made application to the Labour Exchanges for labour; whether he

  903
  is aware that in certain cases labour has been supplied to Canadian employers through the Labour Exchanges; who paid the expenses of these men; and has any correspondence on the subject passed between the Labour Exchanges Department of the Board of Trade and the Assistant Commissioner of Canadian Immigration in London; and, if so, will he lay the same upon the Table of the House?
  Mr. BUXTON: Various applications have been received from employers in the Over-seas Dominions for labour, and some of these have been filled after consultation with the representatives in London of the Dominion concerned. The expenses of these men have, so far as is known, been paid either by the employers or by the men themselves. In no case have expenses been advanced by the Labour Exchanges. The Board of Trade have received a communication from the Canadian Assistant Superintendent of Emigration in London with reference to a particular case, which is now under consideration.
  Sir GILBERT PARKERasked whether the funds provided for the Labour Exchanges will be employed in assisting out-of-work labourers in this country to emigrate?
  Mr. BUXTON: Pending the discussion at the Imperial Conference, I cannot add to my former answers on this subject.
  Earl WINTERTON: Will the report be published and papers laid if they come to a decision?
  Mr. BUXTON: I cannot say until the information is obtained.

  Railway Accidents (Rule 55).
  Mr. JAMES THOMASasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that several railway companies have recently issued notices to their servants, threatening punishment if Rule 55 is not observed; whether he is aware that this rule is causing alarm amongst railway servants affected, owing to the many and varied circumstances which render it dangerous, and in some cases impossible, to carry out; and whether, having regard to the public importance of this matter, he will consider the advisability of appointing a committee to consider the recent railway accidents with a view to the adoption of some standard mechanical appliance
  904
  that would tend to minimise the risk of accidents and also meet the object of Rule 55?
  Mr. BUXTON: As I informed my hon. Friend in reply to a previous question the whole matter is receiving my careful consideration, but I have not yet received all the reports of the Inspecting Officers on recent accidents in which the observance of the rule is involved.

  Port of London (Casual Employment).
  Earl WINTERTONasked whether the Port Authority, in accordance with Clause 28, Section (1), of the Port of London Act, 1908, and in consideration of the existing methods and conditions of engagement of workmen employed in connection with the Port of London, had yet taken any steps to diminish the evils of casual employment and to promote the more convenient and regular engagement of such workmen, in the manner laid down in the Clause and Section referred to; and whether he could state the results achieved?
  Mr. BUXTON: I understand that this matter has been engaging the careful attention of the Port of London Authority, and they are now in communication with the Board of Trade on the subject.

  Duty Free Articles.
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked how many and what are the headings in the official import list of articles of food and drink at present imported free of duty which would be taxed if a duty were placed on all imports of foreign food?
  Mr. BUXTON: There are 139 such headings, of which I will have a complete list printed in the Votes.

  Stafford Assizes.
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Attorney-General whether he has been consulted upon the proposal to send one judge of the King's Bench Division in future to hold the summer and winter assizes at Stafford in place of the usual practice of two judges, one for civil and one for criminal causes; whether he is aware that the county of Stafford is the most populous county in the Oxford circuit, and produces the largest amount of business, both civil and criminal, and the judges have usually to obtain the assistance of a commissioner; and, under these circumstances, whether this course, which will cause inconvenience

  905
  to the people in the county of Stafford, will be abandoned?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I am informed that my hon. Friend's statement of fact that the county of Stafford is the most populous county on the Oxford Circuit, and produces the largest amount of business, both civil and criminal, and that sometimes the judges have to obtain the assistance of a commissioner is substantially correct. I have not been consulted with reference to the suggestion in question, which is under consideration as part of a scheme for improving the arrangements of judges on circuit, with a view to the saving of time. No decision has been arrived at, and, further, no such change will be adopted without full opportunity being given of consulting all parties interested, and of discussion in this House, as I have said in answer to previous questions.

  Elections (Hired Motors).
  Mr. CROFTasked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to the case of corrupt practices revealed in the county court case at Manchester on Tuesday, 14th March, in which it transpired that motor cars were hired to convey Radical voters to the poll in various constituencies in the names of fictitious lenders; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: In consequence of the newspaper reports to which the hon. Member has called my attention I am making further inquiry into the facts, which are not fully reported.
  Mr. CROFT: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman consult the Gladstone League?

  Election Riots in Ireland (Bantry Prosecutions).
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have given him private notice: Whether he will enable us to draw attention to the circumstances of the prosecution of seventeen young men for political riot in Bantry who have just been sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour; and the necessity for an immediate public inquiry into the administration of justice in Ireland as between one section of Nationalists and the other; whether he will do so by taking the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill at an early hour tonight or by adjourning it until to-morrow?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Prime Minister asks me to answer. With regard to this question I have no knowledge whatever, and have received none of any special circumstances connected with this trial at Ban-try, and I am not in a position to say anything about it. If the facts are as the hon. Gentleman assumes, he had better put a question on the Paper to-morrow, and I will answer it. At present I have no information whatever.
  Mr. O'BRIEN: It is not a question of answering, but of debate; and may I ask what possibility there can be of debate upon this question upon any other occasion except to-night, considering that, under the Prime Minister's Motion of to-day, no opportunity for moving the Adjournment of the House will be given?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Obviously there can be no Debate, so far as I am concerned, until I am in a position to know the facts of the case.
  Mr. O'BRIEN: When will that be, and what occasion does the right hon. Gentleman suggest there will be on which the House can discuss this exceedingly urgent question?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The adjournment for the holidays.
  NEW MEMBER SWORN,—William Joynson-Hicks, esquire, for County of Middlesex (Brentford Division).

BILLS PRESENTED.
  ANGLING ASSOCIATIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To facilitate and regulate the enjoyment of angling in inland waters in Scotland," presented by Mr. BEALE; supported by Mr. Munro-Ferguson, Major M'Micking, Sir Walter Menzies, Mr. Eugene Wason, and Mr. Younger; to be read a second time upon Friday, 21st April.
  SEAFARING MEN'S VOTING BILL.
  "To enable sailors, fishermen, and others to vote at Parliamentary Elections," presented by Sir GEORGE DOUGHTY; supported by Lord Charles Beresford, Sir Reginald Pole-Carew, Sir Thomas Es-monde, Sir Henry Seymour King, Sir Gilbert Parker, Mr. Pirie, Mr. Harmood-Banner, and Mr. Fell; to be read a second time upon Friday, 7th April.
REVENUE BILL.

  ALLOCATION OF TIME.—PRIME MINISTER'S MOTION.
  The PRIME MINISTERmoved: —
  That the proceedings on the Committee stage, Report stage, and Third Heading of the Revenue Bill shall, unless previously disposed of, be proceeded with and brought to a conclusion at the time and in the manner hereinafter mentioned.
  The Committee stage shall, if not previously disposed of, be proceeded with on Tuesday the 28th day of March, and brought to a conclusion at 11 p.m. on that day; on the conclusion of the proceedings the Chairman shall immediately report the Bill to the House, without Question put.
  The Report stage of the Bill shall, if not previously disposed of, be proceeded with on Wednesday the 29th day of March, and the proceedings on that stage shall be as shown in the first column of the table annexed to this Order, and shall be brought to a conclusion at the times shown in the second column of that table.
  As soon as the proceedings on the Report stage of the Bill have been brought to a conclusion, if it be then 11.30 p.m. or later, and if not, then at 11.30 p.m., the proceedings on the Third Reading of the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion.
  For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed under this order, and have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall, at the time appointed under this Order for the conclusion of those proceedings, put forthwith the Question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules moved by the Government of which notice has been given, but no other Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules, and on any Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and in the case of Government Amendments or Government new Clauses or Schedules, he shall only put the Question that the Amendment be made or that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill, as the case may be.
  Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 8.15 on any day in which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order shall, on that day, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Order, "Time for taking Private Business," be taken after the conclusion of the proceedings to which
  908
  this Order relates for that day, and any Private Business so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  On any day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, proceedings for that purpose under this Order shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.
  On any day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor Motion to re-commit the Bill, nor Motion to postpone a Clause, nor Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order 10, nor Motion that the Chairman do report Progress or do leave the Chair, shall be received unless moved by the Government, and the Question on such Motion shall be put forthwith without any debate.
  Nothing in this Order shall—

  (a) prevent any proceedings which under this Order are to be concluded on any particular day being concluded on any other day, or necessitate any particular day or part of a particular day being given to such proceedings if those proceedings have been otherwise disposed of; or

  (b) prevent any other business being proceeded with on any particular day or part of a particular day, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House after any proceedings to be concluded under this Order on that particular day, or part of a particular day, have been disposed of.

  This Order shall have effect notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 71, and notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between the stages of any Bill imposing taxation.

  Table.

  Report Stage.

  Proceedings to be brought to a Conclusion if not previously disposed of.

  Time for Proceedings to be brought to a Conclusion.

  New Clauses and Clause 1

  5 p.m.

  Clauses 2 and 3

  6.30 p.m.

  Clauses 4, 5, and 6

  8.30 p.m.

  Clauses 7, 8, and 9

  9.30 p.m.

  Remaining Clauses, Schedules, and any Questions or Proceedings necessary to dispose of the Report Stage

  11.30 p.m.

  I very much regret that it has not been found possible to arrive at an arrangement which would have obviated the necessity for the Motion which I am about to make, and which would have saved time about to be spent in its consideration, for further discussion of the Revenue Bill. But such an arrangement having been found impracticable, I think in a very few minutes I shall be able to satisfy the House that a Motion such as I am going to submit is not only urgent but irresistible. The Budget for the current financial year 1910–11 was, as Budgets go, of a singularly unambitious character. It proposed no new taxation at all, and its taxing provisions were confined to proposals to continue for another year the existing rates of the Tea Duty and the Income Tax, and also to make provision for the Sinking Fund. There was annexed to these taxing proposals a number of Clauses—not very many—which were suggested to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the experience we had then had of the working of the Finance Act of the previous year. I think I shall rightly describe those Clauses if I say of them compendiously that they fall, with some possibly trifling and insignificant exceptions, within one or other of three categories. They were either concessions to meet cases of proved or alleged hardship; they were explanations or definitions to meet cases of ambiguity or supposed obscurity; or, as was the case with the proposals in regard to the relations between local and Imperial taxation, they were provisional and transitory in their character. That is absolutely true of the Revenue Bill as it was introduced into this House in the present Session. When it became necessary in the interests of public business to dispose comparatively summarily of the taxing parts of the Finance Bill of last year, I and other Members of the Government gave assurances which I will textually prove in regard to what would happen as to the Clauses that were held over which belonged to the categories I have just enumerated. Speaking myself on 18th November, 1910—I am quoting from the OFFICIAL REPORT—I said:—
  "What the Government propose to do is, under a procedure resolution which I shall move on Monday, and which will be in the hands of hon. Gentlemen to-day, to confine the discussion during the remaining stages of the Budget to these taxes and Sinking Fund provision. At the same time it should be clearly understood that we do not intend to withdraw from Parliament the opportunity they ought to have, sooner or later, of discussing these provisions in connection with the general finance of the nation. Therefore, with the undertaking of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer—all such undertakings being now—I
  910
  hope that is clearly understood—subject to unforeseen contingencies—with the undertaking, subject to these contingencies, on the part of my right hon. Friend, that he will reintroduce and submit for consideration, with full opportunity of discussion before the close of the present financial year the remaining provisions of the Budget, which for the moment he is obliged to drop——"[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1910, cols. 83–84.]
  I am afraid my sentences are anacoluthon, for here I was interrupted by an hon. Member, who said:—
  "In the present Parliament."
  And I replied:—
  "Before the close of the financial year."
  The same evening, and in the course of the same Debate, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer repeated, in his own language, what I had already said. I will again quote his words from the OFFICIAL REPORT:—
  "Hon. Members probably come from their constituents with some individual grievance against some individual tax, and they are entitled to propose amendments, and get them considered. We are moving certain amendments to the Death Duties and the Licensing Duties, and we have also promised some amendments with regard to the Land Tax. I can imagine that there may be other Members who would also like to move amendments, and I think full opportunity for discussion ought to be permitted upon them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1910, cols. 126–7.]
  A little lower down in the same column the Chancellor of the Exchequer says:—
  "That opportunity will be given if we are responsible for the conduct of affairs as soon as this House reassembles before the end of the financial year."
  As regards the statement made on behalf of the Government last November the only other speech which I need quote, or which is relevant to the matter is the statement made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Joseph Pease) who said, on 21st November, 1910:—
  "We propose under the new Bill in next Parliament to extend the discussion over the whole range of our taxation system, and it will be permissible next Session for hon. Members to move new clauses as they usually do—say clauses for the reduction of the land duties, or any new clauses of that kind—although we will have no resolution covering new taxes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1910, col. 221.]
  As things turned out, it was necessary to have such a Resolution, "that it was expedient to amend the law relating to Customs and Excise." Those are the statements, those are the assurances and promises made on behalf of the Government in November, 1910. I am going to show to the House with the greatest possible ease that they have been fulfilled in the spirit and in the letter, every one of them. When the new Parliament reassembled, and the Debate on the Address was concluded, we had a discussion upon Government business. On 16th February, in the present year, I made a statement—a very full and detailed statement on behalf of

  911
  the Government as to our proposals for business between then and Easter. I will quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT of 16th February, 1911, I said:—
  "Let us see first of all how we stand in regard to compulsory business.…By compulsory business I mean business that has to be transacted and got through before 31st March, the last day of the current financial year."
  4.0 P.M.
  Then I dealt with Supplementary Estimates, Votes of Supply, and the Consolidated Fund Bill, and I go on as follows:—
  "Then, as to the second stage—I am still dealing with what I call compulsory business before 31st March—we have a special claim upon our time and attention this year in the second stage of the Finance Bill, the first stage of which was passed in the last Parliament. I promised because we proceeded to carry through our drastic form of Closure in regard to the first stage—that on the whole of the part which actually dealt with the imposition of taxes—there should he a reasonably full and adequate opportunity for discussing the other clauses and for raising on Second Reading all the questions which are properly raised with regard to finance. In redemption of that pledge we have first of all to introduce, as we shall on Monday, by resolution or by a series of resolutions in Committee of Ways and Moans, that which will lay the foundation on which we hare to prosecute the Bill through its various stages, and we propose to give for these purposes six-and-a-half days."
  That is to say, for the Resolutions, the Second Reading, and the various stages of the Bill.
  "The House will therefore see, as regards compulsory business of finance, which has to be brought to a close before 31st March, not before Easter, we are giving thirteen-and-a-half days to what I might call the normal business of Supply, and six-and-a-half days to this exceptional business, namely, the second stages of the Finance Bill of last year—that makes twenty days."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1911, cols. 1253–4.]
  When I made that statement it was received with no kind of protest or demur from any side of the House.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: We had not seen the Bill.
  The PRIME MINISTER: The right hon. Gentleman had not seen the Bill, but the Bill, when it was subsequently introduced, was a Bill containing the substance of the remaining Clauses of the Budget Bill which had been passed in the November of the previous year, together with further explanations and concessions.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Oh, no.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Further concessions and further explanations in response to the pledges given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: There was other matter which, under no circumstances, can the right hon. Gentleman claim to call a concession.
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is a matter of opinion.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: There is the taking away of half the Land Taxes from the local authorities.
  The PRIME MINISTER: A very large concession. We are giving the local authorities a great deal more, but I do not want to enter into a controversial discussion of the Clauses of the Bill. I am point out to the House that on 16th February, this year, I announced, as part of the Government programme, the business which had to be carried through before 31st March, and that six-and-a-half days would be given to this Bill. That announcement was received without demur or protest or caveat on the part of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. On the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman who has just interrupted me said this:—
  "The special financial difficulties of the Government are of their own creation."
  That is common form, of course.
  "But, when you have allowed for their financial difficulties, there is no necessity for this motion whatever."
  This was a motion taking the time of private Members away.
  "If I followed the right hon. Gentleman rightly he has before the end of the year enough time for all the necessary financial business of the year without intruding upon private Members' time at all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1911, cols. 1259–60.]
  That was the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman then. Let us see what has happened since. Six-and-a-half days was what I offered, always with the condition that this Bill must be got through before 31st March. What is the time that actually has been given? I will split it into two parts. The general discussion, such as we promised in November, not upon the details of this Bill, but upon this Bill and upon the Bill of last Session in their larger relations to the whole question of finance, takes place, according to our procedure, upon the Resolutions in Committee, upon the Report of those Resolutions, and upon the Second Reading of the Bill. I find, upon those stages, two days in Committee of Ways and Means, a portion of a day on Report, and a day on Second Reading—twenty-one hours—were given. Our Parliamentary day, under modern conditions, may, I think, fairly be said to be a day of seven hours—from four o'clock to eleven o'clock. That is a very fair estimate of the length of a Parliamentary day. I am stating a simple arithmetical proposition. Seven hours is the normal length of a Parliamentary day.

  913
  Therefore, if twenty-one hours were given, as they were to these Resolutions in Committee and upon Report, and to the Second Reading, three Parliamentary days were given to the general discussion. So far I shall command the general assent of the House. Then we went into Committee, no longer the appropriate stage for a general discussion, but for the discussion of details, and two sittings, I use a neutral term, have been given to the Committee stage which have occupied between them twenty-two hours. Let us go step by step. Twenty-two hours, by a simple sum, dividing by seven, are rather more than three Parliamentary days. Therefore, we have had now upon the preliminary stages, upon the second stage, and upon the Committee stage, six Parliamentary days. I anticipated the Noble Lord, whom I see opposite (Earl Winterton) was going to ask me to advance from the plane of common to that of higher mathematics.
  Earl WINTERTON: The right hon. Gentleman has done so already.
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, on the contrary. I was not here, and I am not making any comments of any sort or kind, except that I think everything that was done, so far as the Government was concerned, was done perfectly in order. Let us assume—I am going to make a large concession—that when you are dealing with an all-night sitting—I will not say who was responsible for its prolongation—you must make a certain amount of deduction from the number of hours spent in order to assimilate it to an ordinary and normal sitting. How many hours shall I deduct? I will make the very most generous concession a Minister has ever made. I will deduct eight hours. What hour did the sitting conclude?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): Ten o'clock.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will assume it concluded at two o'clock. Let us assume, for the purposes of argument, that eight hours are taken away from that all-night sitting, and you have still five full Parliamentary days given to the discussion of this Bill. I offered six and a-half, and, if we were not here discussing this Motion which is going to subtract, most unnecessarily, time from the further consideration of the Bill, and which very reluctantly I am compelled to move, you would have Monday a full Parliamentary day, Tuesday, and Wednesday. The
  914
  House would have had eight days for the discussion of this Bill for which I estimated six and a-half. Where is the breach of pledge I Where, so far as I have gone now, is there any failure on the part of the Government to comply with the assurances and promises which they gave to the late House of Commons or to this House? We are going beyond what we promised, considerably. Why, then, you may ask, am I compelled to make this-Motion? The reason is very simple. We have gone through the Committee stage of this Bill, so far as all the original clauses proposed by the Government are concerned. There are upon the Paper new Clauses proposed by the Government, every one of which is a fresh concession in response to demands made by hon. Members opposite.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Is the new Clause with regard to the borough of Dewsbury a concession?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know about the new Clause regarding Dews-bury. Leave it out of account. All those not of local significance are concessions to hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Noble Lord (Viscount Helmsley) will not be able to vote against any one of them.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: They may be inadequate.
  The PRIME MINISTER: They are concessions; that is admitted. Leaving out those new Clauses which are proposed by the Government, and which are concessions, what do I find on the Notice Paper? One hundred and thirty new Clauses. I have had a pretty long Parliamentary experience, and I have seen Bills of great magnitude and complexity introduced and carried through this House, but I cannot charge my memory with any Bill, not even the Home Rule Bill itself, to which the ingenuity of the Opposition was able to put down 130 new Clauses. This is the first occasion upon which we have had such an extraordinary demonstration of legislative fecundity. I am not going to speculate, I do not feel in any way bound to speculate, as to the motives which have led to this exuberant efflorescence. It is unprecedented; it is singular. It is singular for this reason. These 130 new Clauses, ranging over the whole domain of finance, and raising, I believe, almost every question which was considered and discussed—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—at any rate, a very large majority of the questions which were considered and discussed in the great

  915
  Budget of 1909 are put down now in regard to a Bill which does not impose a single tax, which is merely ancillary to the finance of the year, and which consists as I have said, almost entirely of concessions, explanations, and transitory provisions which must be brought into operation, it we are to regularise our financial arrangements before the 31st March, and which will be followed, as every one knows, and must be followed in the course of a very few months, by the Budget Bill of the new year, in regard to which every one of these proposals, in so far as they are relevant or in order at all, can be raised. Are we really going to be asked deliberately, are right hon. Gentlemen on that Bench going to ask us on the 27th March, in regard to a Bill which must receive the Royal Assent upon the 31st March, to discuss 130 new Clauses, or even half of 130 new Clauses—I daresay a great number of them are out of order—raising all these intricate and difficult questions of national finance which, if they are to be adequately and properly discussed in the full sense, would take weeks and months of Parliamentary time. The thing is farcical and absurd. A promise was made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that opportunity should be given for the full discussion of the new Clauses, such as are usually put down. But is this the usual form in which new clauses are put down. No, it is not usual. This very much smaller Bill has been seized upon for the very first time in our Parliamentary history for the erection of this gigantic structure of the Amendments and new Clauses. Unless the House of Commons is going to be rendered absolutely futile through its own action, unless it is to become an absurd Parliamentary machine, it is necessary that it should assent to some proposal, such as I am making. I conceive that we are not only amply redeeming our pledges, but we are giving a wide and even generous construction, and the most liberal interpretation to these pledges when we ask the House to bring to a close the further stages of this measure on Wednesday night.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The right horn Gentleman the Prime Minister has spent a great deal of time and ingenuity in trying to persuade an astonished House that he is carrying out here in the month of March pledges so generously and even so lavishly given in the month
  916
  of November. I remember that when the first of those elaborate series of pledges was given in November my Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) asked if there were any statutory obligations on the part of the Government to carry them out. The right hon. Gentleman, with a considerable show of indignation, said no statutory safeguards were required, and, after the pledges were given by the Government, the interests of the House were safe in their hands if they were returned to power. We now have, with the fullest information before us, an opportunity of seeing how far the interests of the House, in the full meaning of those pledges, have been safeguarded in the hands of the right hon. Gentlemen who sit on that Bench. We have only to consider the extraordinary straits which the Prime Minister has been put to in order to make out his case to see, at all events, that he has suffered some anxious quarters of an hour in trying to bring into something that looks like harmony the generosity of the promises and the niggardly character of their fulfilment. Just consider! The right hon. Gentleman even tried to make a calculation of the time already given to this Bill, and he counted—with some deductions, the principle of which I did not perfectly understand—the hours of an all-night sitting.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I did not. I left out eight hours.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman made a deduction. I do not know why he deducted eight hours. At all events, the result was that he found himself able arithmetically to represent a single sitting as a sitting on two parliamentary days.
  The PRIME MINISTER: The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The two days are made out of that sitting and of the Friday sitting.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The House debated the Bill from four o'clock one afternoon till about ten o'clock the next morning. From that the right hon. Gentleman deducts eight hours, and he therefore considers there was a legitimate discussion up till four o'clock in the morning. [HON. MEMBERS: "Two o'clock."] At any rate, during those eight hours which the right hon. Gentleman so glibly deducts we had new proposals made to this House which were not suggested in the original promise, which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor

  917
  of the Exchequer, I presume, did not contemplate last year, and which, as introduced this year, are entirely novel proposals, going to the root of the finance of every local authority in the kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman, in a spirit of paradox audacious and almost unexcelled, represents these proposals as a concession to this House. Is there a single man off the Treasury Bench who thinks it is a concession? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] There are two hon. Members perhaps. I listened to that Debate. I heard man after man get up behind the Ministerial Front Bench and denounce the proposals from the point of view of the local authorities. I heard hon. Gentlemen from Ire land explaining that they meant the ruin of the interests of intermediate education in that country——
  Mr. DILLON: We spoke of the whisky money.
  Mr. BALFOUR: And I believe it is only the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister who thinks that the local authorities have cause to bless them for the new provision now introduced into the Bill. It would be out of Order and extremely inexpedient if it were in Order, for me to discuss the merits of that Clause. It was a new Clause—a new Clause not contemplated when the original promise was made. It was not known to the House when the right hon. Gentleman talked about this six and a-half days, and yet that is the Clause of all others which the Government select to begin to discuss at a quarter-past four and to finish at ten o'clock in the morning—a most amazing specimen of Parliamentary strategy.
  Then the right hon. Gentleman goes on to talk of the amazing outburst of legislative activity shown by the fact that the 130 new Clauses have been given notice of. He himself subsequently stated that probably a great many were out of order. A very small survey of the Order Paper would also have shown him that a great number were duplicates and were down in more names than one. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman should give to the House and the country this suggestion, seeing that so many are new Clauses in name only, being down in duplicate.
  The PRIME MINISTER: How many?
  Mr. BALFOUR: I cannot say. I did not come down prepared with statistics on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman did. My complaint is that his statistics are fallacious on the face of them. I am amazed
  918
  on another point on which the right hon. Gentleman laid great stress. He told us that the Budget itself was simply a collection of concessions, and that the new Clauses were outside its ordinary provisions. So they are; but it was distinctly contemplated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by himself that new Clauses should be moved raising general questions of taxation. It is only by new clauses that Amendments to the existing system of taxation can be introduced, and when the right hon. Gentleman says there will be a new Budget in some months it is a strange expression. We live and learn as to the methods of bringing in Budgets of the right hon. Gentleman. Usually May is late for the Budget; April is the ordinary month. The right hon. Gentleman does not suggest that either April or May may see the next Budget; it is to come after some months! That by the way. The point is it was perfectly present to the mind of the Government when they made these pledges that the Budget had all the qualities which now the right hon. Gentleman attributes to it. It was a Budget dealing only with relatively uncontroversial matters, and with temporary provisions, and it would have to be followed by another Budget in a certain number of weeks or months. Both right hon. Gentlemen knew all that when they made the pledge, and both he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer distinctly contemplated that there would be asked for by the opposition and given by the Government full and ample opportunity for surveying the whole field of finance. I think one of the strangest pleas which the right hon. Gentleman put forward in extenuation is that he announced early in the Session, before anybody had seen the Bill or knew that it was a different Bill to that which we had had before that, he contemplated giving six and a-half days to it before the end of the financial year, and that none of the Opposition rose and protested against the exigeous allowance of time which he and his friends were prepared to give us. The right hon. Gentleman's experience is sufficiently long for him to know that it is not the business of an Opposition to calculate the time necesasry, nor are they in a position to do so. They cannot foretell any more than the Government—in fact, they are less able—how long a time they will require to give to these questions. They cannot foretell because they have not seen the Bill and the Government have. Has an Opposition before a Bill

  919
  was introduced ever suggested the number of days that they think proper for its discussion? Has any Opposition ever committed itself to a proposal of that kind? Did an Opposition ever rise and protest before a Bill was introduced that a suggested allowance of time was insufficient? No. We assumed, as it turned out, rashly and foolishly, that when we were promised ample opportunities for discussion, ample opportunities would be given. We assumed that the Government knew the Bill, and would arrange the time of the House so as to provide the proper time for discussion. We did not get up—it would have been unfair to the Government to do so—at that stage and say, "You really do not mean to carry out your promise to give us ample time for discussion, and we ask you to give us more." We assumed, of course—I do not know why I say "of course"—we assumed that the Government would carry out their promise and would see every pledge fulfilled in the amplest form. I think of all the many preposterous arguments which the right hon. Gentleman has urged, the most preposterous is that we did not protest as we do now protest before we had seen the Bill, or before we had an opportunity of making out a timetable, and that we acquiesced patiently and silently in his calculations. That is not the kind of silence that gives consent. It has never been considered to give consent, and the right hon. Gentleman must have known with all his Parliamentary experience that before a Bill is introduced no Opposition has ever thought of saying what time they require for discussion.
  What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer say. He said that opportunity will be given if we are responsible for the conduct of affairs as soon as this House reassembles before the end of the financial year. What is the meaning of the phrase "as soon as this House reassembles." Listening to that we assumed, and were entitled to assume, that when the House met, and if a majority was still found for the present Government, they would devote their time before the end of the financial year to giving the amplest opportunity for discussing this Bill. They have not done so; they have avowedly not done so; and we all know why. We all know the reason the right hon. Gentleman has not given us adequate time is that he chose to take one day out of his legislative time for dealing with a controversy with his
  920
  Friends below the Gangway about a matter which might perfectly well have been settled after the financial year was over, and to give a week—more than a week, I think—to the discussion of the Parliament Bill. That is the reason, and hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite no doubt think it a sufficient reason. I do not think it is a sufficient reason for breaking a pledge. I am aware that immense pressure was put upon the Government by the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on this side and hon. Gentlemen opposite not merely to get the Parliament Bill through this House, but to get it through with great speed. I am aware that unless the Government hurry on with that Bill at the cost of private Members' time and of their own pledges with regard to these financial discussions, it is thought they will not be showing that they are sincere. I think that is very hard upon the Government. I do not think they have shown any want of sincerity in this matter. Of course, there is no doubt that if they wish to get that Bill through the House of Commons, they can do so without the least difficulty in the course of the present Session, and carry out their pledges and without taking the time of private Members. There is no difficulty to anybody who knows anything about Parliamentary matters, and why they have been driven against their will to sacrifice the rights of private Members and the freedom of discussion of this House—to sacrifice the security with which we have hitherto looked to the pledges given by the Government I am perfectly unable to understand.
  It has nothing to do with the passage of the Parliament Bill through this House, which, in the hands of the majority which the Government command, is of course, an absolute certainty if the Government desire to do it. Nobody doubts that. Then why are we not getting that which we were promised? Why has the right hon. Gentleman reached the climax of his career as a curtailer of the liberties of the House and private Members' privileges? There was a time, after the right hon. Gentleman had had a long experience of this House, and within a few months of his taking office in 1905, when he made the last of a series of speeches against myself and my hon. Friends who were at that time in office. He accused us, and used much invective, of being conspirators against the liberties of the House. The violence of his invective could not have been exceeded it I had been another Cata-

  921
  line. If hon. Members want to look back to a finished specimen of violent invective I would recommend them to study the method of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was made upon a Motion to enable the Estimates to be carried through before the end of the financial year. Then we could not carry out the statute law unless we got what we asked for with a view to closing supply. Then we had not taken a single moment of parliamentary time for our legislation; we had used, to the best of our ability, all the time that did not belong to private Members for carrying out our financial obligations before 31st March. That was our case. Those were the circumstances in which the right hon. Gentleman came down and denounced us as destroyers of parliamentary liberties—people who recklessly sacrificed the ancient traditions of the House to our party exigencies—and he was backed up by the serried ranks who are now sitting silent and forgetful—who are obliged to be silent and find it convenient to be forgetful, and who nevertheless, if they would only refresh their memories, would see that I have by no means exaggerated the line taken by their party and their Leader, the Prime Minister, on the very eve of taking office.
  It is quite clear, I think, that looking at the matter altogether apart from ordinary party politics, one party cannot be expected to give up the advantage of using all moves taken by the opposing party; but there is no resemblance between the case of closure by compartments by the Government's predecessors and their own. There is no comparison whatever. I think, in ten years, we did it about eight times, and they have done it about twenty times in five years. They have dealt with three Budgets, and have had somewhere about twenty other closures. They have started a precedent of that character, no doubt, whether it is to be a usual precedent or not. I do not deny that the closure by compartments is occasionally necessary; I never have denied it; at least, I have not denied it ever since the earlier days when these changes in our rules began to be made; but I say that this Government have been absolutely reckless in their use of it, and their recklessness is incomparably cynical if you look at the professions by which it was immediately preceded. They were not content with ordinary Parliamentary attack of this proceeding, their attack was excessive in its violence, and their professions
  922
  of principles were blatant; but on the first occasion they not only fall to the low level of their predecessors, but they tumble infinitely below it. They have added to the general error, particular errors, which I think ought to call down upon them the severest condemnation of this House, and for this reason, that they for the first time in this Session deprived private Members of their rights, secured to them when we reformed our rules. For the first time on this occasion also, as I have ventured to show to the House, they have stretched and twisted their own speeches in order to carry out their own policy, or the policy forced on them by others.
  The results, so far as the House is concerned, are disastrous. What does a Member see, who came into the House for the first time after the election of 1910, of the liberties of the House? I speak for a good many on both sides of the House who have never seen any Parliament before 1910. The Budget of 1909–10 was deferred until 1910–11. When it came on in 1910–11 it was closured and the proper Budget of 1910–11 was first put off, at the instance of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond), from the summer till the autumn, and put off again, at the instance of the hon. and learned Gentleman, till November. And we now see, again under the influence of the hon. and learned Gentleman, how those pledges were carried out. As to the rights of private Members, they, for the first time, and for no reason whatever that I know of, have been absolutely destroyed. Had the Government done what it ought clearly to have done and used the time at their disposal for the financial business of the year, that financial business being swelled by the new Budget, we might have felt we had not time to discuss all these things as we should have liked, but, if it be true, as the right hon. Gentleman has assumed, though he did not say it, that this Bill must be passed in order to keep the law before 31st March, we should have understood that when 31st March approached, if all the time had been given to financial business, the Government were in the same unfavourable position that their predecessors were in in 1905, and the right hon. Gentleman would no doubt have felt that his speech in 1905, though a masterpiece of eloquence, was almost too relevant to be an agreeable recollection, and we, on our part, if the Government had really done their best by giving the whole of the time for the busi-

  923
  ness which they declared to be necessary, should have felt, whether we liked it or not, that there was a great deal to be said for the Government when they curtailed our liberties. But now they have not only broken their pledges, but they have broken them unnecessarily. They cannot plead necessity. Had they used the time of the House as we used the time of the House in 1905, had they only dealt with fianncial business or the Budget of the year, they would at all events have done their best to carry out the promises they made in different circumstances. As it is, and with the history of the last few weeks present to our minds, I can only say I think the treatment which the Government have meted out, not merely to the Opposition, but to the House generally, and the discredit they have thrown on Parliamentary pledges given by responsible Ministers are of the most serious and fateful import to the future proceedings of this House.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: We propose to support this Resolution, and the reason for our doing so can be expressed in a very few sentences. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour), for about the half-dozenth time since this Session started, has accused the Government of seriously breaking pledges. We are getting rather accustomed to it. I was under the impression that the accusation of breaking a pledge was something so very serious that it was not to be put to daily use when it suited the Opposition to make it. As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman himself has confessed, by the extracts to which he refers, that what the Government said was that adequate time should be given to the discussion of financial business before the end of the year, and, after all, the question, therefore, is not whether a pledge was broken, but whether ample time was given. Following upon that, the right hon. Gentleman, speaking for the Conservative party, assumes that he and they alone are the only section of the House that is to be considered when the Government is devising its business and adjusting its programme.
  I desire on behalf of a minority, of a party in this House quite as independent as the Conservatives—[Cheers]—that rouses the ire of hon. Gentlemen opposite; I am delighted to repeat it—quite as independent as the Conservative party—to put in a claim, and to do everything I can to insist upon that claim being observed, for having a share in the settlement of the business of the House, whatever Government may

  924
  be in office. And when hon. Gentlemen opposite come and tell us that because they desired finance business to have been taken from the time that the Speech from the Throne was settled to 31st March, I for one, and on behalf of my friends who co-operate with me, put in a caveat against that. We have as much right to have days set aside for the discussion of our interests as the Tory party. Therefore, after all, if we thought that the pledge consisted in the Prime Minister coming to an agreement with the regular Opposition to give up the whole of the time between the be ginning of this Session until the end of this month to finance business, we certainly should have put in a most emphatic protest, and carried it if necessary to the Division Lobbies.
  The pledge given was that ample time should be given for the discussion of this Bill. What time has been given? The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) has said nothing about the three days to be devoted to the discussion of the Bill today, to-morrow, and the next day. If those three days had been devoted to the discussion of the Bill does anyone seriously mean to say that such of these new Clauses as are in order, and such of them as are serious, could not have been discussed adequately and the Report Stage and the Third Reading taken before Wednesday night. If hon. Gentlemen opposite had some other object in view good and well, but they must not assume an amazing amount of innocence on our part, which is certainly not our own possession. I saw, before this House met at all, what seemed to be rather inspired paragraphs in the Conservative Press that Committees were going to be appointed for the purpose of bringing collective wisdom and ingenuity to bear upon the drafting of Amendments and the devising of new Clauses for this Bill. Not that the Bill itself might be made better than it is, not that this House might re-assert its control over business and not that the taxpayers of the country might be benefited, but all these things were to be done, all these conclaves were to meet and all these Amendments to be put upon the paper to throw the Bill over 31st March. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who said so?"] That was the suggestion in the newspapers. Hon. Gentlemen deny it. It is simply a matter of common knowledge, so much so that I never assumed for a single moment that hon. Gentlemen opposite would contradict it. But supposing it is so. Who is going to stand up with this Order Paper in his

  925
  hand and tell us that the 130 new Clauses which are down are meant simply for the purpose of improving legislation? After all, we must consider these things from the point of view of men of ordinary experience and ordinary commonsense. There never has been a Finance Bill, a first-class Finance Bill—and this is only a fourth class Finance Bill—that has been subject to such a flood of new Clauses. The fact of the matter is that if these three days had been given to the discussion of the Bill there is not a single important proposal that is germane to the Bill or that would have been raised in the ordinary course of the business of the House, which could not have been adequately discussed and the Bill gone through all its stages by eleven o'clock on Wednesday evening.
  What I am concerned with is the dignity and efficiency of this House. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) referred to the Prime Minister as the curtailer of the liberties of the House. I think we are in grave danger of the Leaders of certain parties taking up such attitudes as would justify us in applying to them the epithet of abuser of the privileges of this House, of putting what is not the liberties of private Members but the licence allowed to private Members under our Standing Orders into operation. After all, those of us who want some real work done, who want the time of the House economised, and who desire that the House should remain an efficient debating assembly and an efficient deliberating assembly as well, must protest and take such action as we are going to take as soon as hon. Gentlemen opposite allow us—I mean, going into the Lobby in favour of the Resolution, against this elongation of discussion, which, after all, may be quite within the bounds set down by the Standing Orders but is not always within the bounds of the spirit of the Standing Orders. The business that is before us to-day is a business germane to the assertion of the House of Commons of authority over itself. This proposal of the guillotine is an unpleasant one. It is not the sort of thing that one cares to support, but nevertheless under the circumstances and under the conditions of business, more particularly as displayed by the Order Paper which will presently be before us, such a stop is absolutely inevitable, and the Government would not be doing its duty if it did not take it. We have now come to this state when a small party, even this small party here, if we cared to do so, could practically block the
  926
  most important business that comes before the House. All we have to do is to lay our heads together and to take the ordinary opportunities given up under the Standing Orders. I hope the hon. Members with whom I act will never adopt such methods to make their will felt and to carry out what little authority they may have in this House. We are now in the position when a small body of men can make it practically impossible for the majority of the House to initiate discussion and to carry on business such as it desires. The move that is before us is so apparent, so naked, so gross, that so far as I am concerned, I shall vote with the greatest pleasure to assert the power of this House to do its work as it desires and to carry out its pledges to its constituents.
  5.0 P.M.
  Earl WINTERTON: The independence of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) and the party to which he belongs is well illustrated in the attitude taken up in the speeches which he makes. I do not think that any one, not even his own party, who gave a very frigid reception to the speech, will accept without further proof his statement that he belongs to an independent party. There never was a party in this House so under the heel of another party as the Independent Labour Party. When the hon. Gentleman gets up and in his best Cicero style makes such a speech as that to which we have just listened, he may please his Constituents at Leicester, but he does not convince the House of Commons. We have had an illustration this afternoon of the disadvantages of having Government not by one party, but by three parties, and I do not know how many sub-parties. We see that such a Government has resolved itself into not what we have hitherto enjoyed, Government by one party, but into a sort of mob rule, in which any one, even the hon. Member for Leicester, can lead the House of Commons. It is rather remarkable to hear such a speech made by the hon. Member when you compare it with some of the speeches which have been made by the hon. Gentleman's Friends in the course of previous Parliaments. I do not myself attach much importance to what they said during the 1900 Parliament, for they were then in Opposition, but if the right hon. Gentleman opposite will cast back his mind to the speeches which were made by himself and the Postmaster-General in last Parliament and in the previous Parliament, he will see that

  927
  the course now proposed to be taken is not quite consistent with their previous utterances. On 28th July, 1909, the Postmaster-General, speaking of the "Kangaroo" Closure said:—
  "The new procedure will, we hope and believe, render less necessary the resort to the guillotine as a method for facilitating progress on controversial measures. The guillotine, which was invented by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, has become necessarily so in our present procedure more and more a method of dealing with different Bills which raise points of great dispute. We hope and believe by this new procedure that this Government and Governments of the future will find it less and less necessary than hitherto to resort to what all of us realise as an objectionable form of closure. There was a time when the closure was first introduced that it raised the gravest doubts of old Parliamentarians. When the closure was first proposed as a method of facilitating the business, almost all the veteran Parliamentarians of that day regarded it as a revolution of the gravest character, and as likely to detract permanently from the full and necessary freedom of debate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July, 1909, col. 1251.]
  I would ask the House of Commons to notice that the right hon. Gentleman and his Government then realised the inconvenience and the degradation of financial discussion under what is known as the "Kangaroo" closure. They have thrown over absolutely that method of procedure, and they now go back to the old closure, which they refused to have then. It is obvious, therefore, that so far as hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway are concerned, they have scored a considerable triumph this afternoon. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) and the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir H. Dalziel) on the success they have achieved as the result of the negotiations which have been going on upstairs during the past four days. They have succeeded in making the Government go back on their pledges and alter their procedure as well. Although it may be a little hard for them to continue to sit with the broad steps of the Gangway between them and the Treasury Bench, still they have the consolation that if it is not possible for them to sit on the Treasury Bench, it is possible for them to drive in front of them those who sit on that bench. In this respect hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway are in the position of people who are anxious to catch a train in order to reach their destination. That destination is the passing of the Parliament Bill. I do not quarrel with that attitude from their point of view, but what I do quarrel with is that they should be able to look upon the Government as a sort of booking office to facilitate their getting to that destination. We have never before had a Government
  928

  supported by three parties, and one of those parties keeping the Government of the day in absolute subjection.
  If the attitude of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway is capable of explanation, the attitude of hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway is, in my opinion, hardly capable of explanation. They have no wish, so far as I know, to see this grand revolution hurried on at the pace proposed by the Government. I trust that the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) and others will raise their voices in protest against this proposal. They have raised their voices against similar proposals earlier in the Session. I can only understand the attitude of hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway on the assumption that some of them hope that by supporting and voting for this Resolution they will so facilitate the progress of the Parliament Bill that they will obtain the rewards which they are hoping for at an earlier date than they otherwise would do. I can only say that if hon. Gentlemen hold that view their honour has been bought at too high a price, and that price is the degradation of the House of Commons. Apart from that I cannot help feeling that the coronets will press somewhat heavily on some of their brows. That is clear so far as hon. Members above the Gangway are concerned when they give support to the Resolution. I have not the slightest doubt that the Resolution will be passed by an overwhelming majority. I am absolutely certain that a Government which proposes a Resolution of this kind—one of a long series of Resolutions shackling the House of Commons—has lost the right to be called a Government and has become an instrument of tyranny. What I think is the nauseating part of the situation is that hon. Gentlemen who do these acts of tyranny justify them by saying that they are only carrying out the will of the people all the while. I hope that the people of this country will be delivered at an early date from having such servants, and that this House which so subserviently follows them will be preserved from having such masters. I have only one advice to give to hon. Members opposite, and that is the next time they march to Limehouse they will have another banner, bearing the inscription, "The Prostitution of Parliament."
  Mr. J. W. WILSON: I wish to offer a few observations in regard to the remarks that fell from the Leader of the Opposition, and particularly in regard to private

  929
  Members' time. The right hon. Gentleman assumed that if the Government had introduced the Estimates early in the Session, and gone forward without taking the private Members' time, and had devoted all the time they had at their disposal to the consideration of the Revenue Bill there would have been ample opportunity for fulfilling the pledges which he alleged were given in November last. I submit that by taking the private Members' time between 16th February and 31st March, amounting to nine Parliamentary days, the Government have taken the best course possible. The Leader of the Opposition admitted that there was a certain amount of time necessary for the discussion of the Votes, and we know that the Opposition have been pressing for more days than the Government have given to the Army and Navy Votes. Therefore, I contend, that by the course the Government adopted in borrowing, so to speak, the private Members' time, and devoting all that time to the consideration of the Parliament Bill and giving all the rest at their disposal to the Revenue Bill, they have more than fulfilled the pledges which were given.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: The hon. Member (Mr. J. W. Wilson) has endeavoured to defend the Government against the charge of having placed the business of this House in a muddle. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) always says two things when he addresses the House. In the first place he says that he leads an independent party, and secondly that he endeavours to support the rights of private Members in this House. He also speaks of the dignity and the power of this House. I should like to ask him whether he really thinks that on this occasion, when an extension of the Closure is proposed he is effectually asserting the rights and privileges of private Members. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on the opposite side of the House who are Members of a new Parliament, come here ostensibly to support the Government, and they are prepared to carry out the mandates and obey the behests of the Government whatever they may be.
  But they should realise that they will not always be supporting the Government of the day, and when they are on these benches they will realise, as we have been able to realise in the short time we have been in the House, that the rights and privileges of private Members are entirely a thing of the past, and that power is
  930
  gradually and more than over being placed in the hands of the Government to do exactly what they want with regard to all the business of this House. I am perfectly convinced that the people of this country who send us here, and believe that we are in a position to put forward their views, are entirely in ignorance of the real state of affairs in this House or the manner in which the Prime Minister has increased the use of the guillotine so that the private Member has very little power of putting forward those views with which he has been entrusted by his constituents. With regard to this further extension of the use of the Closure resolutions, there are a great many matters on which it is possible to comment. We heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he proposed that there should be full opportunity for discussion given to the Revenue Bill, and we were also told by the Prime Minister—I do not know whether he quite used the expression, but it was used by an hon. Member below the Gangway—that only the serious clauses should receive discussion in this House. I do not know that the Prime Minister or any hon. Gentleman on that side of the House has a right to judge what a serious clause is. The Prime Minister tells us that the Bill which we are discussing is a replica of the old Budget, that it imposes no new taxation, and that it is composed merely of concession to hon. Gentlemen in this House. I think he almost made himself responsible for saying that they are concessions to hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. That does not happen to be the case; but when we are told that it is the old Budget we must remember that 130 Members of this House who sit on this side were returned with the express purpose of criticising what is known as the people's Budget, and that since they have been in the House they have had no opportunity whatever of discussing that question because the Government passed that Budget by what they called their unprecedented majority. I suppose no further Member is to be allowed to have any further discussion whatever on it.
  The Prime Minister has made a great point of 130 Clauses. He knows perfectly well that a great many of those are duplicates and a great many are not in order and cannot be discussed, and when we hear hon. Gentlemen opposite saying that the majority last January was due to the rejection of the Budget and the desire of the people to have that Budget, it is only

  931
  just and right that those 130 Members who were returned to this House for the purpose of criticising the Budget should have full opportunity for discussing it and should be able to put forward the views which they were returned to put forward. That is a view which seems to have escaped altogether the attention of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Prime Minister has told us that he has given ample time for discussing the Clauses of the Revenue Bill. He might quite as well wipe out the whole of that unfortunate occasion when the right hon. Gentleman at present on the Front Bench opposite (Mr. Churchill) was occupied in making his most lamentable experiment of leading the House. The recollection of that night will not pass from our memory. The Prime Minister referred to the solid eight hours' discussion of that Bill, but I venture to say that from the moment the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill) took up the leadership of the House in the absence of the Prime Minister the discussion which followed should be entirely eliminated, when considering efficient discussion, because a more truculent attitude than that adopted in leading the House has never been displayed by any individual called upon to lead the House of Commons. I have no doubt he will regret that night to his dying day. I do not think that his subservient followers who sit behind him or below the Gangway, or either side of the House, can look back to the manner in which he led the House on that occasion with feelings of satisfaction. I do not think that any one can contend that the discussion of the Revenue Bill has been of an adequate character. There are matters in it of the gravest importance, and to say that these Clauses have not the right to be discussed and gone into to the fullest extent is to remove all the previous ideas which we have held with regard to the House of Commons.
  When it is said that there are only a few days possible for the discussion of this measure we must remember that that is not the fault of hon. Gentlemen who sit on this side of the House. The fact that the Budget has been relegated to this month of the year is due to the manner in which the Prime Minister has conducted the business of this House. It has been completely postponed, as the Leader of the Opposition told us, and been postponed for no ostensible reason. It was perfectly possible instead of flying to the country in December last to discuss the whole of this Budget that month, but the
  932
  right hon. Gentleman thought entirely differently, and that he had some reason, with which we are not fully acquainted at the present moment, for taking the opinion of the people with regard to a Parliament Bill of which they knew nothing whatever. Then we are given six-and-a-half days to discuss a Revenue Bill of the greatest possible importance, and to discuss it at a time when the House of Commons is of a different character, and when the views of those hon. Gentlemen are brought forward in the Clauses they have put down for insertion in the Revenue Bill. I need hardly say I have never lost an opportunity in this House of objecting to the closure, even in the mild form in which it was brought in when I first came into the House, but since that time I have seen extensions of the guillotine resolutions, which I am sure would have astonished the right hon. Gentleman if he could have contemplated how greatly they would develop in the five years; and I shall with the greatest possible pleasure record my vote in opposition to this Motion.
  Mr. SANDERSON: I rise to utter my protest against the course which the Government propose on this occasion, not so much because of the curtailment of time, but because I think the proposals go to very first principles and may have very far-reaching effects. There are some people in the country who still think that this country is governed by what is called a representative Government. That is very far from the fact at the present day. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Balfour) referred to those who had been in Parliament only since the beginning of 1910. I speak as one of those, and, judging from my own experience of what I have seen here since that time, the proceedings of this House are a mere travesty of representative Government. Members of Parliament who are sent here by their constituents in the hope that they may be able to put the views of the constituents before Parliament find that they cannot do so. We are governed by a committee of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Front Treasury Bench, and who are called the Cabinet of the day. They have succeeded in getting together a majority of those who sit in this House—I need not tell hon. Members by what methods—and they have had to try to keep them together first of all by infringing upon all rights of private Members, and then postponing, perhaps, the most important business of the year,

  933
  the financial business. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) said just now that he really wished this House would get to something like real business. I suppose he does not consider the financial questions of the year real business. He does not consider the multiplication of taxation or considering the interests of the taxpayers as real business. Nothing of the kind is real business in his opinion. He must begin the work of destroying the Constitution of the United Kingdom. I submit that at the present moment representative Government does not exist. Things could not be worse if we were living under the uncontrolled tyranny of an oligarchy. [An HON. MEMBER: "We might be better off if we were."] I am rather inclined to agree with that hon. Member who says, "We might be better off if we were."
  Take, for instance, these proceedings. I submit to hon. Members on both sides of this House that they are a gross breach of faith, and an unnecessary attack upon the privileges of this House. Who was responsible for there not being sufficient time to discuss the finances of the year? [An HON. MEMBER: "The House of Lords."] I do not think that any hon. Member in this House would say that the proceedings on this Revenue Bill either before or since Christmas have been discussed at any undue length. I submit that the real reason was that the Government, in November, for their own party purposes, and for no other reason, suddenly made up their minds to go to the country. There was no other reason. They had a majority behind them in this House. There was no deadlock between this House and another place, but for some reason or other they thought they could get a party advantage out of this, and they suddenly decided to split their Budget in two. There were certain pledges given to us on that occasion. Some of them have been referred to to-day. There is one which has not been referred to of which I would remind hon. Members below the Gangway who have shown great independence of mind on other occasions. Some of them since the last election, I am sorry to say, have not come back. The Prime Minister in November last, when he brought in his guillotine Resolution, admitted it was introducing a novelty into the procedure of this House. He said:—
  "And here I agree that our proposal is a novel one both in substance and to some extent in form. It is novel in substance because I do not think that what are called guillotine resolutions have ever been formally applied to the finances of the year."
  934
  Those are the words of the Prime Minister himself, and though he is the Leader of the so-called Liberal party, I do think that he, at all events, still has some respect for the rights and privileges of private Members of this House. I think he seemed to have some qualms of conscience as to what he proposed, and that it was done because of the action of members of his own party who sit below the Gangway. The Prime Minister went on to say:—
  "I am strongly of opinion that the House of Commons should not only maintain its exclusive control over finance, but should not be deprived of the opportunity which from time immemorial it has enjoyed of criticising these proposals at every stage and at the fullest possible length."
  The right hon. Gentleman further went on to say:—
  "Therefore, If I thought that the proposal I am now making would have the effect of depriving the House of that power, I should not only be very loth to make it, but I do not think I could bring myself to make it at all."
  I submit this was a distinct pledge that we should have an opportunity of discussing the Revenue Bill, and that we should have an opportunity of proposing modifications of the taxation or of discussing the Revenue Bill at every stage to the fullest possible extent. Have we had that opportunity? There can only be but one answer to that, I submit. No. It is only in the Committee stage that hon. Members have an opportunity of making proposals for the alleviation of taxation in favour of the taxpayer; but we are deprived of that opportunity. The Prime Minister in the same speech, though he did not quote it to-day, said:—
  "Nor do we intend, as it appears from what I have already said, to deprive the House of Commons of the power it possesses and should always possess, whatever may be the new taxes of the year, to take into consideration the general scheme of the taxation of the country and proposing, if occasion requires, modification of taxes which are already on the Statute Book, and which must be done by the machinery of the new clauses. I think the House should maintain that control."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1910, cols. 204–205.]
  That is just what we on this side of the House wish to do. There may be 136 or 138 new Clauses—I have not counted them—but there are some, at all events, which are brought forward in a business sense. [An HON. MEMBER: "The whole of them."] I cannot undertake to vouch for everybody's new Clause, and I tell hon. Members perfectly frankly that I have not read them all; therefore I cannot express any personal opinion as to the whole or some of them. I know, however, that certain of the new Clauses have been brought forward by hon. Members in a business sense

  935
  for the express purpose of representing the views of their constituents, and for the purpose of alleviating unjust taxation. I myself have one new Clause on the paper which, if it could have been passed through this House would not have been on party lines at all, and I think in all probability it would have received support from all portions of the House. But what chance have I of moving that new Clause? Not the remotest. I shall have no opportunity of putting the views of my constituents before the House in the Committee Stage, and I submit that it is most unjust to private Members of this House. There has been a gross breach of faith and of the pledges that the Prime Minister gave in his place in this House on the 21st November, 1910, and that is one of the reasons why I strongly oppose the Resolution. I cannot believe that the Prime Minister, had he been left to himself, would have taken this course. Having regard to what he has said on previous occasions, and the desire he has shown, even during this Session, as far as lay within his power, to protect the rights and privileges of this House, we are forced to the conclusion that, such is the pressure which has been put upon him, that such are the exigencies of his position, and such are the difficulties raised by the heterogeneous party, composed of different sections, each pursuing its selfish and particular ends, he has got to take this course. Why is the Prime Minister not here? I should have liked to say this to his face, for it is worth repeating. In November of 1910 he was protesting that he could never bring himself to do this thing, and now, two or three months afterwards, he is proposing to take the very course which he then said ought not to followed. It is left to him as the Leader of this misnamed Liberal party to once more strike a serious blow at the liberties of the people and destroy one of the most valued privileges of this House of Commons.
  Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: I desire to join in the chorus of protest that has been made on this side of the House against this very astounding Resolution. I wish the Prime Minister had been in his place, for I desire to say that he has submitted it with much less than his usual fairness and candour. I have never heard the Prime Minister during all the time I have been in this House bring forward such weak arguments in favour of any position which he has taken up. He was very much
  936
  put to it to find any arguments at all, and those he did find were not worthy of his great ability. What did he place before us?—the fact that there are 136 new Clauses placed on the Notice Paper, Some of these we know are duplicated. Others, we are told, are out of order. I doubt that very greatly. Because it is not very easy to find a Clause dealing with a Budget of this kind and with the taxation it imposes which is out of order. I believe most of the Clauses are in order. I am certain that those for which I am responsible are in order, not because I myself am a great authority on the Rules of Order, but because I took very good care to consult those who are great authorities. Therefore, I think that, under the circumstances, we are entitled to protest very strongly against being deprived of an opportunity of having these new Clauses discussed. I object to the Prime Minister laying stress on the fact of these new Clauses being proposed, because nobody knows better than he that it is only by such Clauses it is possible to deal with these questions at all. What would be thought of the Opposition which only put down 120 or 130 ordinary Amendments to a Bill of this class? They would be thought to be neglecting their opportunities; they would be thought not to be giving proper food for discussion. If you analysed these Clauses carefully—the Prime Minister has only done so to suit his own purposes—it would be found that there is not a single new Clause on the Paper which traverses or deals with many of the subjects of taxation which were entirely novel and which were produced in the Budget of 1909–10. It was open to the Opposition, if they had chosen, to raise every tax in the schedule, and propose a reduction of it; and the fact that we have not done so is the very best proof we can give in this House that there was no intention of raising factiously any questions of that kind.
  As we thought, on the Second Reading of the Bill, the proper time to do it is on the Budget of next year. Surely we are entitled to some credit for that. Therefore, if hon. Members will carefully look through these Clauses they will find that, for the mast part, they deal with questions of administration, and with very great cases of hardship which have arisen under the new taxes. The Clauses we have put down deal with questions as to which even the Government themselves believe that alteration should be made. Some of them, I grant, will be in time for the taxation of the present year; others will not be in time for the taxation

  937
  of the year if they are not reached now, and those Clauses cannot possibly be reached under this guillotine Resolution. The earlier Clauses which are on the Paper will occupy the whole of the time tomorrow, and fewer will occupy the time on Wednesday; yet this is what the Prime Minister told the House, in November of 1910, is giving proper time for the consideration of this great scheme of new taxation imposed on the country in 1909–10, and which we have not been in a position to discuss at all until this very moment. This is the first opportunity we have had of discussing or moving anything in relation to those taxes, or as to the manner in which they are being administered. It is all very well for the Prime Minister and the Government to deal in this kind of way with public interests, outside this House. It is all very well to come down with a show of indignation against the Opposition, who are doing their best to remedy a great wrong. It is all very well to come down in the heavy father style as not being a bad thing for us, but a little of that heavy father style on this side of the House would not be a bad thing for them. A more lame and feeble proposal than that of the Prime Minister today I have never listened to. I say it is grossly unfair, and that our position has been gravely misrepresented.
  The Government are responsible for having got the business of this House into a tangle. The responsibility rests with them. It is said it is necessary to get the Bill by the 31st March. I have very great doubt about that myself; I do not believe they will require the Bill by that date; I should very much like some one in authority to tell us whether we are right or wrong as to the negal necessity of having this Bill by the 31st March. If there is that legal necessity, then the Government should have sought to carry out their pledges, and not played fast and loose with the time of the House since February, when we met. We are entitled to protest, and we do protest, against important interests being compelled to suffer. I believe in regard to many of these Clauses that, if they had been discussed by the Government in the spirit in which I am sure we should have discussed them, Ministers would have realised, as they do now in many cases, that some concessions are required, and many of these people who are suffering serious hardship would have gained some little relaxation. We cannot do so now. Even if we get these concessions on the next Budget, they
  938
  will be rather too late to affect some of these taxes. Under these circumstances, I do think it a very great scandal that the time of this House should be so mismanaged, and in many cases so thoroughly wasted, that great interests, which are deserving of some consideration, cannot, for lack of time, receive it.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: There are many unpleasant features, I think, in this Debate, and not the least unpleasant is the Fact that the Prime Minister puts this Motion down and then goes away, and does not listen to anything that is said. That, I think, shows his contempt for this House, and which he has exhibited on so many previous occasions. We have the privilege of seeing the Home Secretary in his place. Of course, the Home Secretary is accustomed so much to nimble juggling, and so often indulges in words, pledges, and promises, that our faculty of resentment is really nearly exhausted. In fact, we rather admire that nimbleness with which he does it. We had not come to regard the Prime Minister in the same attitude. We had thought, all except my Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) who occupies this seat, that the Prime Minister's pledges were things to be observed. We have now learned this Session that they are not. I confess I would rather that the Prime Minister came down to the House and frankly said that circumstances had been such that he is unable to observe those pledges than that he should try and get out of them by the ridiculous quibbles with which he indulged the House this afternoon. What did he say? He said we were going to have full opportunity for discussion before the end of the financial year. I would call the attention of the House to those words, "the end of the financial year," to show what was intended to be done. Those words were no doubt intended to be a concession to us on this side, and a promise that we should have the fullest possible opportunity of discussing those parts of the Budget which were left over before the end of the financial year. Those words, if they meant anything, were intended to be a benefit to the Opposition, and now the right hon. Gentleman comes and twists those words to mean a pledge that the Budget had to be finished before the end of the financial year. Therefore, he is pleased to observe only one part of the pledge, and not that part of it which dealt with full opportunity of discussion.

  939
  Enough, perhaps, about pledges. We, as the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) reminded us, are often finding ourselves in the position of having to accuse the Government of breaches of pledges. I agree with him it is unfortunate, and most unfortunate, that it is so. But I think the fault lies not with us, but with those who break their pledges in the wholesale manner to which we are now accustomed. Another most unpleasant feature of the discussion was one about which we are not in the least surprised, and that was the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester. The hon. Member indulged in that cant which is the peculiar property of the Labour party, the cant of independence, the cant of caring for the liberties of this House, when they are neither independent on the one hand, nor care a fig for the liberties of this House on the other. In fact, I do not believe they care for liberty anywhere. The last thing the Labour party want is liberty. The one thing they want to indulge in is tyranny over those who support them in the country. As an illustration of that in the country, I read this morning of what took place in South Wales, where there is a strike. They took a ballot which is sup posed of all things to be the most secret, and the way they took that ballot was to give to each man two pieces of paper, one of which he was to put into a box——
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: On a point of Order, may I ask if the strike in South Wales has anything to do with the Motion?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I understand the hon. Member is merely giving it as an illustration.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: As an illustration of the sense of liberty and the desire for tyranny which is indulged in by the Members of the Labour party over their followers in the country who have been egged on by them to those acts. The illustration is that they have a ballot and each man has two pieces of paper given to him going into the ballot box. One of those pieces of paper is to be put into the box and the other can be carried away. A pin is provided, so that the men may pin those pieces they carry away on to their coats so that their fellow workers know how they voted. That is the way the Labour party or their followers or dupes in the country take a ballot, which is always considered to be the freest possible expression of opinion. If the hon. Member
  940
  for Leicester had his way, no doubt, that is the way he would like to have this House. No doubt he would like to see this House reduced to being a House of dupes of himself and his friends, in the same way as he has made so many wretched and unfortunate people in the country the dupes of his party.
  Mr. TYSON WILSON: We do not give notices to quit.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: If the hon. Member is talking of notices to quit of cottages I do not know to what he alludes. If he is talking of the freedom of election I think he had better investigate his own trade union conditions. Not one word has been said by the Prime Minister of the importance of the things which are contained in the Amendments and new Clauses. The Prime Minister says that it is not an ordinary Bill. He rides off on another quibble that the new Clauses are not such as are usually put down on a Finance Bill, but has there ever been a Bill before like that of the Budget of 1909–10? Has the Prime Minister forgotten that this Revenue Bill is necessitated under the Budget of 1909–10 by the gross, wilful, and malignant perversions of justice which have taken place. Has he forgotten that that Budget was originally designed and intended as a trap? Has he forgotten that happy phraseology of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of which we heard? Has he forgotten all about the Licensing Taxes, and how, when the Licensing Bill was rejected, that those in the Licensing trade were to have their tails twisted by those taxes? Has he forgotten all those episodes which has brought about this Revenue Bill which we are now discussing and seeking to amend? Does he not realise in full all that complexity and all those particulars of injustices, both wilful injustices and heedless injustices, which have been amply availed of by the Exchequer, and that there must be many occasions for discussion of details? Does he not realise, therefore, that this discusison should inevitably take place in this House?
  I wonder if the Prime Minister, with that equanimity with which he seems to regard this closuring of Debate in this House, realises how many people there are in the country who are feeling, not alone the burden of taxation, but the effect of absolute poverty and ruin by these taxes? Has he forgotten that a great many of those taxes which were meant only to hit landlords and the

  941
  wealthier classes—licencees and brewers, who could afford it—have fallen upon people in very small circumstances, and on people who are feeling, and feeling bitterly, from day to day, the injustices done under this iniquitous Budget of 1909–10? Those people have been looking to this House for the opportunity they think ought to come to amend those taxes and to correct some of those monstrous anomalies. What do they find? The opportunity comes, but no sooner has it come than it has gone, and gone because it has been filched away from them by the Prime Minister, who a few years ago, with his colleagues, said that they were going to restore the dignity of the House of Commons. Why does not the Prime Minister come down and say the real reason for this guillotine. We all know what it is. It is not in the least because it is necessary to get this Bill through before the 31st March. Everybody knows that that is not in the least essential. The Bill could perfectly well be postponed to April or May, and nothing would result from it. It is not because he wants to make way for the Parliament Bill, because it is perfectly obvious to anybody in this House that the Parliament Bill could perfectly well pass, even if there was ample discussion, three or four weeks even, of this measure. The real reason is that he dare not have these new Clauses discussed because he has no answer. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to be sneering at the people in this House putting down these new Clauses. He tries to make the House think that it is a matter of obstructive tactics. He seems to find fault, or the hon. Member for Leicester finds fault, because there had been an organisation on the part of the Opposition to deal with these questions.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDexpressed dissent.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I thought the hon. Member had referred to it. That criticism failed to recognise that it was all the more reason why they should be discussed because they had been carefully thought out. They are not put down casually. They are Amendments and new Clauses which have been put down after careful consideration and discussion on the Paper, with people well qualified to advise the people who put them down. Moreover, they are put down to rectify grievances which have been brought to our notice from outside. The real reason for this guillotine is that these questions
  942
  cannot be answered by anybody on the Government Bench. We have had ample means of proving that so far as we have had any discussion at all. Look at the Land Clauses—and here I should like to say I deplore, and we all have cause to deplore, the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the reason for his absence, but I do not think that that absence and the failure of anybody else on the Government side to be able to take up his work is sufficient justification for stifling discussion. Is there anybody else on the Government Bench? There is not a single man on the Government Bench who can deal with these Land Clauses, because none of them know anything about them. The Prime Minister has, I believe, taken up the Licensing Clauses, and I believe he knows them, but he knows I am speaking absolutely what is correct in saying that not another Member of the Government understands or had studied the matters concerned with the land question. Even the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was here very rarely deigned to answer questions. He talked a great deal about them, but he did not often really touch upon the point. We have had the Secretary to the Treasury and the learned Attorney-General dealing with this question, and I am sure anybody who heard them will realise that they did not know even what was in the Budget of 1909–10, let alone know or realise the points which we wanted to put into the Revenue Bill.
  6.0 P.M.
  I really think it is rather pitiable that the Government, in order to avoid that criticism which becomes inevitable from the working of the most complex financial measure ever brought before this House should come down and stifle discussion, especially when you have all those people in the country anxiously looking forward and hoping to find that their grievances would be discussed and remedied. Take a question they do not want to have discussed at all—that is the question of agricultural land being taxed under the Budget. Hon. Members opposite do not, of course, want it discussed, because their election literature was filled with statements that agricultural land was not taxed under the Budget. They know very well if they had a discussion on that question in this House, and if they were called upon to vote against some of the new Clauses, that they would be in a very awkward position. They know that what they stated is perfectly untenable. As a matter of fact, agricultural land is very heavily burdened by the Budget in a great many

  943
  cases. Then look at the other important Clauses, dealing with licences, Income Tax, motors, tobacco, and every other sort and form of taxation which is proposed by the Budget. What becomes then of, and how perfectly monstrous and irrelevant is the suggestion that those Amendments are not serious Amendments, and that those new Clauses do not deserve the amplest and the fullest discussion which the right hon. Gentleman had promised. I wonder the Government have not paid some attention to the advice which has been so frequently given by the hon. Member for Hackney. I really think that it is a strong point. If this House is going to claim the whole financial power of this country, and says that no other House shall discuss Money Bills of any sort or kind, then I really think it is rather a strong order that the discussion of Money Bills should be turned into the farce which this discussion is coming to to-day. Can any body deny that it is a farce? Look at the terms of this Motion. How much does the Prime Minister allow for the Report stage of all these new clauses? An hour.
  The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. J. A. Pease): You can take a full day if you like.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: The Chancellor of the Duchy does not even know the terms of the Motion. Before he comes to represent the Government he might, at any rate, read the Motion. Had he done so he would have known that the report of the new clause and of Clause 1, in addition, has to be brought to a termination at five p.m., and our discussions usually begin about four o'clock.
  Mr. J. A. PEASE: I beg the Noble Lord's pardon for my interruption. I was thinking of to-morrow, the first day in Committee.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I particularly said the Report stage. That is a very valuable stage, because some of these new clauses might be acceptable to the Government in theory, but not in terms, and they might ultimately be accepted in some form. The Government, however, give themselves no time between the Committee and the Report stages to consider whether they can adopt them or not, and on Report stage they will not even be reached. If we divided on each Clause without discussion we should not get through them in the time allotted.
  944
  That is the kind of discussion given to a Money Bill by this House which proposes to arrogate to itself alone the right to deal with all Money Bills. It only shows the sort of farce to which the Government are reducing Parliamentary Government. I really wonder why we waste our time in this House. We might as well have voting machines to record votes for the Government on the other side, and against them on this side. If we are not to be allowed to discuss matters it is reducing Parliament to an absurdity, and the House of Commons to a level it has never hitherto approached. Moreover, it is making the House of Commons the laughing-stock of those who sent us here, more especially when it is remembered that the Government propose to make this House, under the Cabinet of the day, the supreme power instead of one of the three elements in the Constitution which we have hitherto had.
  Viscount MORPETH: It is well known that the Liberal party, despite their name, are autocratic in the measures they propose, and that they are constantly showing themselves more dictatorial in their policy, and more ready to give orders to the subject than the party on this side of the House have ever been. I do not suppose that the House as a whole very much regrets the time of private Members, except those Members themselves who have resolutions to bring forward. Private Members' proposals are not generally practical politics but the Finance Bill is in a very different category. It is, or should be the main work of this House. The control of finance is the origin of the power of the House of Commons. If the ample and complete control over finance should be taken from this House by the Executive Government it will sap the strength and influence of the House of Commons in the country more than any other measure that could be imagined. The present proposal is defended upon one ground, and one ground only. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) put it most clearly when he said that he advocated this interference with liberty in the cause of greater liberty. We all know what liberty means, but we do not all know what greater liberty means. There is no novelist preaching immorality at the present time who does not call it the higher or greater morality, and the hon. Gentleman's "greater liberty" would be something like the "greater morality" of the novelist. There is no tyrant who has not paved his way to the

  945
  usurpation of liberty by promising the people under his sway that liberty will be greater under him than under a Parliamentary system. The demagogic method of endeavouring to procure that greater liberty, which is tyranny, is exactly the same whether carried out by a party or by an individual.
  The Labour party, being a new party in this House, have no experience of being in Opposition. Ever since they became a Parliamentary party they have been a part of the coalition majority. Consequently they have never experienced the humiliation and bitterness not only of being outvoted—that is inherent in a minority—but of not being allowed to put forward the arguments and reasons which they were expressly elected by their constituents to submit to the House of Commons. The Liberal party, whatever may be their temporary success, when they consent to these continual proposals for taking away the power of discussion which we have had in the past, are pursuing a very dangerous policy, and one which must eventually lower the prestige of this House in the eyes of the people. The only basis upon which Parliament can deserve consideration or respect is that its discussions shall be free and unfettered, that all opinions may be put forward in this House, and that the minority, equally with the majority, although they cannot control the vote, shall have an opportuity of putting their views before the people. The hon. Member for Leicester says that our reasons for urging these views to-day are naked and apparent to anybody who has the meanest capacity to consider them. If our objects are naked, the reason of the Government for hustling their business through is equally transparent. They desire to get rid of all these financial questions, to put aside all the difficulties and the unpopularity which are accumulating upon their heads by reason of the last Budget, and to hustle on the Parliament Bill. Take the policy pursued by the Government with regard to the local authorities, and the method by which they first obtained support by promising them half the proceeds of the Land Taxes, and then after the election withdrawing that promise: I have not the slightest doubt that the Government will find their proceedings in that matter a millstone about their necks when they go once more before the constituencies. They will find that to make promises before an election and repudiate them after the election upon a matter so vitally affecting the budget of
  946
  hundreds of local authorities is indeed bad policy on their part.
  I agree that these protests against the taking of the time of the House by the Government have become wearisome, because although we protest we never succeed in getting any adequate reply. The moment when you are proposing to set up this House as the sole Chamber in finance and fundamentally to alter the Constitution, is the very worse time to impose further chains and trammels on our Debate, and to lower still further the prestige and influence of this House. If there were no other reason for protesting, this would be a peculiarly opportune occasion on which to do so, because the action which the Government are now taking shows how dangerous it will be to entrust the control of finance to a Single Chamber.
  Mr. COOPER: The significant feature of this Debate is that the Prime Minister, in bringing his Motion before the House, has not succeeded in raising sufficient enthusiasm among his supporters to induce any of them to get up and support him. I have observed during the last year and the present Session that when any question of the rights and privileges of private Members has been at issue there have generally been Members on the other side who have so far as they dared endeavoured to defend those rights. Why is it that on the present occasion the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir H. Dalziel) and the hon. Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) have sat absolutely quiet, hushed, gagged? This Motion is a very good illustration, if illustration were needed, of the indecent haste with which the Government are compelled to carry on their legislation. Their position being that of a coalition, it cannot at the best of times be a very enviable one. We can gauge the feelings of hon. Members below the Gangway on either side of the House when we recall the following statement made by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) on the 16th instant:—
  "Until that great issue (the Constitutional issue) is disposed of we are prepared, although to me it is a very difficult task, to swallow measures which, were we free from the influence of that issue, we would oppose to the bitterest extremity."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1910, col. 2538.]
  I can only conclude that what is compelling a large number of Members to do what is absolutely opposed to their consciences is also driving them to remain absolutely silent, and preventing them from supporting or even opposing, as

  947
  doubtless many would like to do, the Motion of the Prime Minister. When the Education Bill of 1902 was before the House, the present Secretary to the Board of Admiralty (Dr. Macnamara) went so far as to compliment the Prime Minister of that day (the present Leader of the Opposition) on his patience in having allowed thirty-eight days in Committee on the Bill before bringing in his closure Motion, and after doing that he complained that he and his party were unpatriotic in the line they were taking. We who know how closely the Home Rule movement is at the back of what is going on at the present time question, and, I think, with much justice, the patriotism of the Prime Minister and his party. We do so the more when we bear in mind that we are hearing very little in this Parliament of the rights of England as opposed to the rights of Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, although England, in this Parliament, has sent a majority of thirteen Members against the Parliament Bill and in opposition to the Government. On the occasion to which I have referred the Prime Minister himself laid down what I think is a very just explanation of when the use of the closure is justified. He said:—
  "The criterion of the proper length of debate is the extent, character, and value of the amendments and additions made."
  The point I want to make upon this is that we are still dealing with the big, bold Budget. No one will dispute, and I think that history itself supports my contention, that the principles of this Budget are very extensive in their character and value, and have a very far-reaching interest for everyone in this country. In this Revenue Bill, which is virtually the Budget of old, or a section of it, you are positively dealing with a Bill upon which it is not a question as to whether or not this Government has got a mandate. You are dealing with a measure which you, in this present Parliament, have a mandate against. You could not pass in the last Parliament this self-same Budget. You could not, you did not, pass this big, bold People's Budget—because the 1910–11 Budget was identical with the 1909–10 Budget—you have not yet passed it, and we can only fairly assume, as we assumed last year, that it is a question of arrangement or bargain—perfectly justified it may be under our present system—between the Prime Minister and the sections of his coalition Government. He has got to satisfy them before he is going to get their support. On the occasion I
  948
  referred to the Prime Minister, in the case in which it was admitted that the Prime Minister of the day, now the Leader of the Opposition, had been extremely patient, referred to the Closure then as being an arbitrary and drastic measure. The right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "The closure is inconsistent with the elementary rights and privileges of a debating Assembly,"
  Of course, it is so. We on these benches maintain that the use of the Closure, except in very exceptional circumstances, which we might assume would be apparent to the Whole House, is inconsistent with the elementary rights and privileges of this House. The late Mr. Parnell was once asked by a young Irish Member how he could learn the rules of this House. Mr. Parnell tersely replied: "By breaking them." I only hope that the political position of the day is not imbuing the Prime Minister and the Government with too much of that spirit, so that in order to teach us to discover the value of the Parliamentary system, and the proper rights and privileges of debate of private Members in this House, he is enlarging these occasions and thus breaking through precedents when the use of the Closure may be legitimately employed.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition very properly referred to the feelings of the new Members who had been in this House only since January last. Rightly or wrongly, it is a fact that a large majority of the new Members are beginning to wonder, however fitted one may possibly be as a representative of any constituency, whether the so-called public representation of the constituencies which we, every one, boast of when talking to our Constituents, the whole system, in a word, is not an absolute farce from beginning to end I In my opinion the action that the Prime Minister is taking on this occasion in moving this Motion is serving to back up the speech that was made by the right hon. Gentleman's corner-stone—the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley). [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I do not think that any hon. Member opposite will suggest that the hon. Member for South Hackney is any particular friend of the party who sit on these benches? But we do recognise that he has a remarkable faculty for expressing the general prevailing opinion of the man in the street.
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: He is in favour of the Parliament Bill.
  Mr. COOPER: He may be in favour of the Parliament Bill, but if one follows out the opinion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney as to what is going to happen to the Prime Minister and the Government on this issue, there is a very great divergence of opinion between respective hon. Members. It is still very much in doubt, I would like to remind the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs, as to whether the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney is going to support the Prime Minister on the Third Reading of the Bill. As representing a constituency which believes that I and others who come here to logically represent their constituencies in some logical manner, I do protest most emphatically against what I regard as certainly the unjust—perhaps I cannot say illegal—use that is being made by the Government in depriving us of our rights and curtailing the privileges of this House.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: We have had a speech from the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham.
  Earl WINTERTON: With a great many interruptions from you.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: We have had a speech from the Noble Lord the Member for Maidstone (Viscount Castlereagh). We have had a speech from the Noble Lord the Member for the Thirsk Division (Viscount Helmsley). We have had a speech from the Noble Lord who represents one of the Divisions of Birmingham (Viscount Morpeth), and I think we may say, in the absence of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), who, like Achilles, has retired to his tent, that the cream has been skimmed off this Debate. I think we might now be allowed to get on to the very interesting 130 clauses. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham aroused my interest—I have not read these 130 clauses—by stating that a good many of them dealt with the Land Taxes. Nobody can claim that I am not anxious to have the Land Clauses of the Budget discussed. I feel certain that the Noble Lord will agree with me that they will give rise to a very interesting discussion, and that the sooner we get on with them the better it will be. The Debate this afternoon is really defeating its own object. We want to discuss all these 130 clauses. Directly the rest of the Opposition cease to talk and allow us to get on with them we shall be able to see how far is genuine the vast interest of the Opposition in passing the Budget.
  950
  The Government have had two courses open to them, or perhaps a third. They might, as so often occurs, have come to terms with the Opposition. In the very regretful absence of Mr. Belloc, I can only say I am very glad that they did not come to amicable terms with the Opposition. Or they could pass this guillotine Resolution, which we have before us. I do not like guillotine resolutions as a rule, but if it is the only alternative to coming to terms with the Opposition I prefer it. It is certainly necessary that this Budget, which is last year's Budget, should be passed into law before 31st March. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] With these two alternatives before them I can only congratulate the Government on this occasion in coming to terms with their own followers, and not coming to terms with the Opposition.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The gods must have inspired the soul of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down to put himself forward as the sole independent supporter of the Government. When we bear in mind how recently he spoke on another occasion we might have expected a passionate speech on this Closure Debate——
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: This is a very different thing.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I confess that, after listening to the speech of the Prime Minister, I find it very difficult to deal with the Motion which he has made. He read to us the major portion, undoubtedly, of the passages in the speeches either of himself or colleagues, on which we have relied when we assumed that we would have adequate, and even full opportunity, for surveying the new taxes which have not been in operation for a year, as well as the general field of taxes, for which this is ordinarily an opportunity. He read these passages, and he proceeded to state that they were perfectly consonant with the course he now takes. He did not attempt to prove that they were. I confess that I am entirely unable to understand how he has been able to read his words and those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and yet permit himself to make a Motion of this kind without at least offering time in lieu on some other occasion, in which the promises held out to the Opposition might be fulfilled. The House must remember that in consequence of the promises which were made the discussion of the truncated Finance Bill, passed last year, was very brief indeed. The Second Reading passed

  951
  without any debate whatever. The Committee debate and the consequent stages were very brief. We were told that discussion did not arise on the small part of the Finance Bill which was passed last year, but would arise on the part of the Finance Bill which was postponed until this year.
  I think this is a strong measure itself, and incompatible with the promises made that the Government should now preclude us from having an opportunity which we were then led to expect. A great deal has been said about the number of the new Clauses. Following the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition immediately pointed out that that had no meaning whatever. The number of Amendments on the Paper never teaches you anything unless you examine them to see how many are Amendments of substance. Passing from that, there are undoubtedly an unusual number of questions raised by way of the new Clauses. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues expecting that to be the case. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, in the Autumn Session, called attention to the fact that the great changes in his Budget of 1909–10 having now become law, there was a specially wide field which Members would desire to discuss, which they were entitled to discuss, and which the Government would give them an opportunity to discuss. If the right hon. Gentleman takes the trouble to study the Amendments which appear upon the paper and the new clauses, he will see that, very far from having reason to complain of the constitution of the Committees of the Opposition who go into these questions and settle what Amendments should be moved, that procedure on our part has resulted in raising a series of very important questions that have caused grave discontent, and as which no one can deny either their importance or right to occupy a fair proportion of the time of the House. If I fail to understand how the right hon. Gentleman thinks his course of action reconcilable with his language, I confess I also fail to understand why in the circumstances he thinks it worth while even to pretend he can reconcile one with the other. I share with my hon Friends on this side the inability to understand the reason why this Bill must be passed before the 31st March. I invite the Government to state what provision of this Bill must be passed before the 31st March. The hon. Member who
  952
  spoke last reiterated that it was necessary, but he did not explain why.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Because of the end of the financial year.
  Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN: Why is it necessary to pass it before the end of the financial year? It was not necessary to pass the Budget of 1909 by the end of the financial year, and the Government declined to attempt to do so. It is not, therefore, in the nature of Budgets that they must be passed by the end of the financial year. [An HON. MEMBER: "It will save about a million"] The hon. Member (Mr. Wedgwood) has at last given us a reason. He thinks it will save about a million. Will he tell us how? That is pure nonsense, for which there is not a shadown of foundation. It would have saved money if the Budget of 1909 had been passed before the end of the financial year, because the Government were not collecting their taxes because it was not passed, but they are collecting their taxes now; they have authority to collect them, and therefore there would not be a penny saved by passing this Bill before 31st march. The hon. Member is quite mistaken in his statement. What reason, therefore, is there why the Bill should pass before the 31st March? I do not know of any. I do not believe it is necessary in order to carry out the Sinking Fund proposals; indeed, I am certain it is not. The Government are not obliged to pay away the whole of the Sinking Fund immediately after the financial year, and there is nothing in the Sinking Fund that necessitates its passing before the 31st March; I believe there is nothing in the Local Taxation Clauses, and I believe the only necessity for passing it before the 31st March is the convenience of the Government. If that be so there seems to be less excuse for pressing it in defiance of their own pledges. Why do they even make a pretence that they are carrying out their pledges? The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department has given the case away. He went straight from the all night sitting where he was a prime actor to a meeting of the National Liberal Club, and there he did not explain that the Government were doing anything necessary for their financial business, but he stated they were setting up a military supremacy in the House of Commons. It is in order to continue what he calls that military supremacy that the Government broke their word once and are breaking it again.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman has, I am glad to say, throughout the greater portion of his remarks shown a note of moderation, and, if I may say so without offence of tameness of demeanour which is, I think, very satisfactory to those who sit upon the Government side of the House, and is in very happy contrast with his recent utterances on this subject I regret, however, to have heard the right hon. Gentleman conclude his speech by reiterating the old stale and and utterly untrue charge that the Prime Minister and the Government have, in the first place, been guilty of a breach of faith. It is very easy to say that your opponents have been guilty of a breach of faith; but it is a great mistake to splash the paint about so freely that your words cease to have any real meaning and cease to carry any sense of affront even to those to whom they are applied, and cease to bear any connection with any genuine feeling of indignation on the part of those on whose behalf they are spoken.
  Why look at the condition of the House? We could not have had a more satisfactory Debate from the point of view of the Government or one conducted in a calmer or more friendly way. No doubt the Opposition would like more time to discuss this Bill, and no doubt the Government would like to give more time, but that it is not possible, having regard to the condition of public business, and it has not been possible at any period since the beginning of the Session. The right hon. Gentleman opposite spoke of the 31st March. He was the first speaker who has quarrelled with the 31st March. From the very beginning of these discussions last year in November we have always aimed at getting the Finance Bill of last year through by the 31st March. There never has been any doubt about that. Over and over again in the communications made to the House, the 31st March was the date stated by which we desired to conclude the stages of this belated finance. The reason is very obvious. There are provisions in the measure that would be hampered if they did not come into operation on the 31st March, but quite apart from the question of finance, it is the regular practice of this House to dispose of the business of each financial year in the currency of that year. The only reason why a departure was made from that practice was because of the extraordinary series of events familiar to everyone in the House which led to the throwing of all our financial apparatus out
  954
  of gear and deranging completely the course of financial business and about which each party is entitled to blame its opponent. But the case is so well known to the House in general that it would be waste of time for us to accuse hon. Gentlemen opposite, and waste of time for them to accuse us of bringing about the state of things which exist. We aim at restoring the financial balance by clearing off the financial business for 1910–11 within the scope of the current year. That is the convenient practice, and we have always said we desire to do that. The pledges given by the Prime Minister had reference to the 31st March and to that alone.
  If I understood the argument of the Leader of the Opposition, he said there was no reason whatever why you should not dispose of the Finance Bill of last year by 31st March, if you had not interposed discussion on the Parliament Bill and on the Navy. Seven days he said were wasted or consumed on the Parliament Bill, and on the discussion with regard to naval expenditure, and these seven days he declared were the cause of the difficulty and the congestion and the pressure under which we are now working. How can that statement be reconciled with the protests which were made by the Leader of the Opposition and by hon. Gentlemen opposite against taking the time of private Members. The right hon. Gentleman said when the Motion to take the time of private Members was under discussion:—
  "If I follow the Prime Minister rightly, he has before the end of the year enough time for all necessary financial business of the year without intruding upon private Members at all. … There is no necessity for depriving private Members of their rights in order that that decision may be arrived at in the year."
  The right hon. Gentleman told us there was no difficulty in disposing of the compulsory financial business before the 31st March without taking the time of private Members. We took the time of private Members, as I make it out. thirteen and a-half days of private Members' time. We took six Tuesdays and six Wednesdays, each of which are half Parliamentary days. That makes six Parliamentary days, and we took seven Fridays which are counted as ordinary days, making thirteen days. [HON. MEMBERS: "Fridays are not full Parliamentary days."] Well, even if you like to make a certain deduction and not count Fridays as full days, it is quite clear we took from private Members a great deal more time than was consumed in the discussion of the Parliament Bill, and the Motion in regard to the Navy, and there-

  955
  fore if we had followed the advice of the right hon. Gentleman and not taken the time of private Members and not devoted any time to the discussion of the Parliament Bill, we should be in a worse position by three or four days at the present time, and be in a state of greater Parliamentary congestion and pressure than exists now. I think that makes it clear that the right hon. Gentleman knew very well when he was speaking on that Motion to take private Members' time the limits within which discussion on this Bill was possible. The Leader of the Opposition made rapidly in his mind a calculation, and he said:—
  "Assume you take all the time for the discussion of the necessary business, you can get it all through by the 31st March without taking the time of private Members."
  The only day in which you could have obtained that result would have been by giving three days less to this Bill than we are proposing to do.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman to say that I do not think he need labour that point. I made that calculation from notes taken during that discussion, and the House knows the way it has to be done. I was then acting on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition. I took rapid notes of the calculations on which the Prime Minister based his argument, and I accepted his statement as the basis of my argument as to the time required for financial business. I also said that it was the introduction of the Parliament Bill in addition to the necessary financial business, which had made it necessary for the Government to curtail the time of private Members. I took, for the purposes of my argument, the Prime Minister's own calculations of the time that would be required for the financial proposals, and now the right hon. Gentleman chooses to say "You must be responsible for it." Very well, then, I made a miscalculation. I had not then seen the Finance Bill, or the character of the measure the Government were going to propose, and I do not think I had seen the Supplementary Estimates. Consequently, I did not realise how long the Financial business was going to take.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has seen fit to revise his calculation. But quite apart from what the right hon. Gentleman said in February we have had the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, in which he reproached the Government
  956
  for taking the time of private Members, and for pressing procedure upon the Revenue Bill. I have shown that the time taken from private Members has enabled us to make a more generous provision for the discussion of the Revenue Bill than would have otherwise been possible. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Supplementary Estimates. It is true that the Government have given a day or two longer for discussion on the Supplementary Estimates, but at whose request? The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well it was done to facilitate discussion on points of interest, mainly by the Opposition, to promote the smooth passage of Parliamentary business. On the general question of the time allotted to this Budget I have only to say that there has been no breach of faith, and this is proved by the statement made by the Prime Minister and by other facts known to every hon. Member of the House. On the merits of the question, I do not believe it can be honestly contended that the Budget provisions of the year 1910–11 are receiving too meagre an allowance of Parliamentary discussion. It must be remembered that in the last Parliament we gave altogether six days of discussion to the Budget provisions of 1910–11, and we are now in the present Session giving, as the Prime Minister has shown, eight days before it is completed—that is fourteen days will have been consumed upon the discussion of the Budget provisions of this year. I have not been able to look up this case in detail, but I venture to think that by the practice of this House many Budgets which have contained no new proposals for taxation have been disposed of in less than fourteen days, or nearly three Parliamentary weeks.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: How does the right hon. Gentleman make up fourteen days?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I will hand the right hon. Gentleman the list of dates.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is exactly what I supposed. The Second Reading of the Finance Bill last year was taken without more than a single sentence spoken by me on behalf of my hon. Friends, in which I said that, as the Government, having reduced discussion to a farce, we should take no part in it, but reserve our discussion for this Bill. That is put down on the right hon. Gentleman's list as a full day. That is an example of the careful accuracy of a Minister's statement.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The fact that the right hon. Gentleman, in a fit of pique, did not take advantage of the Parliamentary opportunities afforded him is no ground for impugning my words or the accuracy of my statement. What I respectfully ask the right hon. Gentleman now is: Whether he and his hon. Friends are not now engaged, by prolonging this discussion, in repeating the self-same error which he fell into in not utilising the day which could have been devoted to discussion when this Bill was put down for Second Reading in November. It is quite clear the right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well throughout that the limits of discussion before 31st March available for this measure were necessarily narrow. It is obvious that they could not have been very lengthy. We have never departed from the first proposal we made of six and a-half days except to extend the time more generously to hon. Members opposite. When the total amount of time spent this year on this Budget is added to the time spent upon it during the last Parliament, it will be found, for a Budget with no new proposals for taxation, the time given to it does not fall below the amount of time given to many similar measures of non-controversial finance.
  Mr. BUTCHER: In one respect the right hon. Gentleman has exercised a very wise discretion, for he has said very little in answer to the charges we have made. I think the right hon. Gentleman shows great discretion when he declines to speak at length in regard to a charge of a breach of faith. I will pass on to what he said about it being necessary to pass this Bill into law before the 31st March. The first thing the right hon. Gentleman did was to throw over his rather unwise supporter on the bench opposite, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood), because that hon. Member assured the House that it was absolutely necessary to pass this measure before 31st March. The right hon. Gentleman at once threw the hon. Member over, and I have not the slightest doubt he was right. If it is not necessary to pass these proposals by 31st March, what is the meaning of this guillotine Resolution? That argument is put forward as one of the justifications of the assertion that the whole of the finance of the country would go to ruin if you gave more time to discuss these new Clauses. The Home Secretary said there were certain financial details which would hamper the Government if we did not pass them by 31st March. You were not so
  958
  anxious this time last year to pass your Budget. Parliament met on 15th February last year, and what day did you bring your Budget forward in this House? Not until 20th April. Now you profess to be such financial purists that you cannot give us an extra day, when last year you did not bring your proposals before the House until 20th April.
  If you want to find a reason why this guillotine Resolution is now brought forward you will have to look a little back into history. The right hon. Gentleman says the Government cannot give us any more time because it is not possible. Why is it not possible? Whose fault is it? It is impossible to discuss these unprecedented attempts to stifle discussion on financial business without going into past history. The real reason for this Resolution is on account of the political trickery to which the Government have resorted during the past year for the purpose of remaining in office. They did not bring in their Budget of 1909 until late in the year, and they left no time in the earlier part of last year to discuss the financial operation of this Budget. They had another chance in the autumn Session. Surely it was a businesslike and the only decent and honourable course to have adopted in the autumn Session to have brought this Revenue Bill on then and there and carried it into law. Why did they not do it? They determined to have a gambler's throw, and they precipitated a General Election on issues for which they were not unprepared. They anticipated that they might get a real Liberal majority instead of the precarious coalition majority which they then enjoyed. Consequently, they threw away their chance in November last year of discussing the Budget of 1910, and that is why we are here to-day asking for more time to discuss it. The Government failed to get that real majority they wanted, and the reason we are forced to have this; stifled discussion is because you failed to get that majority, and you are still under the dictation of hon. Members below the Gangway, who insist that you shall not give the necessary time because they want you to go on with the Parliament Bill for reasons which we know too well. I will not now go into the details of these new Clauses, but will any hon. Member who has read them tell me they are not important. The Prime Minister did not venture to say they were not important, neither did the Home Secretary. They have two main objects, one of which is to remove

  959
  some part, or, at any rate, some of the more flagrant injustices which have come to light under the Budget of 1909.
  7.0 P.M.
  The other object is to remove some of those obscurities and difficulties which have made the Budget of 1909 almost unworkable. Parliament is entitled to discuss these matters, and you refuse it. In the country you are the champions of democracy and of free speech, but when you come here you care neither for the one nor the other. You care not for democracy, and you scout at the idea of free speech. You encourage the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) to summon his battalions over from Ireland. Perhaps I ought to say, you request and humbly beg, and your request is graciously acceded to. He issues a peremptory summons bringing hon. Members over from Ireland. What for? Not to talk of finance. They do not care about English finance; they come over for the purpose of stifling and shutting the mouths of representatives of England and of gagging and closuring the representatives of a majority in England. They come here for the purpose of guilloting us on a subject which is admittedly the most important subject which this House could consider, namely, the question of finance. We know perfectly well it is not to talk about finance or gagging Resolutions that they really come. They really come to pave the way for Home Rule, which the country has never discussed.
  Why are hon. Members belonging to the Labour party going to support this gagging Resolution. They want to get on with the Parliament Bill, but not for the same reason the Government say they want to get on with it. The Government want a Second Chamber; the Labour party want a Single Chamber. They want to get on with the Parliament Bill, not to help Home Rule like hon. Members from Ireland, but to help their scheme of Single Chamber Government. This is a travesty of Parliamentary practice, and there sits the Prime Minister a helpless figure, the victim of his own incapacity. I see many other victims sitting on that Bench of the same type. You are supposed to be the custodians of free speech. The Prime Minister, under the rule of his associates from Ireland, has come here to-day to stifle free speech. You may defeat us to-night, but I am certain that the spectacle which you to-day present, and the precedent you are setting for the future, will in due
  960
  course bring you that condemnation which you have done your best to deserve.
  Mr STEEL-MAITLAND: I must enter one protest, if I may, against the language which my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Butcher) has addressed to the Secretary for the Home Department. I really think he was extremely ungrateful for the eminent services the Home Secretary always renders to this side of the House. When any business, in the language of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) is really likely to be done, and when the Debate, to use the Home Secretary's own language, has exhibited a tameness which he welcomes, he always remedies the defect himself when he rises in his place. Hon. Members opposite are no doubt cheered by his pugnacious attitude. That is all very well when the Debate is to come to an end at the given time, but when it delays business I should have imagined my hon. and learned Friend would have welcomed the Home Secretary almost as trying to lead the Conservative party in obstructing the business of the House from being accomplished. We have had the statement from the Home Secretary that there has been a coolness in the Debate the whole evening, and he of all people advised my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) not to splash paint about too thickly, because it might make people think he has no genuine feeling of indignation.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No; I did not say that You are mixing up two perfectly distinct phrases.
  Mr STEEL-MAITLAND: Let us take each of the phrases separately, if the Home Secretary wishes. The Home Secretary advises people on this side not to splash paint about too freely. I do not know whether he objects to that quotation. I wonder from whom we have learnt the valuable lesson of splashing paint about. Who is it who has been saying there is no despotism in this House, and who begins to talk about military supremacy when he goes outside to deliver a speech? The other phrase is that too much reiteration takes the edge off a genuine feeling of indignation, or makes people think it does not really exist. I wonder whether anyone credits the Home Secretary, who has used reiterated phrases on many subjects with that genuine feeling of indignation which he says does not exist on this side of the House. If we come down to the actual arguments of the Home Secretary with

  961
  regard to the time of the House and the Revenue Bill, what do they really amount to? He stated that thirteen or thirteen and a-half days of private Members' time were taken in order to enable the necessary financial business to go through. That is at least no excuse for having taken four of those days for the Parliament Bill. Those four days might have been devoted to financial business. When the Home Secretary made this calculation he really could not have reflected that the Supplementary Estimates this year have been of a perfectly unusual and inordinate character. There is no need, because the House has been treated to the spectacle of thoroughly bad finance in the matter of Estimates and Supplementary Estimates, why it should be treated to further bad finance in the lack of discussion on the Revenue Bill and the new Clauses proposed in regard to it.
  We are told by the Home Secretary that at least it had been the regular practice of the House to pass the Finance Bill before 31st March. Practice and precedent in the mouth of the Home Secretary? Is Saul also among the prophets? He did not mention, however—and it is really essential to the case—that the Finance Bill of the year is based upon reasons for getting money which do not apply to the Revenue Bill. If the Finance Bill has had to be passed in other years, it was because the revenue would be affected thereby. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) seems to think there would be a loss this year, but, with the exception of a certain amount of awkwardness, absolutely no loss will accrue. It is perfectly possible for the date of the Finance Bill to be postponed before it passes into law this year more so than last year, when the Government chose to postpone it to April or May. The Home Secretary recalled the number of days spent on uncontroversial Finance Bills, but, speaking from memory, I am inclined to say his calculation does not hold true with regard to most Finance Rills of anything of the character of the Bill before us. The Clauses we have to debate are Clauses which do not apply to any ordinary Finance Bill. They are consequential on the Land Taxes and need discussion and ventilation. Some of them are absolutely necessary. Take the case about market gardens. There is a subject which absolutely needs legislation. That Clause is a consequential Amendment on the Finance Act of last year, and urgently needs to be passed. Take the
  962
  Clause about sugar. After the remissions given by the Treasury with regard to tobacco in Ireland there is every reason—economic and otherwise—why the whole question of sugar should be thoroughly debated, especially as we were not given the opportunity last year.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: They may be debated on the Budget of this year.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: The Home Secretary has challenged us with regard to breaches of faith. We none of us wish to use strong language but sometimes he calls for language which is not Parliamentary. We were told last November we were going to have full and ample discussion this spring and now we are told we are to have full and ample discussion on the next Budget. What reliance are we to place on these pledges and promises? We can have no trust whatsoever that we shall have full and ample discussion on the next Budget if we are not given it at the present time. The hon. Member for Leicester comes down and asks his supporters to follow the Government on the ground that they are vindicating the freedom of the House of Commons and getting business done, but I can hardly think there ever was a more absurd travesty placed before Members of this House for their acceptance. What the hon. Member for Leicester has vindicated is a system whereby business cannot be properly done. The real way, if he wishes to get business properly done in this House, as many of us are anxious to get it done, is to go considerably deeper than he has done this afternoon. If there is ever obstruction in this House, what is the cause of it? It is the necessary and inevitable corollary of the system that obtains at this minute, the autocracy of the Government. The Home Secretary has already stated—he corrected himself after a sentence or two—that seven days were wasted on the Parliament Bill and the Navy.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcestershire was complaining of the use of this time, and I was speaking for the moment from his point of view and not from our point of view.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: The right hon. Gentleman used the words "wasted time."
  Mr. BYLES: Yes, the Home Secretary used the word "wasted," but——
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Home Secretary is here to defend himself.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: It does not really affect the point under discussion, although I have no doubt that the Home Secretary, being unable to defend himself, is grateful to the hon. Member who has just intervened for seeking to take up the cudgels on his behalf. If there is ground for objection to what the hon. Member for Leicester was pleased to call obstruction, it is really to be found in the autocracy which prevails at the present time, and which prevents the real feelings of the House being given expression to. In fact real discussion cannot take place. The Home Secretary stated in the debates a few weeks ago that there could not really be a despotism when on this side of the House there had been a yielding to public opinion on the part of private Members, and upon the other side the Government had yielded to public opinion on the part of some of its supporters. But there never was a despotism in history which was not tempered at some time by panic, and the fact that it was tempered by panic affords no real proof that it was not a despotism. What is the case at the present moment? There is not a single division taken in this House the result of which is not determined beforehand.
  There is not a single division affected one way or the other by the speeches made in this House, and if any hon. Member can get up either on the Government Bench or anywhere else, and deny that state of affairs let him do so. If that state of affairs exists, then I think no one can deny that there is a despotism existing in the House which is entirely to the disadvantage of private Members and to the House itself. Therefore when the hon. Member for Leicester comes down and thinks he vindicates the freedom of the House by the action he is taking, I say he is doing nothing of the kind. What he is really doing is this: he is doing his best to continue a system like the present which means that if there is any way of opposition it can only be by means of obstruction, and if there is any measure which is opposed it cannot be amended on its merits. If he wishes really to vindicate the real freedom of this House, he must do it in some other manner. I think a suggestion was made by an ex-Member of this House, whose opinion is well worthy all respect, that possibly some remedy might be found in sending more Bills to Grand Committees upstairs, where the whole party organisations do not exist in the same rigid
  964
  way. I think as soon as a Bill is sent upstairs——
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now travelling a long way from the Motion before the House.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will endeavour to confine myself more closely to the question at issue. May I be permitted to remark that what I am pleading for is more freedom for this House, and some means by which Motions brought forward by private Members may be adequately discussed? At the present moment, in connection with the Revenue Bill, we are going to be debarred from having the measure discussed, and I appeal to hon. Members not to support the Government in this guillotine proposal, but to realise that if they want good business done, if they want to get forward with legislation on such subjects as are dear to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and to others, it will not be accomplished by carrying Motions such as this. They really must have some more far-reaching remedy, which would enable the House to have fuller freedom in real criticism, greater power to discuss and move Amendments and new Clauses, and a more real expression of the sentiments of its Members in the legislation that is passed. Under the present system, the freedom of the House has been diminishing year by year until it has almost reached vanishing point, and the House itself has become almost the travesty of a deliberative assembly.
  Mr. BYLES: I am sorry I interrupted the last speaker for a moment, but I did so solely with a desire to elucidate a small question of fact. I wanted to point out that the Home Secretary, although he did use the word "wasted" in regard to the number of days spent in the discussion, instantly withdrew it and substituted for it the word "occupied," following that up with the word "consumed." I only wanted to bring that point out.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I do not wish to quarrel with the hon. Member's statements, but I would point out that the word "wasted" that slipped out so aptly really described the truth of the case, and that was the real reason for using it.
  Mr. BYLES: I have listened to the whole of this Debate with a feeling of sadness. I do not think the quality of pugnacity is entirely absent from my nature, but I have no desire whatever to join in the attacks which have been made on one side

  965
  or the other. I want rather to make a nonparty speech, and to appeal to the whole of my colleagues in this House. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has described himself as "a House of Commons man." I like that title for him, and I would like it to apply to all of us. I want the reputation of this House maintained and enhanced. Every time a Motion of this kind appears on the paper—I do not care whether it is put down by a Tory Government or by a Liberal Government—it is a reproach on the House of Commons; it is a suggestion that we are not able to conduct our Debates in an orderly and businesslike manner. What is the need for putting this Motion down at all? The need is well known to us all. I do not want to say one word that can be regarded as harsh by anybody, but nobody can deny for a single moment that what has been called obstruction, and what hon. Members may regard as justifiable delay in public business, is the reason for this Motion being put down.
  Obstruction is now a pretty old enemy of this House. It was invented by the ostensible and avowed enemies of the House. When Mr. Parnell elaborated his scientific methods he came down saying he wanted to destroy the operative powers of this House and to bring the assembly into disrepute. But surely a method that was invented by enemies of this House in order to destroy its powers is not necessarily to be adopted by the friends of the House. I know perfectly well this method is now adopted by both sides indifferently. I daresay it is a case of six to one and half-a-dozen of the other. But I do venture to assert that this House will never recover its usefulness until obstruction is regarded as a descreditable thing, and I appeal to both sides of the House and to Members in all parts of the House in the interests of the House of Commons and out of loyalty to the House which we all love, to put down obstruction. I do not believe for a moment it can be done to-day or to-morrow, but I want to get that idea into the minds of my fellow Members, and especially of the new Members of this House. I want them to regard obstruction as a disreputable method to resort to, and to realise that until we get rid of it we cannot hope to restore the House of Commons to what it used to be. In fact, its usefulness will be destroyed. There was one observation in the Debate I was very glad to hear from the Leader of the Labour party. He told us that if ever he had the power he would not resort to what he knew would be an
  966
  efficient and effective method of hindering legislation—in other words, he would never resort to the practice of obstruction. Now, I would suggest that if we were some Collegiate Debating Society we would not stand obstruction for a moment. We would either find some means of putting an end to it, or else we would put an end to the society altogether. A batsman when he is bowled at cricket goes back to the pavilion without a murmur, but if the defeated side began to knock the bails about and to make bowling impossible of course the whole game would be brought into discredit. In regard to obstruction, I do not blame one side more than the other. I only say that the honour of putting down this mischievous weapon will rest with those who begin the movement. I hope it will come to be regarded as a discreditable proceeding. Hon. Members opposite know quite well that they cannot beat us in the end. They can only lower the reputation of the House of Commons, and for that reason I venture, with all respect, to my colleagues on both sides of the House, to advance this plea that obstruction is a weapon which we ought to discredit.
  Mr. STANLEY WILSON: I wish to add my humble protest to those that have gone before against the passing of this resolution. We have been told by the Home Secretary that tempers are not rising. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why they are not. I will also tell him that if he wishes he can easily make them rise. He can do so by once again taking charge of the House during an all-night sitting. The reason why tempers are not rising on the present occasion is because after five years of the infliction of this Government in office we are gradually getting accustomed to the operation of being guillotined. We have had many of these resolutions in these five years, but surely everybody must admit that this is absolutely the most drastic performance that even the present Government has undertaken during its tenure of office. I would like to remind hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway that previously to 1906 their cry in the country was for free food and free speech. What have they done? They have done more than anybody else to deprive this House of the liberty of free speech. They have done more in that direction than any previous Government. Where are those supporters of the Government who, previous to 1906, when we occupied those benches opposite, whenever we brought in a guillotine resolution, made the strongest and

  967
  sturdiest protest upon those occasions? Where are they now? They are ghosts of the past. I venture to say they will come to life again after the next General Election, when the present Government is relegated from those benches to these. Then we shall have the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir Henry Dalziel) and other hon. Members, if they are not in the House of Lords, rising in their places and protesting against the guillotining of a Tariff Reform Budget. That is the precedent which I tell hon. Gentlemen on those benches they are setting us when we come into office. I look back a few years, and I remember almost at the commencement of this Government's tenure of office the Chief Secretary for Ireland, on one of those occasions when we were protesting against the imposition of the gag, as we have had so frequently to do, told us that minorities must suffer. That is the principle which has been adopted by this Government ever since the right hon. Gentleman expressed that view. But they seem to forget that in those days we on these benches were only 160 strong, and now we are 100 men stronger. The Government are not going to gag 260 Members in this House in the same way as they used when we were 160 Members. I would ask Members also to remember that we are 260 Members, representing somewhere about half of the voters of the United Kingdom. And I ask once again why is it necessary to stifle discussion with regard to this Budget? The Government on a former occasion did not consider it necessary to pass the then Budget within the then financial year. Why was that? The reason was that the hon. Members for Ireland told the Government that they had to go slow, but now the position is reversed and the hon. Members for Ireland are telling them that they have to go fast. They have to get on with their work and pass the Parliament Bill. The Government are always under the heel of the Irish Members, and they obey them in everything that they are told to do.
  The Home Secretary has told us that it is not necessary for this Budget to be passed by the end of the financial year, and what does a day or two more or less matter? I tell the right hon. Gentleman in spite of everything that he and the Prime Minister have said that they have broken their pledges once again. They promised us the fullest discussion of this Budget, and what did they give us? They gave us an all-night sitting. Is that what
  968
  they call the fullest discussion of this Budget? Under the Home Secretary we were compelled at 4.15 a.m. to discuss Clause 10, which was of the utmost importance, indeed of immense importance to all local authorities of this country. I quite agree with what one of my hon. Friends has said that many of the new Clauses have been put down in a business spirit. I should like to point out one which was put down in that spirit, and that was the Clause which I placed upon the Paper. [Ironical cheers.] Hon. Members may jeer, but I think they will jeer no longer when I tell them that the Clause was so important that it has been adopted by the Government, and it now stands on the Paper in their name. It will therefore, as my Clause has been accepted by the Government, be unnecessary for me to move the Amendment which stands on the Paper in my name. The reason the Government accepted my Clause was that they were under a pledge to me a year and a half ago, that they would accept it, and they have the satisfaction of knowing that at any rate they have fulfilled one of the pledges they gave. I do not wish to delay the House at any length. I only wish to say in conclusion that surely, in view of the promises that the Government have made to us in the past they ought to reconsider this Resolution, which they are endeavouring to force through now, and give us further facilities than those proposed.
  Mr. MILLS: I venture to think that any newly-elected Member of this House must have been rather shocked at the Resolution which the Prime Minister put forward. We are beginning to sorrowfully realise that those high ideals which we have heard of as prevailing in the House as to its efficiency to have complete control of the finances of the country must be very powerfully modified, and we think that our constituents, not only those of them who voted for us, but the whole of them among whom we have lived most of our lives, and whose grievances we know, will be disappointed. We know that they have certain just claims, and it is our duty on such occasions as the discussion of these new Clauses to bring those grievances under the notice of the House of Commons, and I venture to think that the average citizen of this country, whether he be Radical or Conservative, probably takes more interest in the practical provisions of the Finance Bill, and whether the Licensing Clauses, the Land Clauses, or any other Clause affects him personally

  969
  than in a wide Constitutional question, and I think the supporters of the right hon. Gentleman opposite will feel less the oppression of the hereditary peers than they will do some of the hardships of the clauses of the Budget which we are seeking to remedy. The hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Byles) drew a striking parallel between this Debate and a cricket match. He said that, having been bowled out, we must not tamper with the bails but go out, but what we complain of is, not that we have been in and been bowled out, but that we have not been allowed to go in at all.
  The House represents a business nation, and, if that is so and if we are agreed that this Finance Bill does contain vital provisions which must affect the business of citizens of this country, surely we can allow the high constitutional question to wait for a moment while we are given time to consider these matters. We are told that the Government wish to press on with the Veto Bill. That is what the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) euphemistically calls getting to business, but a better way of getting to business would be to give adequate discussion to these Clauses and allow the Veto Bill to wait for a few weeks. Even supposing hon. Members opposite are right in their contention as to this Upper Chamber, the people of this country have been groaning under the heels of these aristocrats for years, and most of them can afford to wait another few weeks in order to have that grievance removed. We have heard much in recent times about the opinion of the moderate man, and both sides have been desperately angling to try and get the moderate man to vote for them; and we all say on platforms what we think the moderate man thinks. We all know, however, that the moderate man, if asked, would say that the best reform which could be carried out in this country would be the closing of Parliament for a few years, and it is such frankly unbusinesslike management of the business of the country which this Government is carrying on which has brought discredit upon this Assembly and caused more men to hold that opinion.
  Mr. PETO: In his speech the Home Secretary referred to the use the Government have made of private Members' time which he made out to be thirteen days or thirteen days and a-half so far, and he claimed as a great virtue that that time had been occupied in discussing the Parliament Bill and in giving one day to a discussion desired by hon. Members below the Gangway opposite. That seems to me
  970
  to be adding insult to injury, because 100 or 105 new Members of this House elected in January last have never had any opportunity of discussing the Revenue Bill or the previous Budget, of which this one is the Siamese twin, at all. At all events, therefore, at least in the case of 100 or 105 constituencies which returned Members on this side of the House to take the place of Members who formerly sat on the other side—at all events on this occasion, we who represent them were sent here by constituencies who are opposed to this great people's Budget and who have deliberately decided that they do not want it. There is another point beyond that, not only have we had no opportunity of discussing the 1909–10 Budget and the 1910–11 Budget, which is the same with some slight differences, but the country has had an opportunity of trying that Budget for a considerable length of time. It has found out whether Clauses which were intended, and which the country were assured could only operate to the injury of rich people who could afford it had hurt other people who are neither rich nor highly placed. The other night on the First Reading of the Parliament Bill, the Home Secretary informed the House that it was the mission of the Liberal party to redress grievances and to carry measures of reform. It was, he said, an unending task to which they were bound, and when we put down these new Clauses our one aim and object in most of them is to point to some grievances which have been found out, and in regard to which this Budget has not operated to the advantage of the community. The Home Secretary is very quick in leaving the unending task of the Liberal party on this occasion.
  The great majority of these Clauses and, at any rate, the ones which I have put down on the Paper are devoted simply, and not in any party spirit, to showing where grievances exist, and the Government take the greatest possible care that there shall not be any Debate on the subject whatever. The Home Secretary also pointed out, as the Prime Minister did before in other words, that there are no new proposals in this Revenue Bill, hut that seems to me to be the strongest reason why he should have given to us an opportunity of discussing it, such as the Government were pledged to give us after nearly eighteen months. We should, I think, be given an opportunity of discussing a Revenue Bill which contains no new proposals, but which contains the proposals.

  971
  our constituencies sent us here to discuss. I would like briefly to refer to this question of Clause 10, and I only want to point out something beyond what has been alluded to already this evening. It is true, as the Prime Minister said in his speech this afternoon, that the Government purport to offer to the local authority something more in money than that which they are taking away. But they are offering something which is a tolerably constant quantity, which is not likely to increase, and they are taking away an increasing source of revenue. The whole argument for these Land Taxes was that they would grow, and that is the use that has been made of them by hon. Members below the Gangway and also by the Lord Advocate of Scotland. He pointed out that one of the great merits of this tax was that it would ultimately enable all rates and taxes to be placed on the land. It is this, from the revenue point of view, which has such a glorious future in money returns—this by which all rates are ultimately to be placed on land, rates as well as taxes. It is this which has taken from it the half of it which was promised to the local authorities, and the whole of it will be thrown into the National Exchequer. I do not think any such exchange has ever been proposed and justified as being a proposal which is equitable as a division between the National Exchequer and the local authorities.
  Then the hon. Member (Mr. Byles) made an appeal to Members in all parts of the House not to continue the "game of obstruction." The Leader of the Opposition referred to what new Members have seen since January last. I am only speaking for myself, but I cannot recollect a single occasion on which there has been anything approaching either adequate or free debate, and I have not seen a single occasion on which there has been anything which could justly be termed obstruction, and certainly with regard to the new Clauses of this Bill there was absolutely no occasion, in my opinion, for the hon. Member's speech at all. These Clauses have not been put down for any obstructive reason whatever, and I really fail to see why hon. Members opposite, many of whom in time past have proved themselves to be adepts in this method of obstruction which the hon. Member now condemns, should bring any such charges against Members on this side. Although I have not had an opportunity of seeing a single
  972
  Debate conducted with freedom and adequacy, I have, in the short time I have been here, come to the conclusion that the Prime Minister is an absolute master of Machiavellian art, and undoubtedly for combinations and intrigues he would give that old master a great many points and a beating. I also think this Closure Resolution proves that in another art he would give points to Cæsar Borgia. He, I believe, was a master of political assassination. The Prime Minister does not proceed by such methods of detail. He proceeds to smother the whole of the Opposition at one fell swoop and in a moment. It has been one of the difficulties of private Members to find out all the various breeds of closure which can be applied on various occasions. I think we have to-night a new variety. There is nothing of the light and graceful kangaroo about it. A Juggernaut car is driven over the whole Opposition and everything which they propose, and it is propelled by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on both sides, who claim, and will expect some day, to receive some fairer treatment when hon. Gentlemen on this side take the places of hon Gentlemen opposite.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I rise for the purpose of making an appeal to the House which, I hope, will not fall on either side on deaf ears. It is obvious that all the time which is given for the further continuation of this Debate is so much time subtracted from the consideration of the Revenue Bill, and I should, therefore, think it is the general desire that this Debate should be brought as soon as possible to a conclusion. It is essential to the proposal of the Government that this Bill should receive the Royal Assent by Friday next, and the House will observe that the Resolution proposes that the Report stage and Third Reading shall both be brought to a conclusion on Wednesday next. That is done for two reasons, in the first place because we think that is sufficient time for the purpose, and next, though it may seem a strange reason to some hon. Gentlemen opposite, in deference to the House of Lords. The House of Lords, though in our view it has no power to interfere with finance, has a right to discuss it, and we thought it only respectful to give them some few hours at any rate. I hope what I am about to suggest, though it will not mitigate the hostility of hon. Gentlemen opposite to this Resolution, may, at any rate, enable us to come to an immediate decision. I would suggest an Amendment to the

  973

  Resolution by which proceedings on the Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion at 8.0 p.m. on Thursday instead of at half-past 11 on Wednesday. That will give the House of Lords the remainder of that evening for the discussion of the measure, and it will enable us here to introduce some legislation which is now somewhat in arrear. I shall be prepared to move that Amendment, then we can take a division on the whole Motion, and we can then resume the discussion of the Revenue Bill without further delay.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has made a substantial concession to the Opposition. I suppose as substantial a concession as he can make if he be right in saying that it is a practical necessity that the Bill should be got by 31st March. That necessity, I am bound honestly to say, has never been proved, but it has been assumed through all the Government speeches. Assuming that the Government are right, it is manifest that they cannot carry the discussion over Thursday, and if they are to give the Lords any opportunity of making observations I am sure they will feel great pleasure at the encouraging view which the right hon Gentleman took of their duties. But that does not reconcile us to the way in which we have been treated in the past. The Prime Minister's proposal relates necessarily only to the future, and we are bound to make a protest in the Division Lobby against the method in which the Government have extended the time during the earlier part of the Session so as to press us thus severely towards the end of the financial year. But beyond expressing in the Lobby our views as to the manner in which we have been treated, I do not think more can be extracted from the Government than that which is proposed simply because there is nothing more to be extracted. The right hon. Gentleman has given us all he has, and even the most reasonable of Oppositions cannot ask more, even of the most unreasonable Government. That being so, I think, perhaps, we should do well to express by a Division our sense of the manner in which we think we have been treated by the declaration I made in November and by the manner in which they have not been fulfilled in March, but to accept, with that protest, the right hon. Gentleman's proposal in its outline.
  I think, myself, that a more convenient method might be adopted. I should have thought that if he substituted in the schedule and in the earlier part of the
  974
  Resolution 8.0 o'clock on Thursday for 11.30 on Wednesday he need not decide how much time ought to be given to the Third Reading stage and how much to Report. Under the plan of the Government it is left to the Opposition to decide whether they would like to go on with the new Clauses up to the final moment at which the guillotine falls, or whether they should devote part of the time to a more general discussion which is possible on Third Reading. I should have thought that liberty might still be left to them. Possibly my friends would prefer carrying the discussion on the Report stage later than 11.30 on Wednesday and to continue the discussion on Thursday, reducing the proportion given to the Third Reading to a smaller amount than that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. The substantial difference between my proposal and that of the Prime Minister is not very great, but it leaves more latitude to the critics of the Government measure, and I think will be more convenient to my friends on this side.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: How late shall we sit on Wednesday night?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The usual time. I will move to omit the schedule altogether, and to substitute 8.0 p.m. on Thursday for 11.30 p.m. on Wednesday.
  Amendment proposed, in the third and fourth paragraphs, to leave out the words, "on that stage shall be as shown in the first column of the table annexed to this Order, and shall be brought to a conclusion at the times shown in the second column of that table.
  "As soon as the proceedings."—[The Prime Minister.]
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I have no desire to stand between the right hon. Gentleman on the two Front Benches, but I think those of us who sit in this part of the House expect to be consulted in such an arrangement as this. I have been unable, owing to circumstances over which I had no control, to be present during the whole of the Debate, but I think I have heard what I may call, without any disrespect to any hon. Member who has taken part in the Debate, the effective speeches on both sides of the House, and I am bound to say that I have not been impressed by the reasons put forward in favour of the extension of time. The statement originally made by the right hon. Gentleman still holds good, and I do think

  975
  that, in view of all that has taken place this Session, Ministers ought to have been taught now by bitter experience this is not the way to get business done. I respectfully and quite emphatically enter a protest
  against the Amendment of the Resolution as now proposed.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 49; noes, 356.

  Division No. 81.]

  AYES.

  [8.5 p.m.

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Hinds, John

  Rowlands, James

  Barnes, George N.

  Hudson, Walter

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Burt, Rt. Hon Thomas

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Snowden, Philip

  Crooks, William

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

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Lansbury, George

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

  Logan, John William

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Wardle, George J.

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Goldstone, Frank

  M'Kean, John

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

  Hall, Fredrick (Normanton)

  Morrell, Philip

  Wlikie, Alexander

  Hancock, John George

  Ogden, Fred

  Wlison, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Grady, James

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. George Roberts and Mr. James Parker.

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

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Butcher, John George

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Falconer, J.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

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

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Alden, Percy

  Byles, William Pollard

  Fell, Arthur

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Cameron, Robert

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

  Campion, W. R.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cartile, E. Hildred

  Ffrench, Peter

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Field, William

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Cassel, Felix

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cator, John

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Cave, George

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Fleming, Valentine

  Baird, John Lawrence

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

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Chancellor, H G.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

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

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Furness, Stephen

  Balcarres, Lord

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Gardner, Ernest

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

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

  Clancy, Jon., Joseph

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Glanville, H. J.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Barnston, H.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Goldman, C. S.

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Grant, James Augustus

  Bathurst, Charles (Wolts, Wilton)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Beale, W. P.

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Gretton, John

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Benn, W. W (T. H'mts, St. George)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

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

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

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

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Crumley, Patrick

  Gulland, John William

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Hackett, John

  Bigland, Alfred

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Haddock, George B.

  Bird, Alfred

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs-, Louth)

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Black, Arthur W.

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

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Boland, John Pius

  Dawes, J. A.

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Delany, William

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

  Harmsworth, R. L.

  Boyton, James

  Dillon, John

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Harrison-Broadley H. B.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Brigg, Sir John

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Harwood, George

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Brunnel, J. F L.

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Burn, Colonel C. E.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Hayward, Evan

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Helmsley, Viscount

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

  Mooney, John L.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morgan, George Hay

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  St. Maur, Harold

  Hoare, S. J. G

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Mount, William Arthur

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Muldoon, John

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Munro, R.

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Horne, William E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Neilson, Francis

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Seely, Colonel Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Sheeny, David

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Hunt, Rowland

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Spear, John Ward

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Nield, Herbert

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Steel Maitland, A. D.

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Norton, Captain Cecil W

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Summers, James Wooley

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Swift, Rigby

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

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

  Tennant, Harold John

  Keating, Matthew

  O'Malley, William

  Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

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

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  O'Shee, James John

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Kirkwood, John H. M.

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Touche, George Alexander

  Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Lane-Fox, G. R

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

  Larmor, Sir J.

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

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Waring, Walter

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Watt, Henry A.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Wheler, Granville

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Pollard, Sir George H.

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

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

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Lundon, T.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

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

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Lynch, A. A.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P.

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

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Lyttelton Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Radford, George Heynes

  Wiles, Thomas

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Williams Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  MacGhee, Richard

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Macmaster, Donald

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

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

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

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

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

  M'Callum, John M.

  Reddy, M

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Marks, G. Croydon

  Rice, Hon. Walter F.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Meagher, Michael

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

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

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Rothschild, Lionel D.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Royds, Edmund

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Amendment proposed, in paragraph 4 of the Resolution, after the word "stage," to insert the words "and on the Third Reading."
  Amendment proposed, in paragraph 4 to leave out the words "have been brought to a conclusion, if it be then 11.30 p.m. or later, and if not, then at 11.30 p.m., the
  978
  proceedings on the Third Reading of the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion," and to insert instead thereof the words, "shall be brought to a conclusion not later than 8 p.m. on Thursday 30th March."
  Amendment proposed, to omit the Table to the Resolution.
  Question put, "That this Resolution, as amended, be the Resolution of the House."
  The House divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 158.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of S. 16 (2) (b) of the Principal Act.)
  Twenty years shall be substituted for ten years as the limit of time for taking expenditure into account for the purposes of paragraph (b) of Sub-section two of Section sixteen of the principal Act.
  Notwithstanding anything in Sub-section one of Section twenty-six of the principal Act the Commissioners may, on the request of the owner of any pieces of land which are contiguous, value those pieces of land together for the purposes of that Act,
  982
  although those pieces of land are under separate occupation, if they are satisfied that in the special circumstances of the case it is expedient to do so.—[Mr. Hobhouse.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): If the Committee will look at the Clause as it stands they will see that it has reference to Section 16 (2) of the principal Act. Under that Section the owner of the land which is included in any scheme of development, if he has incurred any expenditure upon roads or sewers, and only upon those two forms of expenditure, is entitled with respect to every £100 of expenditure on roads and sewers to claim that one acre shall be treated as developed land on which no Undeveloped Land Duty is

  983
  charged. I think it is clear that expenditure of that sort is not temporary, but is a permanent expenditure, and, that being the case, I think it is desirable to extend the benefit of the expenditure to a period longer than ten years. We propose to extend the period from ten years to twenty years, and to give owners in respect of every £100 of expenditure on roads and sewers an extended period of twenty years.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I am quite sure that the extension of the period is a concession very much desired. It really arises out of a promise made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a deputation of agents he received, or at a conference with builders. So far as the actual proposal of the Government goes, while not desiring to detain the Committee with regard to it, yet I think I shall be in order in mentioning that Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 16 of the Act appear to lay down perfectly clearly that the expenditure on roads and sewers shall be a deduction. I should like to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that in administration there is in some cases a difference between what the valuers have termed capital expenditure and ordinary expenditure. Of course, it is obvious that it is impossible to differentiate between what is capital expenditure and what is not. Supposing the amount is £1,000, one man may construct his road in one year, while another may construct it by instalments. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will issue instructions with regard to the points, otherwise it might give rise to expense in the law courts. Another point on which we ought to be quite clear is that the Clause has reference to expenditure and the Undeveloped Land Duty. The assessment under which the Undeveloped Land Duty arises is taken every five years. But this expenditure is continuous, and, as in the case of Income Tax, although there is only a quinquennial assessment, yet where there is a clear claim for reduction or abatement, or where, on the other hand, there is an increase in the value of any property, immediate claim is made to have the assessment altered accordingly without waiting for the quinquennial assessment. But in the administration of this Clause the valuers or the Department are claiming that where an assessment for Increment Value Duty has once been made it cannot be altered for a further five years, and this abatement cannot be claimed in respect of expenditure which
  984
  is subsequently incurred until the next five years' period has arrived.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I see.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The right hon. Gentleman understands?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Certainly.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that these points are matters of administration. As far as the intention of this House went it was that this should be an exemption of one acre for every £100 of expenditure for roads and sewers, irrespective of when the expenditure was incurred, that the abatement should be available to the owner of the land as soon as the expenditure had been incurred, and that he should not be taxed four or five years simply because at the moment the quinquennial assessment had not arrived. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance that instructions will be issued on both of these points to the officials of his Department.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I am rather sorry to see this further process of whittling down the Increment Tax on undeveloped land. It seems to me that this exemption from the tax in respect of land on which £100 has been expended is, or was originally, an unscientific exemption. It affects land that is very valuable, and to which £100 bears a very small proportion compared with its full value, just as it affects the outskirts of towns where the expenditure of £100 may be something like one-fifth of the whole value of the land. Here you are giving a further extension of this ten years period to twenty years. I want the Secretary to the Treasury to explain to us whether it is not possible now for a land lord who owns land in a very populous neighbourhood, worth, perhaps, £4,000 a year, to expend £100 on sewering and on roadmaking of a character not really intended to develop that property, and, therefore, to entirely exempt that very valuable land from an increase from the halfpenny tax. I think there is a danger that the owner of a site right in the centre of London might spend £100 in that way, and thereby exempt that very valuable land for ten years from taxes that might amount to hundreds of pounds a year. Under this new Amendment the period is extended to another ten years, increasing the temptation to the landlords to spend this money more or less uselessly, and so be enabled to hold the land out of the market for longer than at present.

  985
  I do think, when the halfpenny tax is doing such very valuable work in forcing land into the market in and around our towns, that it would be really deplorable if at this time of the day the Government should further increase the exemptions, and allow landlords greater liberty to withhold land from the building trade, and thus increase unemployment in the country. The hon. Member for Chelmsford wants to include, as well as this capital expenditure of £100 per acre, casual expenditure, which may be upon estate management or upon the wages of the people whose business it is to look after the estate, and casual expenditure of that sort, which may occur annually, but which is not represented by the permanent improvement of the property. I should very much deplore any extension of this £100, which allows the landlord to claim for anything except road making and sewering and improvements, which definitely add to the value of the property. The original reason for this exemption is perfectly simple. It is that when a landlord spent a certain amount of capital money on his property that money was not bringing in any immediate return. That was right so long as it was on a permanent improvement, and not merely the casual annual expenditure on the estate. If once we open the door to allowing the landlord to claim every expenditure which is not really useful to the further development of the estate we are starting on a bad example, and we are doing away with a good deal of the benefit of the halfpenny tax. I do hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will not accept any expenditure as capital expenditure, and will make some arrangement which will prevent landlords juggling with this exemption from this tax and exempting their valuable land at a relatively small cost to themselves.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I do not think the hon. Member who has just spoken has appreciated, from a business point of view, what Undeveloped Land Duty is, and on whom the burden falls. The person who finds himself under a serious disadvantage is the builder, who in the ordinary way takes land for the purpose of development. He finds, owing to certain difficulties, that he is unable, perhaps, to develop it for a period of years. It is said, for instance, that in the case of Glasgow it takes 100 years to develop land. Therefore the effect is not to encourage building and the employment of labour but to discourage
  986
  building to the utmost. That is the business way in which it operates. The hon. Member, according to the views he has put forward, would attempt to fine builders still further. The person who makes the expenditure on the land is very seldom, practically never, the landlord at all. It is done by the builder and is a pure business transaction. Land may be used for agriculture or building purposes. Those are the two great purposes for which you use it. Why should not the builder who has expended money under those circumstances for the purpose of developing land have the advantage. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will maintain the principle there is in this Clause. What was said by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) as to valuations is fully justified. Thus under the Metropolitan Valuation Act, beside quinquennial valuation, you have revisions by which you can value from time to time in order that justly you may get the valuations in accordance with the facts. So, too, in a valuation of this kind there should be some principle in administration. If you want to impose new rates or taxes, according to the conditions which yearly prevail, you must allow for the changes which take place from time to time, and both ways. Sometimes that has been enormously to the benefit of the local authorities, and another time it has told fairly the other way. I hope, whether it tells for the taxpayer or against him, that the right hon. Gentleman will maintain the principle that where changes do take place we should allow for them in these provisional valuations, as they are called.
  Mr. EDWARD WOOD: The Clause proposed deals with a point on which I had placed an Amendment on the paper. I think, if I may say so, that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) is a little led away by an amiable obsession on the subject of landlords holding up land. I should like to point out another reason, in addition to that mentioned by my hon. Friend, why I do not think that the supposed danger to which he drew the attention of the Committee would be a very general one. If anybody, whether he be landlord or builder were to invest a large amount of money in making roads or sewers for the express purpose of evading the Undeveloped Land Duty all that money would, for practical purposes, be lying idle, and he would, therefore, be losing interest. What he would gain on Undeveloped Land

  987
  Duty he would lose in interest on his money. The Secretary to the Treasury claimed that he was meeting a reasonable grievance. That is so, and my only criticism of this new Clause is that it does not go far enough. As I understand the principle of the Budget and of all this taxation, whatever it may be in practice, is that, at all events in theory, it is intended to exempt all that part of the value which is due either to expenditure or to the brains, foresight, or skill of the man who owns it. If that is the principle, why fix a time-limit? If it is reasonable to grant exemption for ten or twenty years, by what logic do you fix the time-limit, rather than to make the exemption for that individual to the amount expended permanent. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, used the words that it was a "permanent expenditure." I ask whether there is any reason in logic or justice why in return for that permanent expenditure the man should not get permanent credit?
  Mr. BARNES: I have no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr Wedgwood) is duly grateful to the hon. Member opposite (Mr. E. Wood) for instructing him in the matter of land values, but I fancy that my hon. Friend knows as much about the question as the hon. Member can tell him. The hon. Member, after stating that the builder and not the landlord would pay the tax, said that the builder bought the land from the landlord, but that he still regarded him as a builder and not as a landlord. I regard him as a landlord, as he has bought the land. The object of this tax was to induce landlords to part with rather than to hold up land, and I have supported it loyally because I believed it would have that effect. If, however, we are to have the builder substituted for the landlord, it seems to me that we are not getting much "forrader." At the point reached by the hon. Member opposite we had succeeded by the operation of this tax in inducing the landlord to part with the land. He has presumably parted with it more cheaply than he would have done but for the tax. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO."] If he could have got a larger sum, why has he not got it? He has been getting all he could for his land hitherto. The effect of this tax is to increase the available supply of land in the market, and by that means to reduce the price. I think it is fair to assume that the man referred to as the builder, has obtained the land more
  988
  cheaply than he would have done but for the operation of this tax. Having regard to that tax, it is perfectly clear that the builder——
  The CHAIRMAN: It is important that we should not begin to discuss the principle of the original tax. This is an Amendment, and, except in so far as the principle of the original tax affects this new Clause, the question of the original tax does not arise.
  Mr. BARNES: I was following the hon. Member's argument, but I will not pursue it. I look with considerable suspicion upon this Amendment because it extends the exemption for another ten years, and therefore tends to nullify the principle of the tax. I agree with my hon. Friend that we ought to protect ourselves even at the twelfth hour against the further plea put in by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman). Another reason for looking on the Amendment with suspicion is that it is a further exemplification of the too great willingness of the Treasury Bench to make bargains with the Front Bench opposite.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: I understand that this Amendment exempts from Undeveloped Land Duty, land on which £100 per acre has been spent in the way of road-making or sewering. I take it for granted that the hon. Member for Chelmsford knows that that will exempt from the duty practically all building sites round almost any of our towns. I have got out contracts for road-making, and I know how it works out. Take an estate for cottage property, with a depth of building land of from seventy to seventy-five feet, which would be a very good site for cottage property in or near towns, especially near London. If on that estate a road is made, not put in first-class repair or done as permanent work, but merely the channels, kerbing, gullies, surface water, sewer and rough macadam surface, just the doing of that work, which is necessary for the development of the estate, will enable the landlord to hold that land up for ever without being called upon to pay any Undeveloped Land Duty. If that is the effect of the Amendment, the whole object of the Undeveloped Land Duty is unquestionably defeated. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member opposite has any great technical knowledge of the question, or whether he was only trying to bluff us with the suggestion that the builder buys a big estate, makes his own roads, and

  989
  does this, that, and the other. I will only say that that is not the case. On all the estates with which I have had anything to do, what has happened is that a big firm of land speculators has bought the land. I could give the case of an estate sold by an hon. Member opposite to a big firm of estate agents, for whom I do not know; they proceeded at once to lay out the estate with roads of the ordinary seventy or eighty feet depth, and they must have already spent the ordinary £100 per acre. Am I to assume because they have done that on an estate near Clapham Common they are to be exempted from the Undeveloped Land Duty, no matter how long they hold the estate? This is always done on big estates. I could take the hon. Member to an estate at Isleworth, giving him chapter and verse to show that the Undeveloped Land Duty has had a serious effect in pushing into the market land which otherwise might have been held up, because, there being no rates or taxes to pay on it, there was no necessity to get rid of it. The moment, however, there was an idea that Undeveloped Land Duty might be charged on it, there was a necessity to get rid of it, and the fact actually altered the price of the estate. I do not know whether the owner thought that the Budget would affect him more than it really will do, especially when the hon. Member for Chelmsford has got a few more slices out of the Government. I could take Members to a dozen great estates round London where speculators have bought the land and laid out £100 per acre on roadwork. They may hold up the land for twenty or thirty years before it is all covered, and the probabilities are that the prices will go on increasing, particularly if the land is to be exempt from Undeveloped Land Duty when £100 per acre has been spent. It is of no earthly use to the builder at all. It will never assist him to get the site at anything like a reasonable price. Therefore I say that the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bucks is absolutely outside the business. Where one estate is bought up by a great monied man, laid out with roads, the man himself proceeding to build without introducing the leasehold builder—what we call the speculative builder, the jerry builder, or the "field-ranger"—where one estate is developed in that way hundreds are developed in the way I have suggested. The speculative land purchaser or dealer takes land, and expending a certain amount of money upon it, waits till the frontages of these
  990
  roads develop so that he can get the highest possible price according to the demand in the locality for houses. That is the situation as it exists, and not as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bucks imagines. Under those circum stances, I do suggest that those who have supported this Undeveloped Land Duty from the beginning to the end have cause for complaint unless the right hon. Gentle man who has charge of the Amendment can really explain this point to us. Can not the right hon. Gentleman imagine a case of the site value being so improved that the Undeveloped Land Tax will amount to more than the interest on £100 per acre expended on the land? Supposing the site is not a quarter of an acre—call it a fifth of an acre—and therefore the proportion, I suppose, must be at the rate of £100 per acre, or one-fifth of £100——
  The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Gentleman it is not a question of £100 per acre. It is a question as to whether ten years shall be made twenty years. He has said very little about that point, and it is the only point in the Clause before us.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: I do not know whether one is entitled to discuss the matter as a general proposition in dealing with the new Clause. You want a number of these suggestions which have been put to the right hon. Gentleman answered before you can say whether it would be fair or unfair to extend the time from ten to twenty years. At any rate, before I vote for the proposition I desire to hear something more satisfactory than has already been said relating to the subject.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has argued as if this Clause were in place of something in the original Act. It is something of an extension, but it is not an extension in the sense which he has suggested to the Committee. I may also refer to what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme asked me. He is a little bit afraid of the shearing off of something from the results of the operation of this particular tax. He may rest assured if he will look at Sub-section (b) of the original Act. He will there see: "That the owner of the land has to show to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that his expenditure has relation to definite schemes for developing the land before he can claim the present ten years' relief." Similarly

  991
  in future the owner will have to show the Commissioners, who, after all, are the persons interested, in a satisfactory collection of this tax, that the expenditure upon which he embarked had reference to some specific scheme which is of a character to develop the land before he can claim any exemption at all. I think the Commissioners may be trusted to take care of the interests of the revenue. The hon. Gentleman opposite to me asked me two administrative questions. First, he asked me whether this was a question of capital value expenditure? As long as the expenditure has relation to a specific object it may be either capital or annual. He will not have to wait for the quinquennial valuation. As Boon as he has expended £100 he can claim relief in respect of one acre.
  Mr. J. WARD: No matter what the value may be?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It must be £100 in respect of any one acre. Any one area of land measuring an acre in size can obtain relief in this respect so long as the expenditure is £100 per acre. That is the law as it stands. This Amendment merely extends the existing law to the case of twenty years. Anyone in this House who knows anything about the actual consideration of these matters will know that expenditure of this sort is not permanent in the way the hon. Gentlemen opposite suggests. Expenditure can only, as I have already suggested, get this relief, which has reference to a specific object, and which is clearly for the purpose of developing the land and bringing it into the market at an early period. If that land is not developed in accordance with the original Section, it ceases to get any relief and goes back to the character of undeveloped land. The expenditure is cancelled in respect of this land.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Only in respect of this exemption?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes, in respect of this particular matter. All we propose to do is to extend the relief from ten to twenty years. We do not touch in any way whatever the principle of the Act as laid down in the Finance Act of 1909.
  Mr J. WARD: Just one word to the right hon. Gentleman relating to that one point. Do I understand then, that the law as it stands at present is that if £100 per
  992
  acre is spent, that the Undeveloped Land Duty does not apply, no matter what is the capital value of that acre of land?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is as it stands at present.
  Mr. J. WARD: Well, then the law requires altering.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: The Secretary to the Treasury has made matters rather worse by accepting the suggestion from the other side that annual expenditure should also add up to make this £100 per acre——
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Pray do not misunderstand me. I am not accepting anything from the other side. That is the law as it stands at present. I am making no concession beyond this ten to twenty years. I am merely giving the practice and the law as it stands at the present moment.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Yes, there seems to be some difference as the law stands at present. What I understood the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford to explain was that while you read the law one way the valuers were refusing to take into account, I think he said, the annual expenditure towards the £100. If the law is delightfully uncertain at present, by all means let it remain rather on our side than theirs. I would like, a straight answer to one point. Is it possible for a man to spend this more or less imaginary £100 per acre on the salary of an estate agent.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Oh, no.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is it simply the actual contract for making the road and sewers?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: As I understand it, if the salary of the agent was bonà fide expended, or partly expended, in the proper business of oversight of the construction of the roads or sewers, as, for instance, in the position of a clerk of works with a view to getting the best possible results, I think it would be pro tanto a proper deduction, but only to that extent.
  Mr. W. F. ROCH: Would advertising also?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No.
  Question put, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 277; Noes, 45.

  Division No. 82.]

  AYES.

  [8.16 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

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

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

  Acland, Francis Dyke

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

  O'Malley, William

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Gulland, John William

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Hackett, John

  O'Shee, James John

  Alden, Percy

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Hancock, John George

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Harmsworth, R. L.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Harvey, T. E (Leeds, West)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

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

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

  Harwood, George

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Beale, W. P.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

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

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Radford, George Heynes

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hayward, Evan

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Boland, John Pius

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

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

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Reddy, M.

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Hinds, John

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Brigg, Sir John

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hudson, Walter

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

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

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Rowlands, James

  Byles, William Pollard

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Cameron, Robert

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  St. Maur, Harold

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

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

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Joyce, Michael

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

  Keating, Matthew

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Seely, Colonel Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Sheehy, David

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

  Snowden, Philip

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Logan, John William

  Summers, James Wooley

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Crooks, William

  Lundon, T.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

  MacGhee, Richard

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dawes, J. A.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Delany, William

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Walters, John Tudor

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Dillon, John

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

  Wardle, George J.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Waring, Walter

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

  Marks, G. Croydon

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Meagher, Michael

  Watt, Henry A.

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

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

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

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

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Falconer, J.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Mooney, John L.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Morgan, George Hay

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Morrell, Philip

  Wiles, Thomas

  Ffrench, Peter

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Field, William

  Muldoon, John

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Munro, R.

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Furness, Stephen

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

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

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

  Neilson, Francis

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Nolan, Joseph

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

  Glanville, H. J.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Winfrey, Richard

  Goldstone, Frank

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Ogden, Fred

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Grant, J. A.

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gretton, John

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

  Haddock, George B.

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbribge)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

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

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Perkins, Walter Frank

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

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Barnston, Harry

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bathurst, Charles (Wolts, Wilton)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Rice, Hon. Walter F.

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Bigland, Alfred

  Horne, William E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bird, Alfred

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Royds, Edmund

  Boyton, James

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Hunter, Sir C R. (Bath)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Burn, Colonel C. E.

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Spear, John Ward

  Butcher, John George

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Campion, W. R.

  Kirkwood, John H. M.

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Cassel, Felix

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Swift, Rigby

  Cator, John

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)

  Cave, George

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

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

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

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

  Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

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

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

  Macmaster, Donald

  Wheler, Granville

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Fell, Arthur

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Winterton, Earl

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Mount, William Arthur

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

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Nield, Herbert

  Gibbs, G. A.

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

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

  Goldman, C. S.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Division No. 83.]

  AYES.

  [9.6 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Field, William

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Anderson, A. M.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Mooney, John J.

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Forster, Henry William

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Furness, Stephen W.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Muldoon, John

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Munro, Robert

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Glanville, H. J.

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Goldman, Charles Sydney

  Nolan, Joseph

  Barnston, Harry

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Grant, James Augustus

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Beale, William Phipson

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Gretton, John

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

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

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

  Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George)

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

  O'Malley, William

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hackett, John

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

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Bigland, Alfred

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Bird, Alfred

  Harmsworth, R. L.

  O'Shee, James John

  Black, Arthur W.

  Harris, Henry Percy

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Boland, John Pius

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, N.)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Brigg, Sir John

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

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hinds, John

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Radford, George Heynes

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

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Campion, W. R.

  Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Cassel, Felix

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Reddy, Michael

  Cator, John

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Cave, George

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Joyce, Michael

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Keating, Matthew

  Royds, Edmund

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Kirkwood, John H. M.

  St. Maur, Harold

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Knight, Capt. E. A.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Crumley, Patrick

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

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

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Delany, William

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Sheehy, David

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

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

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Dillon, John

  Lundon, Thomas

  Spear, John Ward

  Donelan, Captain A. J. C.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Staveley-Hill, H.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

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

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Summers, James Woolley

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  MacGhee, Richard

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Maclean, Donald

  Swift, Rigby

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Macmaster, Donald

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, N.)

  Falconer, James

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Touche, George Alexander

  Fell, Arthur

  Marks, G. (Croydon)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Meagher, Michael

  Valentia, Viscount

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  994

  995

  Walters, John Tudor

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

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

  Wiles, Thomas

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

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

  Webb, H.

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

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

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

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

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

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

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

  Winfrey, Richard

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

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Whitehouse, John Howard

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

  NOES.

  Armitage, Robert

  Harwood, George

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Barnes, George N.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Hayward, Evan

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rowlands, James

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Higham, John Sharp

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Crooks, William

  Hudson, Walter

  Snowden, Philip

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Wardle, George J.

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Goldstone, Frank

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

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Logan, John William

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Hancock, John George

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Wilson, W. T (West Houghton)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Neilson, Francis

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Ogden, Fred

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. John Ward and Mr. J. Parker.

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

  O'Grady, James

  Mr. BARNES: I desire to take your ruling, Mr. Chairman, on a point of Order. It will be within the knowledge of many hon. Members that after you had given orders for the door to be locked a very considerable number of hon. Members, in spite of that order, forced their way through the "No" Lobby. I do not know the number, and it will be impossible to ascertain how many went into the Lobby after your order to lock the door was given. I desire to ask whether this Vote can be counted, having regard to the increased number who got into the Lobby notwithstanding your order.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think it would be quite useless to deny that a very considerable number did go through the door after I had given the order to lock the door, but the attendant could not lock the door whilst hon. Members were rushing through; neither could he get to the other door, which he has to lock later on, on the other side of the House. Therefore, there is no reason why I should declare the Division to be out of order.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Can no steps be taken to protect the attendant against violence.
  The CHAIRMAN: I shall mention the matter to the authorities of the House, because it was quite obvious that many Members did vote after I had given the order to lock the door.
  Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  REVENUE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.—(Progress, 24th March).
  (IN THE COMMITTEE.)
  [Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Contiguous Pieces of Land.)
  "Notwithstanding anything in Subsection one of Section twenty-six of the principal Act the Commissioners may, on the request of the owner of any pieces of land which are contiguous, value those pieces of land together for the purposes of that Act, although those pieces of land are under separate occupation, if they are satisfied that in the special circumstances of the case it is expedient to do so, and any such valuation may be made under this provision, although any of the pieces of land had been valued before the passing of this Act, if the request for valuation is made by the owner of the land within three months after the passing of this Act, and in that case any valuation previously made shall be of no effect."
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The object of the Clause is this: Under Section 26 each piece of land under separate occupation has to be separately valued. It is clear there may be cases where lands are contiguous and under the same ownership and yet in separate occupation. One piece of land might have access to a public high road, and another might not. The owner of that land might desire to develop it and to treat both those pieces under one plan, and he may, therefore, ask permission to take into consideration all the circumstances of the case to value those pieces of land together. It is clear that the Commissioners may, if they do

  997
  not think the circumstances are reasonable, refuse to accept any such proposal as that. We give them clear discretion in the case. The object of the words I propose to add are to allow a period of three months after the passing of this Act to elapse to give time to owners to ask for joint valuation. There is an Amendment down in the name of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), and the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) to do something of the same sort, but they do not give the discretion of the Commissioners, which, we think, is all important. They say that these pieces of land, whether contiguous or not, so long as they belong to the same owner, shall be valued together. Under their Clause it would be possible for a great landowner in the county of Cheshire, owning a great estate in Westminster, to ask that his Westminster and Cheshire property should be valued together for the purposes of the Act. That is a proposal which we could not accept, and which it would be impossible to embody in this Act. It would also be very undesirable. We say that in places where there are pieces of land contiguous, and where it may be to everybody's advantage to value those pieces together, we should give the Commissioners discretion in the matter, and beyond that we do not propose to go.
  Mr. CAVE: I think it is quite reasonable that the word contiguous should be inserted. It should be applied to contiguous pieces forming part of one estate, and not to others far apart as suggested. There is another respect in which the Government Amendment differs from mine. This proposal gives a discretion to the Commissioners to value plots of land, which are contiguous, together or separately, as they think fit, while my Amendment makes it compulsory on the Commissioners where the owner of a number of plots desires it, to have them valued together.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes, only at the request of the owner.
  Mr. CAVE: I quite agree. We proposed to follow the Section of the existing Act, under which each piece of land, if the owner required it, should be separately valued. I do not see why the same principle should not apply, or why, where an owner of contiguous pieces of land requires them to be valued together, they should not, as a matter of right, be valued together. An hon. Friend has an Amendment
  998
  down to that effect. May I say one word in support of the view that this is really an important Amendment. Let me put the case which this Amendment is no doubt intended to meet. A man has a large estate in a town. I have in my mind a case which I know of, a company which has a very large estate in the Paddington district, consisting of a whole number of houses built in one block. The leases of the houses are running out, and in a short time the whole lot will be available for buildings under a new scheme. Under the principal Act, as it stands, each of those plots is being valued separately. Each little plot is valued as if it were only a small plot of land, and were subject to a number of easements, which, of course, these plots are in favour of adjoining plots. The result is that the total value is relatively small; but, so soon as the leases run out, the houses will come down, the whole estate will be developed, larger houses will be built; and the value of the land, as one estate, is very much greater than the aggregate of these small plots.
  If you are really anxious to ascertain the actual value of the land, you ought to give the owner the right to have his land valued as one estate and not as separate pieces. Let me put an illustration. If you valued every alternate plot of land, the value would be relatively small; but, if you throw the whole together, then you get a very much larger value. Unless this right is allowed, very serious under-valuations take place. Of course, whereas the Government value these plots separately, they will be sold as one lot, and a large nominal increment will therefore accrue, on which duty will be levied. The increment will not be real but will only be due to under-valuation. I think it is realised that the point is of real importance, and I do not see why the discretion should not be given. Surely, in all these cases the owner is the best judge of the value of his land, and, if he wants to have it valued in the way which most truly shows the actual market value, I do not see why he should not have the right to do so, or why the Government should have the right to say: "No, we prefer to value it at a lower value," with the result, of course, that a higher tax will be levied.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I should like my hon. Friends to understand the real reason why this Amendment was brought forward by the landlord party opposite.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is brought forward by the Government.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: The Amendment is asked for a very plain and simple reason. It is in order to get estates below the agricultural limit of £50 per acre for undeveloped land. We all know that land facing roads or near stations has a high value, and would naturally be caught by the Undeveloped Land Tax. That is exactly where it is intended to catch land, in order to force it into the market, so that it can be used for building purposes. The result of this Amendment will be that a man who has a piece of land on a road front or near a railway station will average it down by taking in all the hinterland which is of small value so as to bring the value of the estate below £50 per acre, and thus exempt it from Undeveloped Land Tax. Brushing aside all the subtleties which the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) introduced in order to obscure this Amendment, that is the root basis of the whole idea. What harm is there in having land valued in small quantities? You get a more accurate value by taking it in small quantities than in large quantities. I remember hon. Members opposite urging that land should be valued by the field, and that it could not be valued by the farm. It now suddently occurs to them that in this way they can avoid the Undeveloped Land Tax altogether. I protest against against this Amendment being brought forward by the Government, and I hope every Member who approves of the taxation of land values will vote against it.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I should like to know what are the special circumstances under which the Commissioners would be entitled to have contiguous land valued. If I understand the position rightly, it is that at the present moment, in order to ascertain the site value of a piece of land, it has to be valued by itself, but that in future the Commissioners will take into consideration the whole of the farm of which it forms a part. The inevitable result will be, if this Clause stands, that we shall have to give up the whole of the Land Taxes inasmuch as there will scarcely be any building value which will be taxed under the original Bill.
  Colonel GREIG: I want to say a word on the illustration of the hon. Member for Kingston. He gave the case of a landlord who cuts up his land into a number of small plots and puts houses upon them. The estate probably was not of very great value, but he cut it up into a large number
  1000
  of plots and put houses upon them, and so increased the value of the property and his income. He did that for his own purposes and for his own benefit, and, having done it, is he to be allowed to turn round and, because it is valued at a low price now, being valued in separate lots, say that is unfair because he can take all the houses down and throw the estate together again. The man cannot blow hot and cold in that way. He has cut up the estate into a number of plots and built houses upon them, and he must stand by that. Having done it, he cannot say it is unfair to treat him as having done it and to value the property in that way. I suggest that the illustration of the hon. Member does not bear out his contention.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The speech of the hon. Member who has just addressed the Committee really shows a wonderful misconception of the rights or the duties of a landlord and of the intentions of the Government. Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not mean to say that, because at one time the best use the landlord could make of his property was of a certain kind, therefore he is to be held, under penalty, never to use it for any other purpose, but must always use it in that particular way. If the hon. Member does not mean that, then his contention has really nothing to be said in its favour. A man can only judge of the best use of his land, in round terms, by what is the most profitable use, and that, indeed, is the Government's contention. Anybody who followed the Debate of 1909 knows the contention was that it was the duty of the landlord at any given moment to make the best economic use, and that is the most profitable use of his land. That was his duty, and he did it. Now, in the changed circumstances, it is more profitable, as well as more advantageous to the community, that a different use should be made of the land. The hon. Member wishes us to say that because seventy, eighty, or ninety years ago he chose to use his land in a particular way, therefore he must always use it in that way or pay a penalty for altering it. I think that is nonsense. I do not wish to use offensive language. I therefore withdraw the word "nonsense," but I say the argument is absolutely untenable. More than that, it does not in the least square with the declared intention of the Government. They want to get at the value which is derived from the market value of the land at the moment. It is not the market value itself, but we have to

  1001
  get down to the site value, although the basis on which they work is the market value. If you value such a plot as my hon. and learned Friend described not as a whole but separately, and subject it to the conditions which attach to the separate use of each portion of the land as long as it is so divided up, you do not get its market value. You get something below its market value, and you are not therefore getting what the Government profess a desire to get; you are getting a fictitious value, a value fictitiously low. I hope the Government will not be deterred by arguments of that kind from listening to the appeal made by my hon. and learned Friend.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I think the discussion has shown that the Government is wise in the limitations which it has imposed by giving discretion to the Commissioners. The result of the Debate which has taken place has made it manifest that it would be said by the owner, if he had the opportunity of making a request that contiguous plots should be valued together, he would do so when his object is to raise the site value, as would necessarily be his desire in the case of an urban area. On the other hand, if he was dealing with undeveloped land his object would be to lower the site value. You must in these matters deal with the special circumstances of each case. I think my hon. Friend is quite right in what he said that the words "special circumstances" to a great extent dominate this Clause. They are intended to limit its operation. In the opinion of the Government the Commissioners are the best persons to have the opportunity of considering whether, taking all the facts and circumstances of a particular case into consideration, they think it is fair and reasonable that two or three contiguous plots or more should be valued together. You may have a plot valued separately which may have but a small frontage, and you may have a large plot behind it which has no frontage. If you value these two plots together in an urban area you would get a fairer valuation by taking the whole as they stand, and then leaving the owner to declare the site value for the purpose of arriving at the increment. Under this Clause the Government intend, if there are circumstances of that kind and if the Commissioners really think that it is fair in making the valuation, to take contiguous plots into account, and to value them
  1002
  altogether, then they are allowed to do so. That is the concession which is made in this Clause. I submit that the whole argument has tended to show that the Government was wise in not making the full concession demanded and in not acceding to the Amendment put forward by hon. Members opposite. Nevertheless, in order to carry out their policy, which is to get at a fair valuation of the property they are wise in allowing under special circumstances discretion to the Commissioners to value contiguous plots together.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: What will be the result of what is going to be done? If they do not insist upon giving this discretion to the Commissioners, it is suggested on the part of the Government that the valuation will always be against the Government. My reply to that is that under this present Government proposal the action of the Commissioners will always be in favour of the Government. If it is to the interest of the owner that the two plots shall be valued together, it will obviously be the natural predilection of the Commissioners to value as against the owner and in favour of the Government. That cannot be avoided. I should like to say one word in reply to what has fallen from the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood). He attributes to what he calls the landlord's party a subtlety of ingenuity which I wish we did possess. If wisdom was half so inherent among the party he calls the landlord party as it is amongst those who advocate the taxation of land values, they might be entitled to credit for ingenuity. But I certainly do think we ought to have some better answer than that which has been given to the case put forward by my hon. and learned Friend, in reference to the Paddington illustration.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: The hon. Member has hit the right nail on the head, and I believe there might be unanimous agreement on both sides of the House on the lines he has suggested. In that case I would withdraw all I said about the landlord party. He alluded to the illustration cited by the hon. and learned Member for Kingston and drawn from Paddington. Exactly in the same way the Attorney-General quoted the case of small plots. But the Amendment does not refer to contiguous holdings irrespective of the size of the place. If it were limited to one acre or ten acres I should not so much object, but it is absolutely unlimited and you might get thousands of acres with

  1003
  a very low valuation under this Clause. The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Lane-Fox) talks about the special circumstances and how the wicked Commissioners will refuse to allow landlords to amalgamate and average down. I have not any experience of these Commissioners, but wherever there is the individual on one side and the bottomless pocket of the State on the other side, it is always the State that gets left and not the individual. The hon. Member for Barkston Ash is against all these Land Taxes, and we need not pay much attention to that contention, but the introduction of these special circumstances is rather a point which makes this Clause worse than it was before. We see that it has not only raised doubts in the mind of the hon. Member for Barkston Ash, but it also introduces this horrible taint of bureaucratic interference. I should like to see these special circumstances ruled out because they give rise to all sorts of unsatisfactory suspicions. The next thing is that this Clause should be so altered that large estates should not be averaged down. We are all willing, so far as small plots are concerned, that we should have
  a provision which would allow of averaging up or down, as is required, but we do object, in the case of these large estates, to this averaging down. This averaging down only refers to the very big landlords of the country who have several farms in their own hands. It is no alleviation whatever to the landlord who has only one farm. He has to take the road frontage without taking the hinterland into account and without any road land. I know of a case in the village in which I was born where one landlord with one farm will get no reduction, while another with four or five will average down. Any exemption which would leave it in the power of the large landowner to escape leaves the small one under an injustice, and that is my reason for objecting. If the Secretary to the Treasury will allow this Clause to be altered on Report in a way which will limit the size of the area of land to be exempted to five, ten, or twenty acres, I think we would be prepared to vote with the Government. If not, we must divide against them.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 310; Noes, 42.

  Division No. 84.]

  AYES.

  [9.50 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Burke, E. Havlland-

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Alden, Percy

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

  Butcher, John George

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Armitage, Robert

  Campion, W. R.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Falconer, James

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Cassel, Felix

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Cator, John

  Fell, Arthur

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Cave, George

  Fenwick, Charles

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Baldwin, Stanley

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

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

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

  Ffrench, Peter

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Field, William

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Barnston, Harry

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Forster, Henry William

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Frewen, Moreton

  Beale, William Phipson

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Furness, Stephen W.

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Gardner, Ernest

  Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

  Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Goldman, C. S.

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Croft, Henry Page

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Bigland, Alfred

  Crumley, Patrick

  Grant, J. A.

  Bird, Alfred

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Black, Arthur W.

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

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Boland, John Pius

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Delany, William

  Gretton, John

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

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

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Guiland, John William

  Brigg, Sir John

  Dillon, John

  Hackett, J.

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Donelan, Captain A. J. C.

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Harmsworth, R. L.

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

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Royds, Edmund

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  St. Maur, Harold

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Mooney, John J.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morgan, George Hay

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

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Hayward, Evan

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Morton, Alpheas Cleophas

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

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

  Mount, William Arthur

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Muldoon, John

  Sheehy, David

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Munro, Robert

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Hinds, John

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Spear, John Ward

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Nield, Herbert

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Nolan, Joseph

  Summers, James Woolley

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Swift, Rigby

  Horner, Andrew Long

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Ogden, Fred

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Hunt, Rowland

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

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, N.)

  Hunter, Sir Charles Roderick (Bath)

  O'Malley, William

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinal

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

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

  Touche, George Alexander

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

  O'Shee, James John

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

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

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Walters, John Tudor

  Joyce, Michael

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

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

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Keating, Matthew

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Webb, H.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Kirkwood, John H. M.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Knight, Capt. E. A.

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

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

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Peto, Basil Edward

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

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Larmor, Sir J

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Whitehouse, John Howard

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

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

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

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

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

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

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

  Lundon, Thomas

  Pryce-Jones. Col. E. (Montgom'y B'ghs.)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Radford, George Heynes

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

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

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

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

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

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Winfrey, Richard

  MacGhee, Richard

  Reddy, Michael

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Maclean, Donald

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

  Macmaster, Donald

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

  M'Callum, John M.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Yate, Cot. C. E.

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

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Marks, George Croydon

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. W. Jones.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Meagher, Michael

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  NOES.

  Barnes, George N.

  Harwood, George

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Rowlands, James

  Byles, William Pollard

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Hudson, Walter

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Crooks, William

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Snowden, Philip

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

  Logan, John William

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Macdohald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Wardle, George J.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Watt, Henry A.

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Neilson, Francis

  Wilkie Alexander

  Hancock, John George

  O'Grady, James

  Wilson, W. T. (West Houghton)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Wedgwood and Mr. King.

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

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move to omit the word "may" ["the Commissioners may on the request of the owner"] and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
  The reason for the Amendment could not have been better put than it was by the hon. Member (Mr. Wedgwood). We want to know where we are. We do not want it left simply to the discretion of the Commissioners to say whether they think it expedient that this particular mode of valuation should be adopted in a particular case or not. The words of the Clause are, "if they are satisfied that in the special circumstances of the case it is expedient to do so." By expedient they would obviously mean expedient for the purposes of the revenue. Not "equitable," but "expedient" is the word in the Section, and in that case the owner will be in the hands of the Commissioners as to whether they choose to adopt his request to have two pieces of land valued together or not. In many cases it is obviously fair and right from the point of view of the owner that two pieces of land which are contiguous should be valued together. Valued separately they might have a quite different value from what they would have valued together. You may have, in some cases, a higher and in some cases a lower value when valued separately. If you take a case where two pieces of land are valued separately at a lower value, and the owner intends to deal with the land together, it is obviously unfair that he should have to pay Increment Value Duty on the increment valuation simply because a different unit of valuation is adopted on the second occasion from the unit adopted on the first occasion. Every case of that kind under this rule would be excluded by the Commissioners and would be bound to be excluded. The Commissioners have to determine whether it is expedient to adopt the request of the owner to have them valued together or not.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether the hon. Member is discussing his later Amendment as an alternative proposal, in case the Government may choose to adopt it. If he intends to move the other Amendment at a later stage he is not in Order in dealing with it on the first Amendment.
  Mr. CASSEL: I was dealing with this Amendment only, but pointing out the effect of the Clause as it stands with the word "expedient" in it, in order to show that as the Clause stands it would be inequitable that the word "may" should be
  1008
  left in and the word "shall" should not be substituted for it. It would be in equitable in a case where you have a certain unit of valuation for the original valuation that a man should be charged with Increment Value Duty simply be cause a different unit was adopted on the second occasion. Then there is also the point that, so far as the division of the unit is concerned, no discretion whatever is left to the Commissioners, under Section 26, if the owner requests that a part of land which is one occupation shall be separately valued, he can insist on it being done, and there is no discretion with the Commissioners at all. What reason is there for making a distinction in the case of the aggregation of pieces of land where you make no discretion in a case of the division of a piece of land? The point raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Wedgwood) was this. He was afraid that some agricultural land might escape duty. I hope the House will take note of that reason. I hope the country will take note of that. It is not long since there was a correspondence between the Under-Secretary for India and the Leader of the Opposition, in which the Under-Secretary——
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I point out that I was referring to agricultural land which was wanted for building purposes.
  Mr. CASSEL: That is precisely what I was dealing with. In the case of agricultural land miles away from a town we now have it that it is intended to tax land used for agricultural purposes as soon as it is established that it is wanted for building purposes. The Under-Secretary for India took exception in rather strong terms to a leaflet which was issued, and in which it was stated that agricultural land was liable to taxation. Now we have it clearly established in this House that that is the case. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think the only reason with the semblance of reasonability in it which has been advanced against the Amendment was the suggestion of the hon. Member for New-castle-under-Lyme, that possibly the Amendment might exempt some agricultural land which otherwise would be subject to taxation.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Gentleman, in moving the Amendment, very truly said that the principle of it had been discussed when we were discussing the Clause. Therefore I am sure he will pardon me if I do not follow him into the whole of the remarks he has made, and if I confine myself to what may be called the real

  1009
  question at issue, namely, shall the Commissioners in this matter have discretion or not? If the hon. Member will look at Clause 29 of the Finance Act of 1910 he will see that:—
  "Any duty under this part of the Act may be assessed on or in respect of any such pieces of land whether under separate occupation or not, as the Commissioners think fit."
  That is to say, the Commissioners have a perfect discretion to assess as they please. That is, I think, a wise and useful discretion, and we propose to preserve it in the present instance to the Commissioners. Upon the whole, both for the purposes of the individual and for the protection of the revenue, it is well that the Commissioners should have that discretion.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I agree so far, if I may be permitted to say so, with the Government and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood). I do not think that the Government could accept an obligation that the Commissioners in all cases should follow the wishes of the landowner. I agree also that it might be as unfair to the Revenue as I think it would be unfair to the landowner to leave the discretion absolutely to the Commissioners. Surely the arguments advanced on both sides of the House point to a middle course. The Government have drawn their Clause so that the valuation can only be ascertained in the way the Commissioners think expedient. It is not a question whether it is expedient or not. It is a question whether it is just or not. The question is what is the true value of the land, and how you are to get at the true value. If you take the proposal of my hon. Friend, you can get at it by taking the valuation of land in joint occupation, and if you take the proposal of the hon. Member for New-castle-under-Lyme, you get at it by separate valuation. I submit, in the first place, that the Government ought to declare that it shall be done in the way my hon. Friend proposes, where it is equitable to do it—or words to that effect—and not where it is expedient in the opinion of the Commissioners, who are, after all, prone to interpret expediency if the particular thing tends to get revenue or not. I think, in the first place, we should say that it should be done where equitable and not expedient, and that the question whether it is equitable or not should be subject to an appeal, and not
  1010
  left to the discretion of the Commissioners or of the landowner. That is a conciliatory proposal made for compromise, which I hope the Government will see their way to accept.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: May I suggest to the Government that they should insert words to provide that where equitable the land may be valued——
  The CHAIRMAN: If this Amendment is going to be moved separately, as I understand it will be, we had better take it in its proper place.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The question before the Committee is, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Clause." It is very inconvenient to divide upon that. We do not want to do so without knowing what the intentions of the Government are in regard to the subsequent part of the Clause. Would they say on this Amendment whether they can accept such an Amendment as I have suggested?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not think we really can go beyond the proposal we have made in the Clause that the Commissioners, if they think it expedient, may take the valuation in a certain way. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that the Commissioners should act in the way hi" hon. Friend suggested if they think it equitable.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I suggested the ordinary appeal, but I am afraid I did not make myself clear. The Attorney-General said that you must not give absolute discretion to the land-owners because that would be unfair to everybody, having regard to the fact that they would always be prone to the particular method of valuation most favourable to themselves. I agree, but, on the other hand, if you leave it to the Commissioners they will always choose the particular form of valuation which is most favourable to the revenue, and in my opinion neither of these courses is advisable. Therefore, I suggest that you should say that pieces of land should be valued separately if that is equitable and just, and the question whether it is just or not should be subject to the ordinary appeal to the referee.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: What we have given here is a discretionary power to the Commissioners to do something which we feel will enable the land to be fairly valued. This is a particular Clause to arrive at a fair and just decision as to what is and what is not the fair value of these properties for

  1011
  the purposes of valuation. As to the valuation itself, that is subject to appeal to the referees, but whether or not there is a case for the valuation of a particular lot is not the question for the referees, but is a question for the Commissioners. I think we have made a very ample concession, and we are not justified in going beyond it.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am going to support the Amendment, as the Government are not prepared to meet the Mover in any way. Under Clause 29 the Commissioners have power to separate pieces of land for the purpose of assessment. Naturally they will do that when they think they can get greater revenue by so doing. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and where we have got pieces of land, within the meaning of Section 29, which are used for one purpose—for example, a market gardener or grower of roses or other occupier of land who is giving a great deal of employment by the use to which he is putting his land, may have several pieces all used for the one business—the Commissioners have, under Section 29, power to separate those pieces of land into various pieces of land for the purpose of assessment of duty. They may put one value on the front land and another on the back land, yet the whole of that land is necessary for the purpose of carrying on the business of market gardener or rose grower. We want the owner or occupier of that land to be able to call upon the Commissioners to group the whole land as one occupation for the purposes of valuation. We do not want them to be able to pick the eyes out of the land which is used for the purpose of carrying on the business which is giving probably greater employment than any other use to which that land could be put, but that they should take the full fair average value of that land and assess from that. We want them not to take portions of land, as they have power to do under Section 29, but that they should be compelled to take the whole and assess on what is fair and equitable. If the Government will meet that it would not be necessary to press the changing of "may" into "shall," but unless the Government will meet that point, and if the mover goes to a division, I for one, if I am the only one in the House will support him.
  Mr. POLLOCK: This Amendment might fee perfectly fairly accepted without in any way militating against the position the
  1012
  Government have taken up. We alter "may" to "shall," and if that were adopted, the Clause would run:—"The Commissioners shall, if they are satisfied in the special circumstances of the case, it is expedient to do so." What we have been contending for is that if it is to be at the discretion of the Commissioners then the Commissioners ought to do their duty, and, if they do their duty, then there ought to be an obligation upon them, which would be carried out by accepting the word "shall" instead of "may." If you adhere to the word "may" you give a second discretion to the Commissioners, because, although they are satisfied in the special circumstances of the case "it is expedient to do so," they have a still further discretion under the word "may," and, although they are "satisfied," they are not compelled. It is often suggested that "may," in certain circumstances, means "shall"; but I am quite certain that it is the intention of the Government to make this Clause as explicit as they can, and if they alter the word "may" to "shall," they will in no way alter their position in regard to the remainder of the Clause.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: This new Clause was inserted, no doubt, at the instance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in fulfilment of a pledge he gave me when I raised this point. By Clause 26 of the Bill:—
  "The Commissioners shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act cause a valuation to be made.…of each piece of land under separate occupation, and if the owner so requires any part of any land which is under separate occupation shall be separately valued."
  It is perfectly clear that the Commisssioners shall and are compelled by the Act to separately value any part of any land if the owner so requires. This, like most other Amendments, is a matter which has simply arisen in practice. It is not an imaginary grievance, it is an actual grievance, and it has arisen in this way. There are small houses in towns which are in the last stages, and are unsuitable to the site. Valued separately these houses have a very small value, and would be correctly valued at a very low figure, though the aggregate value of the site might be much greater than the value of those portions taken separately. However, the valuers might desire to be accurate, they cannot be so under the present wording of the Act, because they are obliged to value each of these small sites independently.

  1013
  All we ask is that there should be a similar right to the owner to require aggregation as he has to require separation or appointment under the existing terms of Clause 26. I see the force of the argument used by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Wedgwood). I am bound to say that it never occurred to me, nor has it been suggested by anyone that large areas of agricultural land could be aggregated in the manner he suggests. I quite see that it might be so interpreted. But that is not our object. Our object is that there should be aggregation, where by dividing you do not get at the value. I am sure the hon. Member must see that that is a reasonable suggestion. I personally should not object to a limit of acreage. It is only intended to deal with comparatively small areas in towns. I do think you must have the word "shall." Having inserted it, you then come to the effect of Section 33, in which there is an appeal, as there is in all these sections. I do not think I am asking too much. Under the wording of the Clause this concession is not of very much value, because of the words "if it is expedient." The object of the Commission "if it is expedient" is to obtain as much taxes as he can. No doubt that is what he is appointed for fairly under the Act. I do not quite see why in the case of small houses on small areas this cannot be granted. Does the learned Attorney-General think, and if he says so I accept it, that under the wording of the Clause as proposed a valuer would really be obliged in the case I named to allow an aggregate valuation. If he thinks so, I am sure we would attach great importance to it. I do not think the words would do so, and there must be the word "shall." If it was "shall," and with an appeal under Clause 33, I think the whole appeal would be met, and also the object of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I think we have had a rather poor answer from the Government. It seems to me it is rather unsatisfactory to leave the position as it stands. A very reasonable request has been made from this side, and I do not think any reasonable answer has been made. The Secretary to the Treasury makes objection, but he does not explain his objection. He never said why the course taken by my hon. Friends is not fair. It seems that this Amendment is obviously so fair that I cannot understand the Government opposing it. What is the good of making a half concession. If you are going to make a concession in order to bring the scope of
  1014
  a Section somewhere within the bounds of fairness and justice, then you had better do it altogether. It is perfectly obvious the Government are terrified by hon. Members below the Gangway opposite. I doubt if any of those hon. Members have the faintest notion of what the point is. They very rarely have on this land question. Their one idea is that they want to tax the land.
  The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the. Noble Lord to address himself to the Amendment.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I was only saying I doubted whether this Amendment was thoroughly understood in all quarters of the House. I feel sure that if it was that the Government would accede to it with alacrity, and that the pressure which is being put on them to resist it would be withdrawn. I think we are entitled to some further answer.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I can assure the Noble Lord we fully appreciate the points which are urged against the views we put forward. The Noble Lord seems to think, unless he gets the whole concession, which he and his friends desire, that he does not wish to accept any. That may be the view upon which he intends to proceed in the discussion of this Bill. But so far as we are concerned, this is carrying out a promise or indication on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in answer to a suggestion from the other side, the whole point being that whereas under the principal Act it was provided that there should be a right in the owner to separate a piece of land although it was under the same occupation, when it came to the question of the aggregation of particular parcels of land it was a different question, and in order that we might obtain a proper valuation required much more careful handling on our part than the right which was given under Section 26 of the principal Act. As the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire quite rightly says, it would not be right in the view of the Government that they should give way entirely upon this matter. After listening to the arguments, I feel that we ought not to make any further concession than is contained in the Clause. We have tried to meet what we thought was a grievance. What we desire is to get what, in the opinion of the Commissioners, as the persons best able to judge under the circumstances, is a fair and just valuation, and that is what we think we have provided for. Speaking for

  1015
  the Government, we find it quite impossible to go any further. Indeed, I understand, from some of the arguments put forward on the other side, that there is no value to be attached to the substitution of "shall" for "may." Whether you say "may" or "shall," it rests with the Commissioners; they have to exercise their discretion. If they exercise their discretion and come to a conclusion, it is given effect to, and it does not matter very much whether you say "may" or "shall." The danger in using the word "shall" and the reason why we resist the Amendment is that it might be said that there was some form of statutory obligation upon the Commissioners
  which might lead to appeals or other applications with costs. What we intend is that the matter shall be dealt with by the Commissioners. Parliament has left many matters to the discretion of the Commissioners, and the feeling was that in leaving the matter to their discretion Parliament was acting quite rightly in this as in many other respects. I regret, therefore, that we cannot accept the Amendment.
  Question put, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 165.

  Division No. 85.]

  AYES.

  [10.35 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Alden, Percy

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Allen, A. A (Dumbartonshire)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Lansbury, George

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Falconer, J.

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

  Anderson, A. M.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Armitage, R.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Logan, John William

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Ferens, T. R.

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Atherley-Jones, Llewelyn A.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lundon, T.

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Field, William

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Lynch, A. A.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Furness, Stephen

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Gibson, Sir James P.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

  Gill, A. H.

  MacGhee, Richard

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Maclean, Donald

  Beale, W. P.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Goldstone, Frank

  MacNeill, John Gordan Swift

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Birrell, Rt. Hen. Augustine

  Griffith, Ellis J.

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

  Black, Arthur W.

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

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

  Boland, John Pius

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

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Bowerman, C W.

  Hackett, J.

  Marks, G. Croydon

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Brigg, Sir John

  Hancock, J. G

  Meagher, Michael

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Hardie, J. Keir

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

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Harmsworth, R. L.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

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

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

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

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

  Mooney, John J.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Harwood, George

  Morgan, George Hay

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Morrell, Philip

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Haslam, Lewis Monmouth)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Chancellor, Henry G.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Muldoon, John

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Munro, R.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hayward, Evan

  Neilson, Francis

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Crooks, William

  Hinds, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Dowd, John

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Howard, Hon Geoffrey

  Ogden, Fred

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

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Grady, James

  Dawes, J. A.

  Hughes, S. L.

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

  Delany, William

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  O'Malley, William

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Dillon, John

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Duncan, C (Barrow-In-Furness)

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

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Edwards, Allen C (Glamorgan, E.)

  Joyce, Michael

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

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Keating, M.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Pointer, Joseph

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

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Webb, H.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

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

  Seely, Colonel Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

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

  Radford, G. H.

  Sheehy, David

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Rea, Walter Russell Scarborough)

  Snowden, P.

  Whyte, A. F.

  Reddy, Michael

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wiles, Thomas

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Summers, James Woolley

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Rowlands, James

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

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

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Wardle, George J.

  St. Maur, Harold

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Gardner, Ernest

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

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Goldman, C. S.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Baird, J. L.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

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

  Grant, J. A.

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Greene, W. R.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gretton, John

  Pretyman, E. G.

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

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Rice, Hon. W. Fitz-Uryan

  Barnston, H.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hickman, Col. T. E.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Royds, Edmund

  Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hohler, G. F.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Horner, A. L.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Bigland, Alfred

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Bird, A.

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Boyton, James

  Hunt, Rowland

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Brassey, H Leonard Campbell

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Spear, John Ward

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Swift, Rigby

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Kirkwood, J. H. M.

  Sykes, Alan John

  Butcher, J. G.

  Knight, Capt. E. A.

  Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)

  Campion, W. R.

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Down, North)

  Cator, John

  Larmor, Sir J

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Cave, George

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Touche, George Alexander

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

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Clay, Captain H. Spender

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Clive, Percy Archer

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

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

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Macmaster, Donald

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Cripps, Sir C. A.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Croft, H P.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Newdegate, F. A.

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

  Fleming, Valentine

  Newman, John R. P.

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Younger, George

  Forster, Henry William

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Nield, Herbert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Cassel and Mr. Pollock.

  Frewen, Moreton

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Mr. ELLIS DAVIESmoved, after the word "contiguous" ["any pieces of land which are contiguous "] to insert the words "and adjoining a road or intended road."
  The object of the Amendment is to meet the difficulty which the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) said existed, and to limit the Clause, so that that danger shall cease to exist. Under the Clause as it stands, if two pieces of land which are contiguous are going to be valued together, it is possible to add to the land for building, land of agricultural value, with the result that the average value would be reduced in a very large degree. For my own part, I have no objection to the inclusion of two adjoining pieces of land, or any other land, whether in the same occupation or otherwise, provided they are owned by the same person if valued together. What we object to is not the inclusion of two pieces in separate occupation, but the inclusion in the same valuation of land of a different character. We object to the site value of land, for example, being reduced by inclusion in a valuation of land which merely has an agricultural value. I know a case where there is a piece of land for which the county council was asked £4,500 an acre, whilst there is land immediately behind it with a value of not more than £200 an acre. If the Undeveloped Land Duty is to remain, and if the valuation under the original Bill is to have any effect, it is essential that only land of the same character should be included in the same valuation.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not think we can accept my hon. Friend's Amendment for a very practical reason. The hon. Member objects to the valuation of land of a different character together. He does not like the idea of what is distinctly rural land being classed for the purposes of valuation with urban land. Under this Amendment you might raise the question of what is a road or an intended road. Thus you raise difficult questions which we avoid by giving discretionary powers to the Commissioners to refuse to value urban and rural land together when a genuine difference of character arises. We believe that will meet my hon. Friend's view, which I entirely agree with. For these reasons the Government cannot accept this Amendment.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I would like the Government to reconsider this point. It is a question whether under this Clause people owning land in large quantities, part of which is valuable and the rest not, can
  1020
  bring it down to below £50 an acre by valuing it together. In many of our villages, where land is most urgently required for the building of houses, you have all along the village streets plots which are built upon, alternating with ordinary fields coming down to the road. All those parts of a field which are abutting on the road are valuable land, worth £100, £200, or, it may be, if the public authority want it, £1,000 per acre. It would be unjust for the owner of that land to escape paying Undeveloped Land Tax. Those are the very people we want to tax so as to force them to part with the land to people who want to build houses upon it or to force them to build houses upon it themselves. Under this Clause, as it stands, you will have these people averaging that land with all the purely agricultural land behind, and thus getting the value of the whole well below the £50 limit; although they may be asking the local authority £1,000 per acre for a portion. You will have them escape the very tax intended to hit them, and which we intended to bring land into the market. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) said the Clause was drawn up by the Government at their request in order to meet an entirely different situation. It was drawn up to meet the case of houses on small plots in towns where the property is deteriorating and where it is obviously inconvenient that the land value of one few yards should be different from the value of another few yards adjoining. There, I am entirely with the hon. Member, and I think he has a very strong case; but he never intended to get this extra concession, and I contend he might allow the Government to accept this Amendment, and thereby avoid what he never wanted, and what, I am quite certain, nobody on this side of the House wanted. The reason why the Amendment is brought forward is perfectly clear, and simple. It asks that this concession to the owners of contiguous tenancies should only avail when they are adjoining the same road or road that is to be. It exactly meets the case brought forward by the hon. Member for the Kingston Division (Mr. Cave) and by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to shout "Divide," but what did they do this afternoon? They wasted hour after hour.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member had better to speak to the Amendment.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: This is a most important Amendment. It saves the position of the valuations of the land of this country under the new Doomsday Book, and I respectfully urge that a question of such vital importance to the whole country should be treated with consideration from every point of view. Hon. Members opposite have heaps of opportunities of putting their point of view, and I ask them to let us on this side of the House put our view also. We all want to get the accurate value of the land, apart from the buildings and improvements upon it, so that we may use that valuation in future. The only way of getting this valuation on sound lines is to use the landlord's information, to use the information of skilled valuers, and to get it in as small plots as possible, so that we may have as intimately as possible the value of every square yard and every acre of land. This Clause, as at present framed, deliberately avoids getting the true valuation and prevents securing the correct value of every yard of frontage. The position is perfectly obvious. We have a chance here of meeting the views of the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) and I appeal to the Government to accept this Amendment, which will make this a thoroughly satisfactory Clause and give us a common-sense, sound valuation.
  Mr. STANLEY WILSON Mr. STANLEY WILSON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that question.
  Mr. RAFFAN: I desire to join in the appeal of my hon. Friend to the Government to reconsider this matter. The history of this matter is perfectly plain. The
  hon. Member for Chelmsford was very frank. His object was, he admitted, to protect the owners of small houses in towns, and he has stated in the most emphatic manner he has no desire whatever to include great plots of agricultural land. I do appeal to the Government to consider whether it is desirable under this Clause to give much wider latitude than is demanded by the hon. and gallant Member, who himself approached the Government with reference to this matter. The hon. and gallant Member asked for a definite assurance with regard to that point. All that he asks for is given by my hon. Friend's Amendment, which he now proposes, and I do appeal to the Government not to extend such a wide latitude as would be given without any limiting words whatever. I have listened to what has-been said by the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Government with great respect, but after all what he merely puts to us is a small difficulty of collection, and with regard to the merits of this Amendment, no objection has been stated either on behalf of the Government or the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford. Under these circumstances, I do feel that we are entiled to ask the Government to give us some intimation that, if this particular Amendment is withdrawn, they will meet us by some other form of words which will limit the Clause in the particular direction in which the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford has admitted it ought to be altered.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 43; Noes, 359.

  Division No. 86.]

  AYES.

  [11.5 p.m.

  Alden, Percy

  Hudson, Walter

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Byles, William Pollard

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Chancellor, H G.

  Lansbury, George

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Crooks, William

  Logan, John William

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

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

  Wardle, George J.

  Gibson, Sir James P.

  Martin, J.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Gill, A. H.

  Morrell, Philip

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Neilson, Francis

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Grady, James

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Harwood, George

  Pointer, Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Ellis Davies and Mr. Wedgwood.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Armitage, R.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Anderson, A. M.

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

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

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Falconer, J.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Ferens, T. R.

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

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Field, William

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

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Baring, Capt Hon. G. V.

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

  Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Fleming, Valentine

  Lundon, T.

  Barnston, Harry

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

  Forster, Henry William

  Lynch, A. A.

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Frewen, Moreton

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Furness, Stephen W.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Beale, W. P.

  Gardner, Ernest

  MacGhee, Richard

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Maclean, Donald

  Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

  Glanville, H. J.

  Macmaster, Donald

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Goldman, C. S.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Grant, J. A.

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

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Greene, W. R.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Berestord, Lord C.

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Bigland, Alfred

  Gretton, John

  Marks, G. Croydon

  Bird, A.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

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

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Black, Arthur W.

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

  Meagher, Michael

  Boland, John Pius

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Gulland, John W.

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

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Boyton, J.

  Hackett, J.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Brigg, Sir John

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Mooney, J. J.

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Hancock, J. G.

  Morgan, George Hay

  Bull, Sir William James

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Harmsworth, R. L.

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Muldoon, John

  Butcher, J. G.

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

  Munro, R.

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

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

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Neville, Regirald J. N.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Newdegate, F. A

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Newman, John R. P.

  Cassel, Felix

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Cator, John

  Hayward, Evan

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Cave, George

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Nield, Herbert

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

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

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Hickman, Col. T. E.

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Collins, Stphen (Lambeth)

  Hinds, John

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  O'Dowd, John

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Ogden, Fred

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hohler, G. Fitzroy

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Malley, William

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

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

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Horner, A. L.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Croft, H. P.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Hughes, S. L.

  O'Shee, James John

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

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

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  Palmer, Godfrey

  Dawes, J. A.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Delany, William

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

  Dillon, John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

  Donelan, Captain A. J. C.

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

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Joyce, Michael

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Keating, M.

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Kirkwood, J. H. M.

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Knight, Captain E. A.

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

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  1024

  1025

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Waring, Walter

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Radford, G. H.

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Webb, H.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

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

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Sheehy, David

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

  Reddy, M.

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

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

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Spear, John Ward

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Rice, Hon. W. F.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Wiles, Thomas

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

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

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Summers, James Woolley

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Swift, Rigby

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

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Sykes, Alan John

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Winfrey, Richard

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

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

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Rowlands, James

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Royds, Edmund

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  St. Maur, Harold

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Younger, George

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Walters, John Tudor

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

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. Geoffrey Howard.

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

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

  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I beg to move, "That Mr. Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  Mr. BALFOUR: I do not specially blame the Government for making the proposal to report Progress. I blame hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway who voted for the gag about four hours ago. The position is this: We have passed a closure resolution which compels us to take the remaining new clauses by eleven o'clock to-morrow night. There are a great many important questions which the Opposition, the natural critics of the Government, desire to raise on these clauses, and because hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway choose to occupy the time in discussions which were of a kind very much worse than any which were characterised as unbusinesslike by the Labour party this afternoon, these clauses are to be thrown over until to-morrow, and the discussion of our new proposals is to be unduly restricted under the closure resolution which the hon. Members voted for, and against any relaxation of which by the Government they protested. That is not business. The Labour party supported the Government. Do they think that that is a fair way for the majority to treat the minority?
  We are restricted in the ordinary and natural opportunities which we possess, and are restricted by the perverse action of certain hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, and the action of the Government which they support. The question before the House is the
  1026
  destruction of the rights of the minority, and they are using or abusing the rights of a very small minority to prevent a very large minority having their rights respected. The Prime Minister with regret, which I am sure was sincere, told us this afternoon that he was obliged to restrict our liberties, but he did not anticipate, I am quite sure, any suggestion that the very small time in which we were allowed to discuss our Amendments was to be further entrenched upon by the, irresponsible action of a certain number of Gentlemen below the Gangway. I think that, as the Government has taken away the greater part of our rights this afternoon, the least they could do was to protect us in the undisturbed occupation of the small remnant they had left.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has imported an unnecessary amount of heat into this discussion. If my Motion had been assented to in the early hours of this afternoon, we would have had three more hours in which the discussion could take place. I cannot recognise that the occasion offers any ground of complaint of any sort or kind. The discussion has been a most reasonable one. We have given four additional hours on Thursday. In view of the fact that the Consolidated Fund Bill is now coming on, I hope that the Committee will agree to the Motion now before it.
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: As a private Member, I must protest most emphatically

  1027
  against the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. What is the proposition which he ventures to make to the Committee at the present moment, and what has been the history of the proceedings to-day? We came down this afternoon, and we heard with great interest the proprosal of the Prime Minister. I confess I thought the case of the Government was strong when I read the proposal on the Paper, but I was convinced it was strong after the speech of the Prime Minister. The Debate went on for several hours, and so far as I could see without any really effective speech; with out any overwhelming argument in favour of surrender on the part of the Government, the Government gave a most important concession. I venture to say that that concession was given not as a result of Debates in this House, but as a result of a conversation behind the Speaker's chair, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite if he is going to determine the policy of the Government, if he is going to decide when an extra day is to be given and when it is to be refused, let him come and sit on the Government Benches. Let it be done openly, in the light of the House, and in the light of day. I do object as a private Member that, while these Debates are going on, while we are supporting the Government and listening to the arguments brought forward, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, without any reference to the Debate, should go behind the Speaker's chair—and I advise him that it is a draughty position——
  The CHAIRMAN: The place where a bargain may have been made does not arise on the question before the House to report Progress.
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: That was only a passing reference. It has not been denied, and will not be denied, that an arrangement was made without the cognisance of the House. I take the opportunity of expressing my strong opposition to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, and also to the concession which the Government have made to-day. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition imagines that he has a right to complain, forsooth. After making a deal outside with the Government, by which extra hours are to be given on Thursday, he complains that Members below the Gangway, who have not been
  1028
  consulted, who knew nothing whatever about it, whose time has been taken away—taken away by the Government from their friends and given to hon. Members opposite—the right hon. Gentleman, forsooth, thinks that we should remain silent and take no part in further Debate. The right hon. Gentleman when he was making his deal ought to have said, "Of course, this is on the understanding that not one single private Member on this side of the House shall take part in the Debate." But he did not do that, and he has got to take the consequences. So far as I am concerned I hope my hon. Friends will give up no opportunity of which they can take advantage in order to express their views on any Clause or Amendment that may come before the House. Only one Amendment has been moved from this part of the House, and because of that we have had this outburst of indignation on the part of the Leader of the Opposition. As private Members we are not going to be dictated to by either of the Front Benches, no matter how distinguished may be the quarters from which appeals may be made. With regard to the protest which has been made we entirely dissociate ourselves from it, and we will use every opportunity we can in the course of further Debates.
  Mr. BARNES: I simply rise for one moment, not to speak for or against the Motion now before the House——
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: On a point of Order, Sir. The hon. Gentleman said he is not going to speak either for or against the Motion, and I very respectfully submit to you that he therefore will not be in order in speaking.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am not quite so sure of that as the hon. Baronet. I must hear what the hon. Member has to say.
  Mr. BARNES: I ought to have said that I did not rise so much for that purpose as to refer to something which fell from the Leader of the Opposition. In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), I think I ought to protest against the language used by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to myself and my hon. Friends. The right hon. Gentleman could not have been in the House during the whole of the Debate, or he would not have spoken as he did. What has happened? As a matter of fast,

  1029
  the time that has been taken up this evening has not been taken up by us, and has not been taken up by hon. Members behind me, no matter how strongly they may feel with regard to the matters that have been discussed. The great bulk of the time, in the earlier part of the evening at all events, was taken up by hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite, and we only intervened, and very briefly, in the Debates which took place on the Amendments, and not on Amendments moved by my hon. Friends behind me. We never spoke on those Amendments at all. The only time taken by us was on Amendments put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and not from this side at all. Therefore, I rise, and I think I am justified in rising, to protest against language such as has been used, when the right hon. Gentleman said that we were guilty of perverse conduct, and unbusinesslike conduct, and irresponsible action. I say we are not guilty of any such conduct, and, on the contrary, what we have done, and our action to-night, is perfectly consistent with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester this afternoon. That is to say, we desire, and desire only, that this House should have the opportunity, not so much for rambling and repetition speeches, but of giving effect to the mandate of our Constituents who sent us here, and, in short, assuming control over business.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy has made a speech which I must say I am at a loss to understand. He first of all said that the rights of private Members had been taken away, and he apparently thought my right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour) was responsible for those rights being taken away. Who voted for the rights of private Members being taken away? Every hon. Member on this side of the House——
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I did not blame the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I blamed the Government for taking it away and giving it to our opponents opposite.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The rights of private Members were taken away by his own Government and we on this side voted against that. I do not know which way the hon. Gentleman voted, but the vast majority of hon. private Members on the the other side of the House voted against private Members having their
  1030
  rights. If the hon. Member did not mean that my right hon. Friend was responsible for taking away rights of private Members, what did he mean?
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I said that when private Members' time was taken away we understood it was going to be usefully and profitably used. We did not understand it was going to be given away to the Opposition.
  Sir F. BANBURY: How has it been used during the last two hours? What was the contention of my hon. Friend—that it was used frivolously by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Mr. CROOKS: We have not spoken these two hours.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) could not have been in the House when his Leader the hon. Member for Leicester spoke.
  Mr. BARNES: I was.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Then he must remember the hon. Member for Leicester turned round and in a dramatic manner said, "I hope my hon. Friends will never consent to obstruction." What have they been doing during the last two hours. "I hope my hon. Friends who vote for this guillotine Motion will see that everything is done to hurry through this particular Bill in order that the Parliament Bill may go on." What have hon. Members below the Gangway done? They have taken advantage of their Leader's absence—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no"]—and they have in no kind of way hastened the proceedings.
  Mr. J. PARKERmade an observation which was inaudible in the Press Gallery.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Exactly; a Division may be called for obstructive purposes. If the hon. Member and his friends desire to obstruct, they will find Divisions extremely useful. The hon. Member is becoming a pastmaster——
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet must address himself to the Motion before the Committee.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I was misled by the interruption of the hon. Member. As I desire to see progress made, and a proper opportunity given for discussion, I will not detain the Committee longer.
  Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 233, Noes, 157.

  Division No. 87.]

  AYES.

  [11.35 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Shee, James John

  Acland, Francis D. (Camborne)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Alden, Percy

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

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

  Pearce, Robert (Leek)

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Harwood, George

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Anderson, A. M.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

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

  Armitage, Robert

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Pointer, Joseph

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Hayward, Evan

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Barnes, George N.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Henderson, J M. (Aberdeen, W.)

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

  Bealc, William Phipson

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Hinds, John

  Radford, George Heynes

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

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

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (S. Shields)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hudson, Walter

  Reddy, Michael

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Brigg, Sir John

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Burke, E. Havlland-

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John (Battersea)

  Jones, Wm. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

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

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Joyce, Michael

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Keating, Matthew

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

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

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Rowlands, James

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Lambert, George (South Molton)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Lambert, Richard (Cricklade)

  St. Maur, Harold

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lansbury, George

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

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cockermouth)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Logan, John William

  Scott, A. M'Callum (Bridgeton)

  Crawshay-Williams, E.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel

  Crooks, William

  Lyell, C. H.

  Sheehy, David

  Crumley, Patrick

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Smith, Albert (Clitheroe)

  Davies, Ellis William (Elffln)

  MacGhee, Richard

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Davies, Timothy (Louth)

  Maclean, Donald

  Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, W.)

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

  Macmaster, Dr. Thomas J.

  Summers, James Woolley

  Dawes, James Arthur

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sutherland, John E.

  Delany, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  M'Laren, W. S. B. (Crewe)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dillon, John

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

  Marks, George Croydon

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Martin, Joseph

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Edwards, A. C. (Glam., E.)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Edwards, J. H. (Glam., Mid)

  Meagher, Michael

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Esmonde, Dr. J. (Tipperary, N.)

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

  Waring, Walter

  Esmonde, Sir T. (Wexford, N.)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Falconer, James

  Mooney, John J.

  Webb, H.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Morgan, George Hay

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Ferens, Thomas Richardson

  Morrell, Philip

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Muldoon, John

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

  Field, William

  Munro, Robert

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Furness, Stephen

  Neilson, Francis

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wiles, Thomas

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Norton, Capt. C. W. (Newington, W.)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Glanville, Harold James

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Goldstone, Frank

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Guest, Major (Pembroke)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool, Scotland)

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

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

  O'Dowd, John

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Ogden, Fred

  Winfrey, R.

  Hackett, John

  O'Grady, James

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

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

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Hancock, John George

  O'Malley, William

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

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

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Grant, James Augustus

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Ashley, Wilfred W.

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Bagot, Lt.-Col. Josceline

  Gretton, John

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

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

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

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

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Perkins, Walter Frank

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

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Banner, John S. Harmood

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, S.)

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Quitter, William Eley C.

  Barnston, Harry

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Hills, John Waller (Durham)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hill-Wood, S. (High Peak)

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Benn, Arthur S. (Plymouth)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Benn, Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Rutherford, William (W. Derby)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bird, Alfred

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Boscawen, Col. A. S. T. Griffith-

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Boyton, James

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Brassey, H. L. C.

  Kirkwood, John H. M.

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Kyffin-Taylor, Gerald

  Spear, John Ward

  Bull, Sir William James

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Burn, Col. C. R (Torquay)

  Lawson, Hon. Harry (Mile End)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Butcher, J. G.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Stewart, Gershom

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Swift, Rigby

  Cassel, Feilx

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

  Sykes, Alan John

  Cave, George

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Lowther, Claude (Eskdale)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Courthope, George Loyd

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Walker, Colonel W. H.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Macmaster, Donald

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Croft, Henry Page

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

  Du Cros, Arthur P.

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Morrison-Bell, Captain E. (Ashburton)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. (Honiton)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Fletcher, John S. (Hampstead)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Newdegate, F. A. N.

  Younger, George

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Newman, John R. P.

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

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

  Goldman, Charles Sydney

  Nield, Herbert

  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  The CLERK AT THE TABLE (Sir Courtenay Ilbert): I have to inform the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker for the remainder of this day's sitting.
  Whereupon Mr. EMMOTT, the Chairman of Ways and Means, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Mr. REMNANT: I wish to put a few questions to the Under-Secretary of State
  1034
  for Foreign Affairs upon matters which I know to be of considerable importance to the trading community in this country in reference to the Reciprocity Agreement between Canada and the United States. I do not want to say anything that could be construed as interfering with the rights of the Canadians to make their own treaties, but in this case there are points affecting British interests in regard to which I think the Government ought to have taken the public more closely into their confidence than they have done. We have put numerous questions to the Foreign Office from time to time with the sole object of learning from them the part taken by our Ambassador, representing British interests at Washington. The answers given to our questions have been eminently unsatisfactory; they have been more than

  1035
  unsatisfactory. In some cases such answers as we have been able to extract have been quite inaccurate. I refer especially to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for the Ludlow Division of Shropshire (Mr. Rowland Hunt) by the Under-Secretary. The Under-Secretary, in answer to my hon. Friend, stated in so many words that the interests of the United Kingdom and the British Empire affected by the Reciprocity Agreement were of no practical importance.
  It will be in the recollection of the House that the Government have this month issued a White Paper purporting to give in the fullest detail an account of the negotiations that have taken place between the two countries parties to the agreement. In answer to a question of mine the Foreign Secretary stated that he had given all the despatches and telegrams received from our Ambassador up to date with certain necessary omissions. Amongst those omissions is a Very important one. They made no allusion whatever to the important offer which President Taft made of the virtual abolition of British preference by introducing complete freedom of trade between Canada and the United States. Then we have the further important question of the adhesion of Canada to our Imperial treaty system, a departure from which is tantamount to separation in regard to international negotiations. In the case of foreign countries like Japan, for instance, we negotiate and make representations. We have done the same with France, but because Canada happens to be a part of the British family the position of the Government seems to be that the United States have a free run to introduce disunion and disintegration of the British Empire. The Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Mr. M'Kinnon Wood), when he talks of the British interests affected by this agreement being of no practical importance is quite inaccurate in the description. The hon. Gentleman perhaps forgot when he made that answer the very important points I will put before the House.
  We shall have under this arrangement immediately the entire destruction of the preference on British goods of which Canada imported for 1909–10 the amount of £668,000. There is also the reduction of the margin of British preference on other goods, of which Canada imported in 1909–10 £439,000 worth. It differentiates against the United King
  1036
  by giving Canadian products a greater advantage in the United States than we enjoy on trade amounting to nearly £3,000,000 a year; and greatly widens the area of competition from which British manufacturers have to suffer in the Canadian market by extending to all countries with which Canada has most-favoured-nation treaties the reduced rates she is now according to the United States. If that is not a matter of importance, the right hon. Gentleman had better go and talk like that to the operatives, whose interests he so often boasts he is so anxious to look after, and which he has been appointed to his high office to safeguard. I think British trade is likely to be very hardly hit if this reciprocal arrangement goes through. I sincerely hope it will not go through, and I know there are many inside this House and outside who agree with me on that point. We admire the spirit which is being shown by a large number of Canadians, who are doing their best to delay this agreement and prevent it from being passed so hurriedly, as the present statesmen who are responsible for it seem so anxious to do. Those Canadians are doing their best to prevent the Bill passing until the people of Canada have had full time to consider it. We have always been told by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that reciprocity with Canada was not likely to benefit our trade, and that anybody who attempted it was likely to injure that trade. That is not the highest and best opinion in the United States of America. It was only in 1906 that Mr. Hill, the great railway man, talking about this reciprocity, said:—
  "Canadian reciprocity with the United States of America is still possible, possible largely because of the downfall of the Chamberlain policy in Great Britain. Had that been ratified, had England really granted to the Colonies a preference in its markets based on reciprocal advantages, then this country (the United States) would have felt the double thrust in a decline of business with its greatest and its third greatest customers on two sides of the Atlantic. Canada must now seek commercial alliances elsewhere, and this, perhaps, is the time when reciprocity with Canada may be considered with more favour than it ever can be again by us"
  Then he goes on to show how we have refused the reciprocal offer of Canada by turning our backs upon her, and, in the words of the Home Secretary, by "banging, slamming, and barring the door" in the face of our kinsmen. There is something else behind this. President Taft announced what in his view are the aims of the American Government in these negotiations. They, at all events, desire that this agreement should be simply the

  1037
  prelude of a great scheme of Free Trade across the Canadian frontier; and, on the analogy of what has taken place in other countries, I venture to think every practical business man must know this can only lead up to complete commercial and political union. Our Ambassador at Washington is supposed up to the present to have been impartial and free from politics, but I venture to say he has done what no other Ambassador would have done on an occasion like this. A strong advocate of free importations into this country—so-called Free Trade—he has not hesitated to urge day after day and year after year that if you have commercial union political union must follow. He has gone out of his way, in the midst of these delicate and critical negotiations, to publish a revised edition of his book, the main object of which is to show commercial union must be followed by political union.
  There can, I think, only be one opinion as to the indiscretion of what has been done by our Ambassador at Washington. He is determined, and he has shown it, to take an active and leading part in the negotiations between these two countries, apparently without the instructions of the British and Home Government. We are told we ought not to interfere in any Canadian Treaty with any other Government. Why has our representative interfered in the way he has done all through? When we ask for particulars of what he is doing and for a report to be sent over to this country, all we get is, "You must not ask such questions. It is most improper, and you ought to leave such things in the hands of the Government." I am not content to do that. I think the country ought to be taken into the confidence of the Government in an important matter like this, and I think the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ought to be particularly careful and not make an inaccurate statement, as he did, when he said that the interests affected are of no practical importance. President Taft, again in his speech at Atalanta, on March 10th, said:—
  "The duties between Canada and the United States are just the same sort of thing as the duties between the various State of America before Confederation."
  The only possible deduction from that is that Mr. Taft and his advisers contemplate the commercial and economic annexation of Canada as the result of these negotiations. One thing is pretty certain: that these aims cannot possibly be carried out without the withdrawal of Canada from the Imperial Treaty system.
  1038
  But what I want to ask the Government to tell us to-night is: Are they, or are they not, prepared to denounce the whole of these twenty-four treaties to which Canada is a party? Canada cannot withdraw from these treaties unless they are denounced by the British Government. I have got a statement published in the "Toronto Globe" and other important papers in Canada, and reproduced in the "Times," showing that Sir Wilfrid Laurier has himself declared his intention to ask the British Government to denounce these treaties as far as Canada is concerned. He has gone further, and has declared his intention of bringing the subject up before the Colonial Conference. When I asked to-day whether there was any notice of that, the answer I got was that the Government had no official knowledge of the report. We have had a good many answers of that description. We have had them in connection with Naval and other questions, and they have generally proved to be wrong.
  I am convinced, from the information which I have received, that in this case it will be found the information of the Government is wrong, and that at the Colonial Conference shortly to be held this matter will come up, if Sir Wilfrid Laurier comes over—which I very much doubt. I believe his hands are already too full in Canada in answering the attacks made upon him by those who appreciate British attachment to this country. But it will be found that those who come over in his place will urge the Government to allow that matter to be brought up, and will also urge the Government to denounce these treaties so far as Canada is concerned. If the Government are prepared to denounce them, what do they propose to do in the complications that must arise? What will become of this vaunted most-favoured-nation clause which is described by many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and more especially by the Home Secretary, as the key of British commerce, but which, in my opinion, as a matter of fact, is much more likely to become the key of the disintegration and dissolution of the British Empire.
  I would ask another question: Do they imagine for one moment that if the greatest of our Dominions does withdraw from these treaties—from our interpretation of our international obligations—that they are likely to get the same sort of treatment for British traders in foreign countries as they have hitherto been able to obtain? Of course, the answer will be

  1039
  "No." Will not the same thing as happened in the case of the German Treaty occur again, so that we, instead of getting a fixed treaty with the German Empire, are now dependent upon a hand-to-mouth sort of arrangement, which is only extended to us by favour of the German Reichstag—a treaty which at any moment may be withdrawn, and then we shall be thrown back on the general tariff which must result in a heavy penalisation of British trade. I maintain that we have a right to ask the Government to tell us more than they have told us, and to let us know exactly what they propose to do. Will they let us know what our British Minister has done, and upon what instructions he has acted? I venture to hope that the hon. Gentleman who represents the Foreign Office will respond to this bonâ fide desire for information, and thus allay the general unrest that has arisen.
  12.0 M.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Before I address myself in a very brief way to the subject my hon. Friend has raised, I want to say one word only about the introduction of the Consolidated Fund Bill at this late hour of the night. We who have been here a good many years have looked upon the Second and Third Readings of the Consolidated Fund Bill as an opportunity for a private Member to bring up important questions, which, under the pressure of public business and the procedure of this House, we are prevented from otherwise bringing before the House, and there is no reason why the Third Reading of this measure should have been brought on at this hour to-night. I supposed that we should have an opportunity of discussing it as we have had for the last nine or ten years. I have always raised questions on this Bill immediately after questions, which was considered an opportunity by this and the late Government for doing so, and of all the Sessions on which to take away these privileges of private Members the present is the most unfortunate one, when we have had absolutely no opportunity, from January to Easter, of raising public questions. I had intended, if this Bill had been brought in immediately after questions, to raise a question which I venture to say every Member sitting on that Front Bench would consider one of the gravest questions to which this House itself, either in Committee or in the whole House, could address itself, and that is the question of
  1040
  Colonial navies—a question which has, to the credit of the Government, been entirely obliterated from every statement made by the First Lord of the Admiralty, and which I consider one of the most important movements which have ever occurred in our time to secure Imperial organisation, or in the history of our Parliament and of the Parliaments of the Dominions over seas. But I will not dwell upon that.
  I want to say a word upon the question raised by my hon. Friend. I am sorry to say that I must differ slightly—no more than slightly—from my hon. Friend in addressing myself to this question. In doing so I wish to say that while I shall not agree with my hon. Friend I shall, before I close, point out where the Government have been somewhat culpable. I will begin by saying that I cannot agree that our Ambassador to the United States has not done his duty, or that he has done more than his duty, or that he has done less than his duty. I think it extraordinary that the conduct of our Ambassador in the United States, in view of the statements made from that Front Bench, that no instructions were given to him concerning this question, has been highly exemplary. If he acted without instructions, in the position in which Ambassadors are placed to-day our Ambassador in the United States has worthily upheld the traditions of his office. We have had published correspondence, but it has been entirely one-sided. I do not know whether it is always the custom only to publish the communications of the Ambassador, as in this case. In a great many instances we have not only the communications of Consuls, but communications from the Government to the Consuls. Anyone who knows our Ambassadors in any part of the world knows that they constantly say they are practically deprived of all freedom in negotiation, as they live at the end of a telegraph wire, and they cannot move unless they have direct instructions from their Government. We have never been told that no instructions at all were given, but we have been told that no official instructions were given, and that the United States Ambassador was practically expected to conduct negotiations on our behalf independently of any instructions from the Foreign Minister and from the Cabinet of this country. If it is the case that no instructions at all were given while British trade was being affected by these negotiations, while the preference which British traders and British working men enjoy was in

  1041
  danger of being reduced or destroyed altogether, the Government are absolutely culpable of neglect of British interests. Had it been the case of an arrangement between France and Germany, or between France and the United States, and it was felt that British interests were being affected, the Foreign Minister would have been soon on the ground with instructions to our British Ambassador to see to it that British interests were not affected, if it were possible to prevent injury being done.
  Why this extraordinary timidity regarding Canada? Is it because the Government are always afraid of offending Canada? It is a very laudable thing, but I think I know that country, and its Government is composed of very businesslike men. They look after themselves very well indeed, and they find no fault with us for looking after ourselves very well indeed. The Prime Minister and his colleagues have recognised the extraordinary effect of the preference upon British trade, and yet they leave it, as they would not have left it to any other Ambassador, to our American Ambassador to do this thing off his own bat at a time when at least half the people in this country consider the advantages given to British trade by Canada were of incalculable benefit, not only in a monetary sense, to the future of the Empire and the possibilities it suggested. From that standpoint, if it is true that this Government gave no instructions to the Ambassador of the United States, this Government was so culpable that we would be justified in using every means to bring them to account for it. I believe the traders and working men of this country, if they knew that this duty of the Board of Trade, the Foreign Minister, and the whole Cabinet, was left to our Ambassador without instructions, would have a very different opinion of this situation which has been brought about, I think, absolutely by the present Government. If they had listened to the plea for preference, and had granted it on those things on which it was possible without destroying their fiscal theories, as they could have done, we should not be in the position in which we are to-day. It is because they have consistently and persistently refused to grant, even when they could grant it and still preserve their economic theories, that we say, the present Government do not deserve the support or admiration of men on this side of the House or anywhere who have the Imperial
  1042
  spirit. Although I give them credit for this development of our Colonial policy, even there the foundation of it was laid by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in the Defence Committee. That natural evolution and development is a thing which they refuse to consider when it is the case of Imperial trade. That development of reciprocity was as natural as any evolution that ever took place in our Parliamentary history or in our relations with out Colonies. They away with that natural evolution and development in matters of trade, because of hidebound theories behind them, but when they want to take advantage of that natural evolution as in the case of the Navy they do so with complacency. I do not agree with my hon. Friend in the strictures he passed upon Mr. Bryce. I believe Mr. Bryce absolutely observed the character of his office, and I hope all our Ambassadors act as highly as he has done. But that does not in the least affect my judgment regarding the culpability of this Government for not giving instructions to Mr. Bryce to watch over our interests, to watch every step of the negotiations, and to put in wherever and whenever possible strong pressure for those interests which America would be the first to respect and the last to disregard.
  Mr. MACMASTER: I do not desire to enter into a general discussion in regard to the terms of the agreement between the United States and Canada, because at this hour of the evening and in a somewhat attenuated House, this is not the proper time for such a discussion. I simply desire to refer to two points in connection with the manner in which the agreement was executed. It is within the knowledge of the House from the papers before it that negotiations were commenced in May, 1910, by an approach from the American Government to the British Ambassador. The Ambassador communicated that suggestion to our own Government, and he also was put in communication with the Governor-General of Canada. At that time it was inconvenient for the Government of Canada to take up the consideration of the question. Mr. Fielding, the Finance Minister of Canada, who was primarily charged with the matter, was about to visit this country, and for that reason he could not take up direct negotiations. Therefore, the negotiations were postponed until the autumn. In the meantime the proposition for reciprocity was fairly before the Canadian people,

  1043
  the Canadian Ministry, and the British Ambassador at Washington, and full communication of the fact had been made to this Government.
  The matters at issue were not merely matters of concern to Canada, though these were important, but there were very considerable interests of this country at stake in the negotiations which might be affected, and in regard to these it was remarkable that a more active concern was not shown by the Government of this country. It is a matter of great importance whether our manufactures are to get access to the great and growing Canadian markets on favourable terms in comparison with foreign nations. If this agreement is carried into effect the result will be that Canadian producers of certain articles will enter the United States market on more advantageous terms than the British manufacturer. No doubt that is an advantage for Canada, but it is a disadvantage for those who invest capital and employ labour in this country, so that there was something to safeguard as regards the interests of the people of this country when the Canadian Minister of Finance was about to visit it.
  I should like to know whether during the three or four months that the Canadian Minister of Finance was here the subject of reciprocity with the United States came up, whether it was deemed sufficiently important to come up, and whether any British Minister asked Mr. Fielding what was to be the nature of these negotiations between Canada and the United States? It is no answer to say that we have no right to interfere with Canada in the matter of tariffs. This country being directly interested in the concessions made to it by Canada, it would be the most natural thing in the world for our Ministers here to inquire from the Canadian Ministers what were the proposals of the United States, and what was the attitude they were going to take up with regard to them. It would not be infringing Canadian rights, but safeguarding British interests. Nothing took place until November, when after the Canadian Minister of Finance returned to Canada the United States sent two Commissioners there to negotiate. Negotiations took place then with regard to reciprocity of trade between Canada and the United States. I asked to-day the Colonial Secretary if he had any reports as to what took place on that occasion, and he said that
  1044
  there were no reports except those furnished by the British Minister at Washington. He did not communicate one iota of those negotiations that took place in November, 1910, so that as to what took place there between the representative of a foreign Power and the Ministers of our greatest colony there is an absolute blank so far as the knowledge of the Ministers of this country is concerned. In the January following two Canadian Ministers visited Washington, and our Ambassador there tells us that he introduced them to the President, and that they were received cordially, and commenced their operations on the 10th of January.
  Is it not a remarkable thing that these negotiations, which were known to have been resumed on 10th January, were brought to a conclusion between the 19th and 21st of that month—negotiations that affected not merely the tariffs but affected the trade and interests of this country, and were construed as affecting seriously the relationship of Canada to the United States of America. What took place between the 10th January and the 21st January? It is quite apparent that our Ambassador knew very little. The only thing he knew was what the Canadian Commissioners told him. It does not appear that he was present at the negotiations. The statement of the Canadian Ministers was made to the Canadian Parliament. If he afforded assistance in the negotiations it could not have been much more than supplying the pink ticket by the Serjeant-at-Arms to traverse the corridors in this House. The Commissioners conducted the entire negotiations, so that our Ambassador seems to have taken no active part in them as representing this country. The only information he apparently had of what was going on was what he got from the Commissioners. On 10th January he writes to the Foreign Secretary:—
  "I have been in constant communication with the Canadian Ministers and with the representatives of the United States."
  Whether he was dry nursing the Canadian Ministers or not, or what he was doing, we are left to draw our own inferences. And he says:—
  "I gather from them (the Canadian Ministers)——"
  That shows he got his information from them——
  "that the difficulties incident to any general reciprocity still appear serious."
  Mark the date—the 10th January. And mark the observations, "general reciprocity" and "still appear serious." Was

  1045
  general reciprocity proposed? At that time it was not known in this country or by our Government; at least, it does not appear from the despatches that the proposition of the President of the United States would appear, not only from the reciprocity between the Dominion of Canada and the United States—in other words, that there should be reciprocity not merely in respect of natural products but in respect of manufactures. The proposition of the President of the United States would appear, not only from the sentence I have read, but from the statements made, to have been really an offer to our great Dominion of Canada to wipe out the tariffs between the two countries. It was on account of that the "serious difficulties" were heard of. I ask Ministers, did they know of that at the time? Were they aware of the fact that the proposal was made to put the Dominion of Canada practically on the same basis as New York, North Carolina, or any other State of the United States? Why was that important fact withheld from the Government of this country, or, if it was not withheld, why was that fact not communicated to this House? For there was a proposal of general reciprocity between Canada and the United States, because President Taft after the 21st January, in making a tour of the South, in order to commend the agreement to the people of the United States, said that he had instructed the Commissioners to offer Free Trade to the Dominion of Canada, which is general reciprocity on manufactured articles as well as on the natural products of the country. If that had been the fact would the Prime Minister or any Member of the Government say that we should have been indifferent to an emergency of that kind? Will they pretend, although Canada had a right to make a treaty with the United States, that if a reciprocal tariff had been put into effect they were to be mere bystanders in this country while Canada and the United States made a bargain which would prevent any interchange between Canada and this country, save at a ruinous disadvantage, and with the contingency that in the operation of that sort of tariff arrangement there must be assimilation of tariffs between people living under the same conditions, and consequently an extension of the higher tariff of the United States against the products of this country? A serious situation was presented there, and if it has been avoided it has not been
  1046
  by the Ministers of this country, but evidently because Canadian Ministers could not consent to a general reciprocity treaty because it would blot out the advantages they get from the revenue for the support of their Government. The Canadian Government has not got an Income Tax and depends on the money derived from tariffs a general reciprocity agreement would have deprived the country of that source.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): The hon. Gentleman is not allowed to enter into the merits. The only thing he is entitled to do is to criticise the action or inaction on the part of His Majesty's Ministers.
  Mr. MACMASTER: On the following page I find, on 12th January, a telegraphed despatch from Mr. Bryce stating:—
  "I understand that the negotiations with Canada are now progressing in a more favourable way, owing to the friendly spirit displayed by both sides."
  Evidently they had got from the adoption of a general tariff down to the question of natural products. What I am endeavouring to do is to call attention to the grave situation which was there presented, and that Mr. Bryce was acting as our Ambassador apparently without instructions from this country, as one of my hon. Friends has pointed out. In the old days an Ambassador was far from the seat of Government, and he had to act off his own bat. In these days of speedy written communication and of cables it was perfectly easy to instruct the Ambassador what he should do, and it was obligatory on the part of the Ambassador to have communicated the fact to his Government that a general offer of reciprocity had been made. Therefore I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend (Sir Gilbert Parker) who last spoke upon that subject. I do not think our Ambassador (Mr. Bryce) was entirely blameless in that connection. I do think, knowing the relationships that existed between this country and Canada, and the great concessions that had been made by Canada respecting tariffs to this country, that it was his bounden duty, even if he had not instructions, to communicate to this country the grave fact that a general reciprocity had been pressed by the United States upon Canada. That being so, what is the duty of the Ambassador? Of course, he should have instructions, and that is an obligation on the Government. If he has not got them is he to stand by simply?

  1047
  It appears to me that Mr. Bryce was simply a bystander, and it will not be denied that his writings establish the fact that he was favourably disposed to a commercial union between Canada and the United States. Not only that, but in his writings he states in the clearest terms that that commercial union would naturally lead to a political union, in which, he indicates, the country would find its greatest advantage. So that the gentleman representing the interests of the United Kingdom and of the Empire was not only without instructions from home, but was standing there favourably disposed towards a treaty that would create the very commercial relations that the United States were seeking to get. Some-people will say that this is a good thing for Canada. I will not go into that at all. What was the construction put upon the bargain by the people of the United States themselves, by the most powerful man in the House of Representatives (Mr. Camp Clarke) and by the public Press? It was that the bargain must lead to the absorption of the Dominion of Canada in the United States. In the "Philadelphia Ledger," and the "Journal of Commerce," of New York, it was stated that that was the natural result that must happen. Though knowing something of the circumstances, the development, and the prosperity of Canada, knowing how it has grown from a state of comparative poverty to the position it is in to-day, I will abstain from discussing these matters. I wish to concentrate attention on the fact that an event has taken place which will doubtless affect history for all time, and not only were our Government idle in the matter of representations and took no interest in the matter, but our Ambassador took no interest in the agreement, and, judged by his writings, sympathised with the contract that was being carried out. In these circumstances I do not think the Government has much to congratulate itself upon in the agreement—an agreement that may well be designated later on with the appellation "disaster," by which it was characterised by one of the most responsible statesmen (Mr. Balfour) in this House.
  Mr. MARTIN: I wish to protest most vigorously against the suggestion that this agreement will have any effect whatever in bringing about a political union between the United States and Canada. I think
  1048
  I can claim to have some knowledge of Canada as well as hon. Gentleman opposite. I can say that in forty years during which I have been familiar with Canadian affairs, the only time I have known any sentiment at all in favour of annexation with the United States were during very hard times when some Canadians were in favour of it to get the American markets to help them over the hard times. This treaty gives Canada the United State markets, and thus the only argument in favour of annexation between the two countries disappears. Hon. Gentlemen opposite suggest that this Government should have interfered in connection with this treaty in order to protect British interests. They point to the fact, which is true, that this country gets a preference from Canada. It is not entitled to that preference; it is given voluntarily by the people of Canada, or rather by the Liberal party, and it was opposed vigorously at the time by the Conservative party and by the manufacturers of Canada. That British preference depends entirely upon the continuance in office of the Liberal party in Canada. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Absolutely! The Government, it has been suggested——
  Earl WINTERTON: Has the hon. Gentleman read Mr. Borden's declaration on the subject? If he had done so, I do not think he would have made the amazing statement that he has done.
  Mr. MARTIN: I am familiar with the action of the Conservative party ever since this question was started by the Liberals, and I say the preference has been constantly opposed by that party. They voted against it.
  Earl WINTERTON: That is not the point.
  Mr. MARTIN: They voted against it when it was introduced. They and the manufacturers of Canada have consistently opposed that policy all the way through. It has been suggested that the Government would have been protecting British interests by instructing our Ambassador at Washington to interfere in connection with this treaty. Hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about the disruption of the Empire. There is really only one thing that will ever have any effect in Canada in the direction of disruption, and that is by taking the course that has been suggested by the hon. Gentlemen opposite. The only way Mr. Bryce could

  1049
  have interfered would have been by protesting to the Canadian Ministers against entering into or accepting the proposals made to them by the United States Government, and so interfering with their policy, which, in their opinion, was going to be of such great benefit to the people of the Dominion. Conduct of that kind on the part of Mr. Bryce would have been resented most bitterly by the delegates that were in Washington representing Canada and by the Canadian people.
  The Government have shown great patriotism and have looked after the interests of the Empire in allowing Canada to do as she liked with regard to her trading relations with the United States. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have said that this preference has affected the British preference. The hope of this country with regard to British preference lies in Canada in the party which to-day is supporting the arrangements with the United States. The Free Trade sentiment in Canada which is behind the Government in their action in this matter is part of its policy, and has already demanded—and the demand will undoubtedly be met by the Government—the increase of the British preference from 33⅓ per cent. to 50 per cent., and the people will be glad to see 75 or even 100 per cent. If the manufacturers of this country want to have preference continued they cannot demand it. The Government cannot ask Mr. Bryce to go and demand it from Canada. This is not the first Government that gave Canada the right to make her own treaties. The Conservative Government of 1904 allowed Canada to make a treaty with France which gave a preference to French merchants as against British, and did not interfere in any way, and it would be quite out of place for this Government to do so. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have praised up the patriots, as they call them, in Canada who are opposing this treaty in the interests of this country. I can tell hon. Gentlemen opposite that the patriots they refer to are not thinking of this country. They are the manufacturers of Canada who depend for their profits upon high tariffs, and these patriots and manufacturers, most of them in the Conservative party, and some of them in the Liberal party, are raising a tempest in a teapot in their own interests because the Reciprocity Agreement is overwhelmingly supported by the people of Canada.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: I understand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you gave a
  1050
  ruling that only the action of His Majesty's Government could be discussed, and I ask your ruling as to whether the hon. Member is not far exceeding that limit?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think so.
  Mr. MARTIN: I am only attempting to follow the arguments advanced from the other side that men like the manufacturers of Canada are the only patriots, and that they are taking action in the interests of the manufacturers of this country, whom they really hate like poison. There are no manufacturers in the world who are so desirous of getting protection against the manufacturers of this country as the manufacturers of Canada are, because the Canadian people prefer English goods to those of any foreign country. It is protection all the time against the British manufacturers that the Canadian manufacturers want, and the patriots the hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about are patriots for the dollars and the cents now pouring into their pockets owing to high tariffs in Canada. They fear that Canada will return to Free Trade, or practically to the conditions of Free Trade that existed before 1878; they are afraid of losing the hold they have had upon the consumers of Canada for so many years. That is the reason they are trying to prevent the carrying out of this treaty, which they are unable to do.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I observe that in the criticisms of the Government coming from the Opposition Benches there are many shades of opinion. The hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir Gilbert Parker) differed seriously from some of the arguments of the hon. Member for Holborn (Mr. Remnant), and the hon. Member for Chertsey differed from the hon. Member for Gravesend. They did agree, however, on some points. The hon. Member for Holborn gave certain figures, but he gave us no statement as to the basis upon which those figures rested, and, therefore, it is quite impossible for me to deal with them, if, indeed, it were possible to do so without some opportunity of studying them. The hon. Member for Holborn (Mr. Remnant) made a complaint that the Canadian Government would require us to denounce twenty-four treaties to which Canada is a party, and he quoted a sentence from a speech made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I would remind the

  1051
  House that the Secretary of State for the Colonies has already stated that that statement has been contradicted——
  Mr. REMNANT: All the Secretary of State said was according to his official information.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The hon. Member asked if we had received any notice as to the discussion of this question at the Imperial Conference, and the reply was in the negative. The question of denouncing those treaties will be dealt with when Canada raises the question, but I will not take up the time of the House by considering it to-night. The hon. Member also complained that an answer he had received was inaccurate, but it was perfectly correct. We were then dealing with the action taken by the British Ambassador. We pointed out that he had reminded the negotiators of the importance of considering British interests, and the Canadian negotiators had replied that no serious harm would be done to any item of British commerce. That was a statement of fact. If any one looks through the speeches which have been made by hon. Members opposite, the gravamen of the charge against the Government will be seen at once. The hon. Member for Gravesend was careful not to blame the British Ambassador, and he said the blame lay upon the Government for not instructing our Ambassador in regard to the negotiations. Instruct the Ambassador to do what? To put a spoke in the wheel of the Canadian negotiators. I say without any hesitation that to have adopted any such course, to have watched and hampered the negotiators in carrying out the desire of Canada, with a blind idea of protecting British interests, would have been the most shortsighted and foolish thing the British Government could have done. What are the causes which have led to this Reciprocity Agreement? Canada approached the United States some years ago, but the United States were not then prepared to deal with the matter. Mr. Fielding in the Canadian House of Commons pointed out what had been the history of Canada in regard to reciprocity. He stated that from 1854 to 1866 reciprocity existed, and that from 1868 onwards there had always been a strong feeling in Canada in favour of reciprocity with the United States of America.
  Mr. MACMASTER: That is a mistake.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have the authority of Mr. Fielding. What is this-Reciprocity Agreement the result of? I have little doubt what are the causes on the one side it is the result of a very natural desire on the part of Canadian farmers and others to get a freer market for their natural produce. It would be a very serious thing if the British Government interfered with that, and such action on our part would not increase the loyalty of the Canadian farmers. It is, on the other side, the result of a feeling which exists in the United States; the people are revolting against the increased cost of living which is the natural consequence of protection. These two causes, namely, the Canadian desire for a freer outlet for her products and a revolt against the burden of protection amongst the people of America, are the causes which have led to this reciprocity proposal. Are we to interfere with that because there may be a little damage done to certain articles of British trade, although I do not believe that will be the result? I accept the statements of the Canadian statesmen on this subject. They are prepared to meet us with more preference. I accept those statements. But, even if they were to do some little harm to British trade, I think it would have been a most serious thing for the British Government to have given instructions to their Ambassador to interfere with the right of Canada to obtain a free outlet for her products. In all these case where a great dominion has the right to make its own arrangements, it is the duty of the British Ambassador to give assistance, but not to carry out negotiations. That is no part of his duty. It is quite true Mr. Bryce did not from time to time inform us in detail how the negotiations were proceeding—because it was not his business to carry out the negotiations in detail; but, when the negotiations were concluded, he gave us full information. I cannot help thinking the complaint that we did not instruct the British Ambassador has no other meaning than that we did not instruct him to put a stop, as far as he could, to the Reciprocity Agreement which the spontaneous and voluntary act of Canada brought about.
  Mr. MACMASTER: I beg to protest. That is not the statement made on this side of the House.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: None of us have made such a statement.
  Viscount WOLMER: I have a matter of great public importance to raise, and I believe this is the only opportunity I am likely to have of doing so. I put down a Question to-day to the Attorney-General which was not reached. It asked him whether he is aware that Mr. Henry Twist, an official of the Lancashire and Cheshire Miners' Federation has recently threatened Richard Gaskell, Joseph Hamer, Thomas Watmough, and Richard Hart, miners working at the collieries of Messrs. Cross and Tetley, Bamfurlong, with the loss of their livelihood unless they resign their membership of their own trade union and join the Lancashire and Cheshire Miners' Federation; and whether he will instruct the Director of Public Prosecutions to take action in the matter? The matter which I have to bring before the notice of the House is simply an isolated instance of what is going on on a very much greater scale all over Lancashire and in many other industrial districts, and I wish to take this opportunity of protesting against it. The Attorney-General very courteously sent me, after Questions were over, his answer, and in it he stated that he was not aware of the facts, and did not propose to take any action in the matter. I wish to protest in the most emphatic manner possible against this non-possumus attitude on the part of the Government. This is a matter of the greatest urgency, and of life and death to many thousands of working men in this country. I hope you will allow me, for the purposes of argument, to state the facts of the case. I said that this attitude on the part of Mr. Henry Twist was merely an isolated action among many others on his part, and on the part of other officials of the Lancashire and Cheshire Miners' Federation. I have had sent to me by working men many copies of a short circular which I propose to read to the House. It is as follows:—
  "Fellow Workmen.—Since our last appeal a number of men have joined the Union at these pits, but there are still a considerable number outside. It is the intention of the Federation, and of the branches, that every man and boy working at these collieries shall be inside this society. The Federation has stopped pits employing 2,000 men to force one man to join, and what the Federation has done at other places they are determined to do here unless all join.—HENRY TWIST."
  May I ask the House for one moment to consider what this means, and to review a position in regard to which the Attorney-General refuses to take any action whatsoever. The miners who belong to trades unions other than the Lancashire and Cheshire Miners' Federation are not going
  1054
  to be allowed to earn their living unless they resign their membership of their trade union and join the Lancashire and Cheshire Miners' Federation. What is that Federation? I submit that it is a political body; it is a body which supports one political party in this House.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not quite see how the Noble Lord connects this with action or inaction on the part of the Government. Will he show first what the Government might have done if they had the power?
  Viscount WOLMER: I suggested in my question to the Attorney-General that they might have given directions to the Public Prosecutor to take action in this matter, as I understand it this is a case of clear intimidation. As such, a subject who is unable to protect himself has a right to protection at the hands of the Public Prosecutor, who should take up his case in the Courts of Law. It is for the Government to direct him to do so. If His Majesty's Government are not prepared to go to the rescue of these men who are being forced to join an organisation which is purely political, and with which they disagree, they will find when they come to deal with the matter—as they will be obliged to do—by an alteration in the law as it has been laid down by the Osborne Judgment, they will find that if they are going to acquiesce in this state of affairs which prevails in Lancashire at the present moment, and are-prepared at the same time to repeal the Osborne Judgment, they will be allowing a system of grave tyranny to pass unchallenged and unrebuked by the very powers which ought to protect the liberties of the subject.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I do not intend to occupy more than a couple of minutes, and I should perhaps not have intervened at all, but for the speech to which we have just listened. The Noble Lord who has just spoken is greatly alarmed about the intimidation which, he says, is practised by Trade Unionists. May I suggest that he should consult the hon. Member sitting upon his right as to the practices amongst the legal fraternity in regard to members of that profession who do not join their unions. What is the complaint made, and what is the object for which the Noble Lord asks the Government to interfere? An attempt has been made to introduce sectarian and party politics into the trade union movement, to disrupt the

  1055
  trade unions by means of bogus associations, fostered by Tory money and in tended to weaken the influence of the working classes. Needless to say, the trades unionists of Lancashire are going to defend themselves against action of that kind, and if the Noble Lord wants instances of intimidation, with which the Government might interfere, he might in quire into some of those cases where tenants have been evicted from their holdings for daring to vote for Liberal or Labour candidates at election times——
  HON. MEMBERS: "Name, name."
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: On a proper occasion I will be prepared to give the names. When the names were mentioned, hon. Members were not so interested in trying to defend it. The questions I rose to ask the Home Secretary were——
  Earl WINTERTON: Name. On a point of Order, I desire to ask whether it is in order for the hon. Gentleman to accuse hon. Members sitting on this side of the House of intimidating persons at election times by threatening to turn them out of their holdings. I challenge him to give the names of any persons that he alleges have done this.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The Noble Lord will not get the names if he does not behave himself. The point to which I rose to call attention was a complaint in reference to South Wales, where the police——
  Dr. HILLIER: I beg to ask for your ruling Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether it is not the duty of the hon. Member, in view of what he has said, either to substantiate his statement or withdraw if?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I did not hear what the hon. Member said. I was engaged in conversation at the time.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I shall repeat it, Sir, to give you a chance of giving a ruling upon it. What I said was this, that when small holders and working men were being persecuted by the Tory party and evicted from their holdings for having voted Liberal or Labour, we did not hear of hon. Members opposite doing anything in defence of the liberty of that subject, who are now so interested in the question of trade unionism. It might be unparliamentary, but I leave that to you to decide.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am appealed to on the point of Order. There is nothing out of order in that.
  Earl WINTERTON: He is too cowardly to give the names.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must ask the Noble Lord to refrain from these constant interruptions.
  Earl WINTERTON: I must simply say——
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not know whether the Noble Lord is making an explanation.
  Earl WINTERTON: Yes, I was. I with draw the term "cowardly." It is in accordance with the usual practice of hon. Members opposite to make accusations against those on this side of the House——
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have already ruled that the hon. Member is not out of order.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I have just been advised of the term used by the Noble Lord, and it is just as well I did not hear it at first. The matter I rose to call attention to is this. I have been told in information from the strike area in Rhondda Valley that the police there are not observing the 1906 Act concerning picketing. I know the Home Secretary is quite clear upon this point, and that he has already expressed his opinion in the most definite language. I know also that the authorities generally in South Wales state quite freely that the picketing laws must be observed. My information is that the police are in-interfering unduly and unnecessarily with the pickets in the performance of their duty. In thus speaking of pickets, I am not referring to large crowds or bodies of men who are out for the purpose of intimidation. I am referring to the pickets who are officially appointed, and who, in accordance with the suggestion of General Macready, are wearing picket badges to distinguish them from the general body of strikers. My information is that the police are not discriminating between these pickets and the crowds against whom they think they have cause of complaint.
  I ask the Home Secretary whether he will give an order that peaceful picketing is legalised and that the police are as much bound to protect pickets as they are to protect strikers, and that pickets have a right to approach blacklegs who are working with a view to endeavour to

  1057
  peacefully persuade them from doing so, and that so long as that right is exercised in a peaceful manner the police have no right to interfere and are, in fact, violating the law when they do interfere with the men as they have been doing. That is the only point upon which I ask the Home Secretary for an answer to-night.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: I rise only to supplement the observations of my Noble Friend and with the object of placing the facts—with a due consideration for brevity—a little more fully before the House. What happened? There is, as hon. Members may know, a union known as the Constitutional Labour Union.
  An HON. MEMBER: A non-political union.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: I do not know what the hon. Member means by "nonpolitical." There is no point in that interruption. I said it was named the Constitutional Labour Union, and it has recently been formed in Lancashire. Its members are all trade unionists. It is registered as a Trade Union, and it pays the Trade Union rate of wages, and in every respect complies with the conditions as regards employment which are insisted upon by the other Trade Unions. It differs from the majority of the other Trade Unions in one rather important respect. Its members are in general sympathy with the Conservative party. Let me inform the House what happened in this particular case. In the colliery of which my Noble Friend was speaking, there happened to be four members belonging to this particular union and there were seven members of the other union, the Lancashire and Cheshire Miners' Association, of which my Noble Friend has spoken.
  Let the case be clearly understood. Four men who belonged to the new trade union (the Constitutional Labour Union) were men who in every respect were insisting upon the same wages and upon the same conditions of labour as were insisted upon by the larger trade union. The four members committed one fault, and one fault only, and that was that they did not share the political views of the large trade union, but adhered to their own political views. No industrial or trade complaint of any kind could be made against them, or was made. What happened under the circumstances? An official of the Lancashire and Cheshire Miners' Federation made a representation
  1058
  to the manager of this colliery to the effect that unless these four men joined the Labour Trade Union within a specified period every one of them would give up his employment. Well, that threat would ruin the colliery. It happened to be a particularly obvious threat, because this was a colliery which, owing to the tender nature of the roof of one of the main seams, would as an immediate result, if the threat were carried out, be lost. Under these circumstances, the officials of the Labour Trade Union delivered an ultimatum to the manager. And the ultimatum can be expressed almost in a sentence. It is this: "You employ four men who do not share our political views. Unless you dismiss those four men we will close and destroy your colliery." That was the nature of their message.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACSmade a remark which could not be heard by the Official Reporter.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: The Attorney-General says no.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I was asking a question.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: I will attempt to answer the question on the information before me. My information is that if any stoppage took place in this colliery one of their main seams is extremely tender and the colliery would be lost. That is the information before me. If that is so it is clear that the argument which was addressed to the managers of this colliery was one which they could not disregard. The position is this: that these four men are not to be allowed to continue to work side by side with members of the other trade union and they are to lose their employment for one reason only, that they differ from the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway in their political opinions. Just to continue the story, I may inform the House of what has happened since. The manager of the colliery took the view that these four men were being treated very harshly. There had been no complaint that they were not insisting on the standard rate of wages. No such case arose here. The management were extremely reluctant under the circumstances to get rid of the men, and negotiations took place between the two parties. I am informed that Mr. Twist, the late Member for Wigan, was very active in these negotiations. He extended the period which might be given to the

  1059
  management to get rid of these men, and finally an ultimatum was delivered. After the time had been twice extended, three of these men were actually compelled to leave the colliery, were given notice of dismissal by the management, and the fourth man, in order not to lose his employment, was compelled to join the Trade Union which he did not wish to join. If I am wrongly informed on those facts—and I can speak only on the authority which I have already stated—no doubt we shall be told so, and that may introduce some mitigation in the position. I am assured these facts are right. If they are right, what do they mean? They mean that men in Lancashire, and at this colliery, and on the direct incentive of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, are unable to-day to earn their living because they will not change their political opinions.
  Let me ask the Committee this question. What would be said below the Gangway on that side of the House supposing that someone went and persuaded an employer, supposing a Conservative were to persuade an employer to dismiss three of his employés because they were Liberals? What complaints would be made? Does the hon. Gentleman defend it? I shall be asked, no doubt, what the remedy there was, what step the Attorney-General could take. It is certainly not for me to give advice on legal matters to the Attorney-General; I should be sorry to have the impertinence to do it. But if these facts are truly stated, there is ground for serious consideration on his part. It means that the officials of this Trade Union have approached the management of the colliery and have told the management that unless these four men are dismissed they themselves will all give in notices and the colliery will be closed. The matter is a little bit complicated, and many facts would require consideration.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I find a little difficulty in dealing with the facts as presented, because first of all, the case as stated by the Noble Lord differs very materially from the case as stated by the hon. and learned Member for Walton.
  Viscount WOLMER: In what way?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The case as presented to me by him was, in the question he put, as to whether I was aware of what this official had done in respect of the four
  1060
  men, and whether I would advise public prosecution in the matter. He was asked how he justified this matter being brought before the House on the Consolidated Fund Bill, and what it had to do with the Government, and the Noble Lord answered that so far as his information went there was, as he thought, a right to prosecute, on the part of the Government, this official of the Lancashire and Cheshire Miners' Federation. I confess that when I gave the answer to him which I did today to the question he put to me, I was quite unable to understand what was the criminal offence which was suggested to have been committed by Mr. Henry Twist, and I am still in difficulty in understanding what is the offence which is suggested when later I come to deal with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Walton.
  Where a shipowner sets to work to cut down rates in order that he may prevent another shipowner from earning money, from earning his livelihood, or where a shipowner—he may be a millionaire shipowner—is enabled to work in that way so that he may divide a combination, that is a threat made as a threat by the one against three or four, which would have the effect, if carried out, of preventing them earning their livelihood. No one suggests that that is a criminal offence. Necessarily there is the same sort of case if a baker sets up a baker's shop next door to another baker and proceeds to undersell so that it will have the effect of ruining the man who has been in the street for some time. I am pointing out that the fact is that the one person is threatened in his livelihood, and of course you cannot prevent that kind of thing by a criminal prosecution. All I can say with reference to the suggestion emanating from the Noble Lord (Viscount Wolmer) that it was intimidation, is that in my opinion it is not intimidation. Intimidation has been held in law to mean not a threat of this character but some threat which must be accompanied by a fear of actual physical violence. The answer I give to him is that there is no prosecution I could direct the Public Prosecutor to institute in respect of the offences mentioned in the question he put to me. I do not therefore understand of what he complains in regard to the action of the Government. In regard to what fell from the hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division (Mr. F. E. Smith) the position is changed. He stated facts of which I know nothing beyond what he tells me.

  1061
  If the facts are true in all details as stated by him—and I must make this observation that we only have the one statement, and although the hon. Member gives it with all fairness, he knows that there is always another side to every question—if the facts are true it seems to me that they disclose a very unsatisfactory state of things and one which I think most men would entirely condemn. That is a totally different thing from saying that there is ground here for a criminal prosecution. I am sure the hon. Member knows as well as I do that there is no class of case in which it is more difficult to locate what is the particular offence committed than this class of case. He said it might be a conspiracy. Conspiracy is not by any means an easy crime to prove. In these circumstances, so far as my view of the law goes, I submit that on the facts stated by him, it would not be a criminal conspiracy. I agree with him that upon the facts stated by him, there is a very reprehensible state of things, but that does not entitle me of justify me in stating to the House that there is ground for a criminal prosecution or for instituting a public prosecution. We may all differ upon what is the right kind of warfare to indulge in upon these occasions, but I must say on behalf of the Government that nothing that has been stated by the Noble Lord (Viscount Wolmer) or the hon. Member (Mr. F. E. Smith) is sufficient to warrant my directing the Director of Public Prosecutions to institute a prosecution.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I wish to call the attention of the House to two other matters connected with another Department of the State. The first is in connection with the proposed school holidays for children throughout the county of London to celebrate the Coronation, and the effect of such closing of the schools on the necessitous school children. I wish to direct the attention of the House to the fact that a circular has been issued by the Local Government Board informing local authorities that during the festivities connected with the Coronation if they spend money illegally in putting up flags, and such expenditure is surcharged by the auditor, the surcharge will be remitted. In connection with that circular there is a very grave divergence of opinion as to whether the Local Government Board has really any power to anticipate illegal expenditure in this way. I am not sufficiently a lawyer to be able to say whether that is so or not, but I do know that a considerable
  1062
  amount of discussion took place at the Poor Law Commission on that very point, and that there is a considerable weight of opinion against the theory that the Local Government Board can beforehand definitely authorise local authorities to spend money illegally. But the Local Government Board having determined that it would make legal illegal expenditure on Coronation junketting, I think the House ought to have something to say as to whether the feeding of necessitous school children is not of even greater importance than paying for the putting up of flags, and as to whether we ought not to insist that in regard to these children—there are from 50,000 to 60,000 of them—the same authority shall be given to the education authorities to feed them as is given to the county authorities to have flags or junkettings.
  I do not wish to say anything generally in regard to the expenditure on the Coronation except this, that I cannot imagine any Member of the House wishing it to take place and at the same time to starve children to celebrate so auspicious an event. I cannot imagine that the King and Queen would want to go to Westminster Abbey and know that the London children whose parents are unable to feed them were going without food in order to celebrate the Coronation. I cannot understand any man in this House with a heart wanting that. There is only one way to prevent it unless some millionaire comes along and puts up the money to do it, and then none of us can complain. Until that is done there is only one way that the difficulty can be got over, and that is by the Local Government Board recognising that the children need food even during the Coronation festivities, and giving the education authorities the power which I am quite certain every member of that authority wishes them to have. I am sorry the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare) is not here, for I feel quite certain he would have supported me in this matter at any rate. He knows as well as any member of this House the number of children that have to be fed, and the necessity for feeding them. In London we did not put the Act into operation until we were literally compelled by the starving children to do so. Everybody connected with education knows that the stoppage for this week's holiday means a large number of children going without food. I wish to appeal to the President of the Local Government Board, who knows the

  1063
  conditions as well as any man in this House, whether he, having sent out the circular in regard to flags, will not respond to the almost unanimous feeling on this side of the House, and let the education authorities know that those who wish to feed the children may feed them without any fear of what the auditor may do.
  That is all I wish to say on that question, but I wish also to add something about the administration of the Unemployed Workmen Act. Hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to be, I think, keenly interested in the administration of that Act. It is their own Act, one that they brought in and passed, and one which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, when a deputation waited upon him, told us we all ought to be grateful to them for having passed. I do not want at this time of the night, or rather the morning, to be discussing the value or the merits of that Act except to say this, that it was quite in line with the policy of the hon. Gentleman opposite who has occupied the office of President of the Local Government Board. I would remind hon. Members on both sides of the House who it was that took the first step. It was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) who took that first step towards taking the unemployed, the ordinary unemployed, out of the Poor Law. I think that fact ought to be remembered whenever we are discussing the unemployed question in this House, and the right hon. Gentleman who is now President of the Local Government Board was, in my opinion, one of the very small group of men who compelled the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, in 1886, to take that action. From that time onwards, we had all kinds of schemes for putting these people to work until the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Walter Long) brought in the Unemployed Workmen Act—which was preceded by the London Unemployed Fund. That Act at the first had to be administered purely by voluntary funds. When the present Government came into power in 1906 we commenced to have Government Grants, and that is the point that we want to remember in connection with the administration, because when I asked the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, some few days ago, whether he had sanctioned a particular scheme of work he answered me by saying
  1064
  his sanction was not necessary and that the Central (Unemployed) Body could carry out what work they pleased. It was very much like Pharaoh telling the children of Israel to make bricks without straw, because he knows perfectly well that the Central (Unemployed) Body cannot get funds except by voluntary means, and voluntary funds have altogether failed since the Government gave Grants at all, and they are absolutely depending upon his sanction for any works they undertake.
  What has been happening during the five years since 1906? There has been a succession of Grants from this House, and this year, I believe, the smallest Grant, or at least the very smallest expenditure, has been made, something, I think, under £100,000. London, I admit, had the biggest part of that Grant. But here are the facts, and no amount of argument can get over them, if it is sought to prove that our proposals are not the right ones or that other people's proposals are not the right ones. There are in London at this moment 25,000 men registered as unemployed. That is distinct altogether from the men who are not found situations by the Labour Exchanges. These 25,000 men represent a very considerably larger number of individuals, if you put the number of their wives and families on to them. Out of that number there is a certain fraction, under 4,000, I believe, who have obtained work during the present winter up to March 18th, and at this moment reductions even in that number are being made. Some 150 left work on Saturday, and at present there appears to be no possibility of obtaining any other work for them.
  In these circumstances, I have asked twice, I think, but at least on one occasion, what proposals are to be made by the Government to the Central (Unemployed) Body, or by anyone, as to how these men are to be dealt with, and the answer I received was that negotiations were proceeding between the Department and the Central Body. I have tried to track down these negotiations, and all I can discover is that at this moment there are under 4,000 men at work on what I may call normal schemes, and I submit to this House, which has spent a considerable amount of time discussing "Dreadnoughts," which has spent a considerable amount of time discussing the army and trade, and what may happen from Germany—as one who has studied this question as much as anyone in this House, I

  1065
  say that your greatest danger lies, as a nation, not in the fear of a foreign invasion, but in the physical, moral, and mental deterioration of the great masses of the people in every industrial centre. It may be pointed out to me that the Board of Trade Returns only show that some 3 per cent. are out of work, but I beg to point out to the House in reply to that point that the great bulk of the men I am talking about to-night are not included in that return at all. They are men who for the most part never have regular work of any kind, and for the most part men who earn very low wages indeed, and have a very difficult job to keep themselves going in the best of times.
  Mr. KEBTY-FLETCHER: Is not that on account of Free Trade?
  Mr. LANSBURY: May I remind the hon. Member of the answer I gave to someone earlier in the Session. I have seen the same thing happen in Germany, where they have Protection. In my opinion the German Government deal with the evil in a very much different way from what we do. At the present moment, so far as I can see, nothing, apparently, is going to be done. I want the House to remember that these 25,000 men are registered as out of work. There has been a scheme put before the Local Government Board for their sanction which would have at least taken a fair percentage of these men; it would have taken quite another 500 off this list had it been carried through. It was a County Council scheme. I want the House to understand that we are not free agents. We cannot start any kind of work we please or deal with the unemployed in the best manner, or in the manner in which I would like to deal with them. We had to take the law as we found it, and that is the point I want to urge, because I do not want it to be said afterwards that I am in favour of more relief works for the unemployed.
  If I had any idea that the right hon. Gentleman or the Government were going to bring in really preventive measures I think I would be much more patient than I have been in the matter, or than I am just now, but when I know that all they are proposing, even if they got time, is to bring in an insurance scheme against unemployment. I cannot sit still without raising my voice in protest. I protest because you have, at the present moment, ample powers if the Government agree to spend the money to deal with, or
  1066
  at least palliate the misery which there is around us. The scheme which I wish to bring before the House is a scheme which has been prepared by the Central (Unemployed) Body in conjunction with the local authority at Herne Bay, and let me point out that whenever you start to find work you are up against a great difficulty, and that is you may start men to do work which will displace other men. The right hon. Gentleman has always laid it down, as did the right hon Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Walter Long) and Mr. Gerald Balfour, that whatever schemes were undertaken, must be schemes that would not afterwards be carried through, and, as a matter of fact, could not be carried through without the help of the Government and without the help of the unemployed.
  I mention these facts to show that this scheme at Herne Bay comes within that category. They made very big efforts on their own part to deal with the difficulty, but with very little effect. Herne Bay, as I understand from a letter sent to the Central (Unemployed) Body, suffered from coast erosion for a considerable number of years. They prepared a scheme which would cost £33,000, and I may say that that letter came to the Central (Unemployed) Body in response to a circular letter that the Central (Unemployed) Body sent to every local authority in England asking if there was any work that could be put at their disposal. They put this scheme of £33,000 before the Central Body. They said, "Our rateable value is such that a penny in the £ brings in only £159." They said, further, "We are prepared to pledge our credit up to something like £4,000 to help get this work done, that is to say, we will find the material;" and then in addition to that they agreed to find housing accommodation for the men. The Local Government Board were asked to make a grant of the balance of the money, but not to make the grant all at once—to let the work be carried out in sections so that even if there had been a year of breakdown the total amount of money would not have been lost. The real object of doing it in sections was to spread it out as much as possible. The proposition was put before the Local Government Board, and I have here the whole of the correspondence from beginning to end, and can find no single word condemning this scheme.
  All I can find is that the Local Government Board maintain that there are

  1067
  plenty of other schemes nearer London, and that they would prefer to finance those schemes. There was, however, one objection stated at the beginning, and that was that the work being so far away from London it would cost too much money to bring the men backwards and forwards. The Central Body offered to get over that difficulty, and brought the cost of transit for the men down to a lower figure than the cost of transit of men on many of the works nearer London. It worked out in this way: With the men who go to work on the various jobs in and around London, in the London County Council parks, it cost 3 per cent. of the total cost of the job to pay railway fares and tram fares alone. But this job at Herne Bay would entail a cost for travelling of less than 3 per cent., therefore that difficulty was got over. With the exception of that difficulty there has been, so far as I can find in this correspondence, no real objection to the scheme, saving that the Local Government Board imagined that there was plenty of schemes nearer London into which the money could be put. I want to point out to the House that this "plenty of other schemes nearer London" means that less than 4,000 men are employed. Therefore it is no answer to us to say that there were these schemes, because even with all the schemes up to date, including the schemes which have only just been put in hand, there are only to be 4,000 men employed. We are entitled to ask the Local Government Board whether they think that 4,000 men out of 25,000 are all that are entitled to any help under this Act. Further, I would ask this—whether it is not a fact that the Local Government Board have always laid stress on this, that the work should be of such a character that it should not interfere with the ordinary work of the community. Is there any job that would less interfere with ordinary labour than that I have mentioned.
  It may be argued that the Central (Unemployed) Body have already helped to carry through a piece of work in connection with land reclamation at Fambridge, and that it cost a great deal of money. But no one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that that expenditure of public money, which resulted in such a very small addition to the funds of the Central Body was carried through from its inception under the supervision and authority of his
  1068
  own inspectors, and that the man who was placed in charge was the very best expert that could be obtained, and that no one from beginning to end ever blamed the workmen for failure. The right hon. Gentleman knows, too, and his Department knows quite well, that only two years ago at Burnham-on-Crouch a similar piece of work was carried through, and under the estimated cost. Therefore there is no reason to think that the unemployed workmen who would be sent down to this job, specially selected for it, would e incapable of doing it. The job at Burnham-on-Crouch and the work that the men did at Garden City, and the work that the men did—not what the sea or river did—at Fambridge, prove conclusively that that in the main the men are capable, when properly led, of doing this kind of work. In proof of that the Central Unemployed Body twice over carried the scheme. I admit that the other day they gave up the battle with the right hon. Gentleman, but thirteen distress committees have appealed to their Members in this House, and I will read them out.—[Interruption.] After all you really have discussed all kinds of subjects to-night, and 25,000 men out of work in this Metropolis are worthy of a little attention, even at twelve minutes to two o'clock in the morning. I do not want to read the names of the thirteen; I will have mercy on you—more than you have on me very often. There are thirteen boroughs of London that have appealed to their Members in this House, and who have appealed to the right hon. Gentleman.
  I do not see the President of the Board of Trade there, but he sits for the other side of the borough that I represent, namely, Poplar. I sit for one half and he for the other, and he knows perfectly well, as I know, that our Constituents on both sides of the border are in many cases living just now just on the border-line of starvation; and I cannot help but think that while you have the Unemployed Workmen Act this kind of work, this piece of work was just the piece of work that ought to have been carried through. One other word in conclusion, because I want, if I can, to get the House to realise what this business of unemployment means. I put a supplementary question to the right hon. Gentleman to-day in regard to measles. I do not know whether the House is realising that 200 children are dying in the Metropolis every week just now. I venture to say that if an inquiry is set on foot it will be found that these children

  1069
  are in the main from the districts where there are most casual labourers and most unemployment, yet no one, so far as I know, is taking any trouble to see that this evil is grappled with. You may discuss Empire, you may discuss Tariff Reform, you may discuss all the "isms" as much as you please, but in the last resort this commercial system you live under at present all the time produces this kind of difficulty, this kind of evil.
  If you had Tariff Reform you would have casual labour just as you have it to-day; shipowners would be just as greedy and just as selfish to get their ships tumbled out at the earliest possible moment as they are now. Therefore I ask the House to remember this—that these children, in my opinion, are being murdered by the social conditions under which they are living. Measles and other zymotic diseases the poor children succumb to much more quickly than the children of the rich. My own child when it caught measles the other day got through it in a few days, but the people in the next house, people who are underfed and whose children were never properly fed, their children are now under the earth. There will be hundreds more unless something is done. It is because I feel that very strongly, and because this House, instead of wasting time on unimportant questions, ought to settle down to the condition of the people question, that I raise the matter. The right hon. Gentleman himself sprang from the class that is suffering. Then let him produce a scheme that will get rid of the destitution from which men and women are suffering.
  Mr. FRED HALL: It is not often that I find myself entirely in accord with the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), but I should like to join in his appeal to the President of the Local Government Board with reference to the feeding of children during the Coronation week. I do not think that this House is aware of the fact that the cost during that time will be very small indeed. The total cost, which I have on very good authority, will amount to about £1,300 in all. When the children are given a week's holiday in the ordinary course of events, I think it would be the unanimous wish of this House that these children should not be debarred from being fed. I speak of the necessitous children. With regard to the question of finding employment for 25,000 men, we on
  1070
  this side of the House are entirely in favour of finding employment for the whole of them. We are not desirous of dealing simply with the question of relief works, but we are in favour of a reform of our fiscal policy which will give employment.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Tariff Reform would require legislation, and cannot be discussed now.
  Mr. FRED HALL: I only ventured to suggest means by which continual employment might be found for those who at the present time are unfortunately debarred from finding the necessary work that should devolve upon them. I cannot help thinking that hon. Members below the Gangway opposite must be aware of the fact that some radical change must be brought about in order that such employment can be found, and I venture to say, without going into the question contrary to your ruling, Sir, that the suggestion I have thrown out will be thought of even by the hon. Members below the Gangway.
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The last portion of the speech of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) referred very properly to an epidemic with which we have been confronted in London during the last two or three weeks. He alluded in a kind way to the children, in whom we all take the deepest possible interest, and who have evoked great sympathy. He properly referred to me as one coming from the class to which these children belong, and he appealed to me to do everything to help the children to recovery of health and to prevent mortality. The hon. Member might have ascertained that I not only have done everything I could do, but that I have strained the law to its utmost limit.
  I have called upon the Metropolitan Asylums Board to regard this as an exceptional epidemic, one that requires drastic, prompt and sympathetic attention. They have responded by placing at our disposal 1,000 beds, and I may ask them for another thousand. The officials of the county council, the medical officers of the borough councils, and the whole of my officers are concentrating on this with the special object of meeting in a practical, direct, and prompt manner the very evil to which my hon. Friend refers. I can assure him that were he in my position he would not be able to deal any better with this particular complaint than we are dealing with it at the present moment. My hon.

  1071
  Friend must pardon me if I remind him of this fact, that the special districts he referred to where this epidemic is most rile are the districts we have specially concentrated upon, so that those who live in densely crowded areas and in houses of more than two or three families—the people who are below what we all regard as the proper standard of life—these are the people who have the first call on benevolent and medical agencies we are able to invoke. I am not going into a general discussion of the unemployment question. That was discussed only a week or two ago. My hon. Friend complains, and he was within his right in so doing, that instead of helping what is known as the Herne Bay scheme——
  Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. I did not complain that the Herne Bay scheme had not been helped at the expense of some other scheme; I did complain that it had not been helped in addition to the other schemes so that more men might have been employed
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.
  Mr. LANSBURY: It is a point on which I do not wish to be misrepresented.
  Mr. BURNS: I am not going to misrepresent the hon. Member. His complaint against me was that we had not assisted the Herne Bay scheme. My answer to that is simply this, and the House will appreciate my reasons. The question is not as to whether a coast erosion scheme should or should not be helped. The question is how best can I spend the money at my disposal for the largest number of men, and do the maximum amount of good for the unemployed whom I have under my jurisdiction. It was to give the largest amount of work to the largest number of men that I decided to abandon Herne Bay, and the reason was this: The scheme was to cost £31,000. I think it would have been nearer £40,000 before it was completed; £26,000 was to be spent on labour and £4,800 on material. The men were to get £537 for pocket money, £322 for boots, £16,000 allowances to their families, £1,000 for railway fares £150 for medical attendance, £1,709 for supervision. There was for heating and lighting nearly £200, and for insurance of workmen, for this is risky work, £286, and then £1,000 for contingencies. In a word, 500 men were to be employed at this relatively
  1072
  skilled work, where accidents might be possible, and, indeed, would be possible with the type of men we have in the London unemployed; they were to be employed for forty-three weeks away from home. I could give employment, as we have done, to nearly 1,400 men for the natural period of sixteen weeks during the winter—not in Herne Bay for forty-three weeks away from home, but on Hackney Marshes, the River Wandle, and the County Council parks, which was infinitely better for the men themselves, and under infinitely better conditions for them. This scheme, however, brings them for forty-three weeks away from home.
  Mr. LANSBURY: No, no.
  Mr. BURNS: That is the scheme officially submitted to me.
  Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order, or rather, of explanation, the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that under the regulations no man could be kept away more than sixteen weeks.
  Mr. BURNS: The hon. Member is entirely wrong because the virtue of this scheme in the opinion of the promoters is that 500 men would have been continuously employed throughout the summer, and they asked that these 500 men should be employed for forty-three weeks. I am opposed to that on two practical grounds. We can give, with the same amount of money, 1,400 men work in the county of London. These men, when they have done their day's work in the parks, can go home every night, and, in doing so, can maintain the unity and discipline of a working-class family, a very important element in domestic life for this type of people. What is better still, they have every day an opportunity of hearing from their shopmates what opportunity there is of, resuming their normal employment at their natural work, which they could not secure if they were away for forty-three weeks. We think it is better to give 1,400 men from fourteen to sixteen weeks' work so that they can go home every day and have an opportunity of resuming their ordinary employment, especially when we realise that a good many men do get this opportunity. Here are the figures which bring out that 1,737 men, or fifteen per cent. of the total of the men employed daily in the London County Council parks, leave that particular work for their own employment because they have that opportunity. If you send men down there to Herne Bay for thirty or forty weeks, hardly any of

  1073
  them will ever resume their natural work, and the result is that men from outside come in and get the ordinary work. If these men had daily an opportunity to attempt to resume their ordinary employment these other men would not possess it.
  But the hon. Member says that coast erosion is suitable work—under right and proper conditions, yes. But I have had one experience of coast erosion at Fambridge, where we received an estimate of £4,000 to £5,000, and the cost ended in £26,416, and the value of the ground reclaimed at this tremendous cost was only £1,000. I think with these facts before the House and the experience we have had of coast erosion, that better work can be found for these men in the various parks and open spaces of the London County Council. I think that as compared with the Herne Bay scheme, the House will agree that it is in the interest of the unemployed to provide work for the largest number, and that the Government have done the wisest thing in adopting the alternative which I have submitted to the House.
  The next point to which I wish to turn was raised by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley Division (Mr. Lansbury), and the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Fred Hall), namely, the question of feeding the school children during the Coronation holidays. I must be frank with the House on this point. From what the hon. Members said, one would think I had power by administrative order to alter Acts of Parliament, to revoke Acts of Parliament, and to go contrary to the law. I have not that power, and it is not my intention by administrative order to attempt to revoke Acts of Parliament or to suspend legal enactments, because if I did attempt to do so in other matters no one would denounce the bureaucracy of the Local Government Board more than the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley.
  Mr. LANSBURY: What about the flags?
  Mr. BURNS: The hon. Member must not interrupt. He will find, if he has patience, that I will deal with him fairly and courteously. I start out by saying it is wrong for hon. Members to assume that by administrative order I can undo or revoke Acts of Parliament. What are the facts about the feeding of the children? Under the Feeding of School Children Act, which was introduced into this House, and, I believe, supported by a number of Labour Members, it was laid
  1074
  down that children attending school may be fed by the local education authority. By an oversight, perhaps, of the promoters, holidays were not contemplated when the Act was passed. That is not my fault. It is the fault of those who took an active part in passing that Act through Parliament. But when the Act was passed the London County Council asked the opinion of two distinguished lawyers as to whether they could feed the children at these times under the Act, and these two distinguished lawyers—Sir Robert Finlay and Mr. Danckwerts—said it was impossible and against the law that the children should be fed during the holidays. That was brought to my knowledge, and in the face also of the decision of my own legal officers I could not, by administrative order, sanction in advance the recurring charge for what are known as the ordinary school holidays. Hon. Members will see that this disability, so far as it affects the ordinary school holidays, can only be removed by legislation, and any Bill introduced must be dealt with not by my Department, but by the Department of Education, which was responsible for the parent Act. It was never laid down in the Act that the local education authority should feed the children during the ordinary holidays. My hon. Friend says—What about the Coronation?
  There again I have not power by administrative order to anticipate the probable act of the London County Council or of any other body, or their decision on what they should do during the Coronation holidays, whether they extend over one day or three days, or seven days. Certainly, if seven days' Coronation holidays were merged into the ordinary month of annual school holidays, a different condition would exist to that which had previously existed for a one, three, or seven days' Coronation holiday. I am asked what the Local Government Board is going to do about the feeding the children during the Coronation holidays. My answer to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley is this: That the body for whom he claims, I presume, to speak here to-night, has not yet sent me an application on this particular subject, and when that body does send me an application I shall be prepared to promptly and sympathetically consider it. But until it does send me an application, until a responsible education authority makes a representation to me, the hon. Member will pardon me if I decline to go contrary to the duty and

  1075
  traditions of my office by sanctioning in advance, in anticipation, that which I have not the legal power to do, and which I have not been officially asked to do by the responsible authority which has the feeding of children within its jurisdiction.
  May I put another point? The hon. Member suggested that a circular had been issued. I have issued no circular yet. The order to which he refers has not been issued. An order will be issued probably during this week, applying to county councils and town councils who are education authorities as was not done on the previous occasion. When that order is issued, when it is submitted to responsible bodies, then I am prepared to consider it. The hon. Member knows full well that in considering that question I shall have before me the object of the celebration itself, the children who are likely to participate in it; and he can rely upon it that when application is made to me, decently and in order and at the right time by the proper authorities, I shall be prepared to consider each case on its merits, to consider whether any surcharge that may be made shall be remitted or upheld. I trust the House will leave it to this committee, as they have done on previous occasions. On those occasions, when children have evoked our sympathy and claimed our attention, we have not been reluctant to interpret the spirit of the people generally, in the right way at the right time.
  Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members not being present,
  The House was adjourned at Eighteen minutes past Two a.m. (Tuesday, 28th March).

  Crown Lauds (Highland Crofting Counties).
  Crown Lauds (Highland Crofting Counties).
  Royal Gardens, Kew.
  Royal Gardens, Kew.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Government Stationery and Printing.
  Government Stationery and Printing.
  Extra Statutory Gratuities.
  Extra Statutory Gratuities.
  Surveyor of Taxes (Cookstown, County Tyrone).
  Surveyor of Taxes (Cookstown, County Tyrone).
  Official Appointments (Competitive Examination).
  Official Appointments (Competitive Examination).
  Scottish Universities.
  Scottish Universities.
  Land Valuation (Form IV.)
  Land Valuation (Form IV.)
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Asylums Officers (Ireland).
  Asylums Officers (Ireland).
  School Inspectors (Ireland).
  School Inspectors (Ireland).
  Labourers (Ireland) Bill.
  Labourers (Ireland) Bill.
  National Schools, Ireland (Heating and Sanitary Arrangements).
  National Schools, Ireland (Heating and Sanitary Arrangements).
  Mahony Estate, Mount Collins, County Limerick.
  Mahony Estate, Mount Collins, County Limerick.
  Untenanted Land (Ireland).
  Untenanted Land (Ireland).
  Royal Irish Constabulary (Canteen Fund).
  Royal Irish Constabulary (Canteen Fund).
  Purchase of Stock, Ireland (Free Grant).
  Purchase of Stock, Ireland (Free Grant).
  Infantry Pay.
  Infantry Pay.
  7th Hussars.
  7th Hussars.
  War Office (Advisory Committee).
  War Office (Advisory Committee).
  Pay of Territorial Adjutants.
  Pay of Territorial Adjutants.
  Compulsory Service (Sir Ian Hamilton).
  Compulsory Service (Sir Ian Hamilton).
  Territorial Forces (Rifle Ranges).
  Territorial Forces (Rifle Ranges).
  Cavalry Division (Horses).
  Cavalry Division (Horses).
  Royal Laboratory, Woolwich Arsenal.
  Royal Laboratory, Woolwich Arsenal.
  School Attendance By-Laws.
  School Attendance By-Laws.
  Education Inspectors.
  Education Inspectors.
  Declaration of London.
  Declaration of London.
  War Vessels Laid Down and Struck Off.
  War Vessels Laid Down and Struck Off.
  Royal Naval Colleges (Cases of Illness).
  Royal Naval Colleges (Cases of Illness).
  Labour Adviser (Home Office).
  Labour Adviser (Home Office).
  Sub-Inspectors of Mines and Quarries.
  Sub-Inspectors of Mines and Quarries.
  Aliens Undergoing Imprisonment.
  Aliens Undergoing Imprisonment.
  Accidents to Workmen (Museum of Safety Appliances).
  Accidents to Workmen (Museum of Safety Appliances).
  Mine Accidents (Balances of Funds).
  Mine Accidents (Balances of Funds).
  Coronation.
  Coronation.
  Mine Inspectors (Lanarkshire).
  Mine Inspectors (Lanarkshire).
  Vacuum Dust Remover (Whitwood Colliery).
  Vacuum Dust Remover (Whitwood Colliery).
  Illegal Employment Alleged (Swansea).
  Illegal Employment Alleged (Swansea).
  Printers' Strike (London).
  Printers' Strike (London).
  Clapham Murder Case (Police Inquiry).
  Clapham Murder Case (Police Inquiry).
  Egyptian State Railways.
  Egyptian State Railways.
  Death Sentences in Crown Colonies.
  Death Sentences in Crown Colonies.
  United States and Canada (Tariff Agreement).
  United States and Canada (Tariff Agreement).
  Church Bill in South Africa.
  Church Bill in South Africa.
  Most-Favoured-Nation Agreements.
  Most-Favoured-Nation Agreements.
  Coolie Labour.
  Coolie Labour.
  Medical Service (India).
  Medical Service (India).
  Alleged Torture in India.
  Alleged Torture in India.
  Factory Hours in India.
  Factory Hours in India.
  Diphtheria in Herefordshire.
  Diphtheria in Herefordshire.
  Tubercular Pigs.
  Tubercular Pigs.
  Options and Futures.
  Options and Futures.
  Shipwrecks (Pentland Firth).
  Shipwrecks (Pentland Firth).
  Emigration from Scotland.
  Emigration from Scotland.
  Duty Free Articles.
  Duty Free Articles.
  Damage to Fishing Gear (Northumberland Coast).
  Damage to Fishing Gear (Northumberland Coast).
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Surrey).
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Surrey).
  Lancashire and Cheshire Miners' Federation.
  Lancashire and Cheshire Miners' Federation.
  Illegal Trawling.
  Illegal Trawling.
  Barvas School Board (Lewis).
  Barvas School Board (Lewis).
  Farm Holdings (Scotland).
  Farm Holdings (Scotland).
Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 40.)
SOUTHAMPTON HARBOUR BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—
Kingston-upon-Thames Bridge.
Felixstowe and Walton Water.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

BARRY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl Graham (D. Montrose) be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Weardale; read, and agreed to.

CHESTER WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Eldon and the Lord Langford be proposed to the House as Members of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Earl of Hardwicke and the Earl of Verulam; read, and agreed to.
Report of the Board of Trade on the Chester Water Bill: Ordered to be laid before the House (The Lord Hamilton of Dalzell).

BRIGHTON DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to order), and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL.
Read 2a, and committed for To-morrow.
DOVER CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.

METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD (NEW WORKS) BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH): My Lords, there is a notice in my name on the Paper with reference to the Metropolitan Water Board (New Works) Bill. I have to move that the time for depositing petitions praying to be heard against the Bill be extended to Wednesday next. I explained the reasons for this the other day, and I think they were generally understood by the House. I beg now to make the Motion.
Moved, That the time for depositing petitions praying to be heard against the said Bill be extended to Wednesday next.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WHALEY BRIDGE GAS BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill: The Order made on the 23rd of February last, discharged: Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.
THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL.
Message from the Commons that they have committed the Thames Conservancy Bill to the Joint Committee on the Metropolitan Water Board (New Works) Bill [H.L.].
METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD (NEW WORKS) BILL. [H.L.]
Message from the Commons to acquaint this House that they have appointed a Committee of Four Members to join with the Committee appointed by this House as mentioned in their Lordships' Message of the 22nd instant to consider the Metropolitan Water Board (New Works) Bill [H.L.].
HARBOUR BILLS (1911).
Report of the Board of Trade on the Chester Water Bill [H.L.]: Laid before the House (pursuant to Order of this Day), and to be printed. (No. 41.)

BRITISH INTERESTS IN JAPAN AND KOREA.
EARL STANHOPE*EARL STANHOPE rose to ask His Majesty's Government—

1. Whether the decision of the Hague Tribunal with regard to perpetual leases to foreign residents in Japan has been fully put into effect; and

2. Whether, in view of the change in the status of Korea, His Majesty's Government propose to take measures to protect British interests in that country; and to move for Papers.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government the Questions standing:in my name. The question of perpetual leases as they are called is exercising the minds of British residents in Japan to no inconsiderable extent. As your Lordships are no doubt aware, by the old law of Japan foreigners were forbidden to hold land in that country, and in order to overcome the difficulty the Japanese Government forty or fifty years ago instituted a system of what is called perpetual leases—granting, that is to say, areas of land in each of the three chief ports of Japan—Yokohama, Kobe, and Nagasaki—for the purpose of forming foreign settlements in those cities. These leases were granted to private individuals and carried with them immunity from the Land Taxes, an arrangement which was confirmed by agreements made with the Governments of foreign Powers. Recently the Japanese Government held that the
618
new House Tax was not included in the exemption. The question was discussed at considerable length in Japan, and after considerable delay the matter was referred to the Arbitration Court at the Hague, and this Court finally gave a verdict against, the Japanese Government.
This verdict was given four or five years ago, and the Japanese Government have recently instituted laws complying with the ruling of the Hague Court, but I understand that subsidiary questions which hang upon this judgment are still outstanding, and this is a matter which is naturally depreciating the value of the leases held by British subjects. These leases were confirmed, as I have said, by Treaties with the foreign Governments, and there is a considerable feeling of uneasiness among British residents in the Far East that His Majesty's Government intend to give up the leases in return for concessions in the new Japanese Tariff. These leases were granted to private individuals and were bought by them at a price largely in excess of the current value of adjacent lands in virtue of the immunity from taxation. While, therefore, additional security is given to these leases, they are not totally dependent upon the maintenance of the Treaties between the Powers—a point which is confirmed by a Memorandum from Sir Ernest Satow, then British Minister in Tokyo, to Viscount Aoki, soon after these Treaties came into force; in which he stated—
"If no stipulation on the subject had been made in the Treaty of 1804, justice and good faith would call for the observance of the contractual obligations thus created between the Japanese Government and the foreign renters."
It is clear, therefore, that while His Majesty's Government may properly be called upon to protect the rights granted to British subjects, they have no right to give up or modify those rights without the consent of the private owners concerned. I venture to hope that in the reply which will be given to-day on their behalf His Majesty's Government will be able to allay the misgivings of British residents in Japan by satisfactory assurances on these points.
In my second Question I ask whether in view of the change in the status of Korea, His Majesty's Government propose to take measures to protect British interests in that country. The Preamble of the

619
Anglo-Japanese Agreement of January 30, 1902, runs as follows—
"The Governments of Great Britain and Japan, actuated solely by a desire to maintain the status quo and general peace in the Extreme East, being moreover specially interested in maintaining the independence and territorial integrity of the Empire of China and the Empire of Korea, and in securing equal opportunities in those countries for the commerce and industry of all nations, agree as follows:"
Then came the Russo-Japanese War, and in the Agreement which was concluded at the termination of that war naturally the Empire of Korea was no longer referred to as such, but the policy of the open door was perpetuated in the new Agreement; for Article III of the Anglo-Japanese Agreement of August 12, 1905, is as follows:—
"Japan possessing paramount political, military, and economic interests in Korea, Great Britain recognises the right of Japan to take such measures of guidance, control, and protection in Korea as she may deem proper and necessary to safeguard and advance those interests, provided always that such measures are not contrary to the principle of equal opportunities for the commerce and industry of all nations."
This was followed by the Convention of November 17, 1905, some months after peace was signed, in which Japan assumed the entire control of the foreign affairs of Korea, and undertook the duty of watching over the execution of the Treaties actually existing between Korea and the Powers; and five days later a circular Note was addressed to the Powers in which the Imperial Government of Japan declared that—
"in assuming charge of the foreign relations of Korea and undertaking the duty of watching over the existing Treaties of that country they will see that those Treaties are maintained and respected, and they also engage not to prejudice in any way the legitimate commercial and industrial interests of these Powers in Korea."
Finally on August 29 of last year the annexation of Korea by Japan was announced, and by a Declaration issued on the same day it was stated that the Treaties with foreign Powers ceased to be operative in consequence of annexation, and that Japan's existing Treaties would as far as practicable be applied to Korea. Extraterritorial rights were abolished and the tariff and coastal trade for foreign ships was to be permitted as before for a period of ten years. Several precedents have been advanced for the claim that the act of
620
annexation of itself cancelled all Treaties formally existing between the Empire of Korea and foreign Powers. In the case of Madagascar, which presents the closest analogy, it was only after vigorous protestations by the late Lord Salisbury that England accepted the attitude adopted by France, and she has never relinquished the principle that succession to rights involves succession to responsibilities. But in all three cases—that of Hawaii, of Texas, and of Madagascar—the country annexing territory had in no case made itself previously responsible for the foreign policy of the country it annexed or solemnly pledged itself to watch over existing Treaties, as did Japan in the case of Korea. I venture to think that your Lordships will agree that this fact very materially affects the question.
And now as to how far the claim to cancel Treaties formerly in existence is likely to affect British interests in Korea. It would seem reasonable to suppose that if extraterritorial rights are unnecessary in Japan, they can hardly be considered necessary in a country under the same Government just across the Straits of Tsushima. But the circumstances in the two countries are so entirely different that no comparison can be made between the two. Japan is faced with untold difficulties. Imagine a country situated somewhat in the geographical position of the Channel Islands inhabited by what is considered an inferior race of a childlike and hopeless simplicity. It is obvious that the dregs of humanity in our great cities would be anxious to emigrate thither to exploit those people for their own advantage, and this is exactly what has happened in Korea. An undesirable class of emigrant gives rise to situations with which the authorities with the best will in the world must be unable to cope.
Nor is this all. Korea is at present not under similar laws to Japan, but under military jurisdiction. Again, there is not in Japan freedom of the Press as we understand it; but there is no semblance whatever of freedom of the Press in Korea. Four out of the seven newspapers which existed. there six months ago have been abolished, and recently the remaining three papers were notified that all communications to the Press and to the public would be made by the Governor-General of Korea and by

621
no other authority. If all Japanese officials and colonists were of the high character of the late Prince Ito, of the present Governor-General, General Terauchi, or of Mr. Nabeshima, there would, of course, be nothing to urge against this abolition of extra-territorial rights, but it is impossible that they should he able to secure British residents from circumstances which they would wish to avoid if possible. There is this further point with regard to extraterritorial rights. Not only are the emigrants of a character who might give evidence in Courts which would not be substantiated, but naturally some of the officials are of a similar character; and communications in Korea being still extremely backward many minor points of law have been handed over to the gendarmerie for adjudication instead of to the Courts. By an Order in Council of January 23 last this country has recognised the abolition of extra-territorial rights in Korea, but I think your Lordships would wish to know whether any qualification was made as to the standing of the Court before which British subjects should be tried.
I turn to the question of trade and commerce. The imports of Great Britain into Korea are about eighteen or nineteen per cent. of the whole, and three years ago were estimated at £700,000. The inter-coastal trade is also very considerable. By the Proclamation issued on annexation Japan limits the policy of the open door to a period of ten years, at which time she may apparently impose any tariff she pleases, and forbid, as she has done in Japan, any inter-coastal trade by British ships—a policy which will bring to an end all British trade in that region. British subjects in Korea are anxious about yet another point—the ownership of land. They fear that they may be forbidden to own land in Korea as they have so long been forbidden to own land in Japan, and they object to the Regulation recently promulgated that in the event of any dispute the question must be referred to a Land Inspection Committee and not to a Court of Law. It is obvious that foreigners may have their interests handed over to a committee without any possibility of appeal to a higher Court, and that injustice in that way may be done. Mining rights, also, are in a somewhat uncertain condition. There are great possibilities in connection with mining in Korea, and already several
622
foreign countries have started there and I believe are being extremely successful. But there, again, the companies are in doubt as to what their future will be, and whether these mining rights will continue to be conceded to them. The question is complicated by the Korean Company Act of December 29 last year, by which no company may be formed in Korea until the approval of the Governor-General has been obtained. This law, though extremely autocratic in operation, will, no doubt, tend to the prevention of bogus companies and the exploitation of the unfortunate Korean, but it should receive attention in so far as it affects the legitimate rights of British subjects.
Next I turn to the withdrawal of the British Consul from Antung. Antung is on the Yalu River, and is now the chief boundary town between what is virtually Japan and China. By an Agreement, very loosely worded as they constantly are, between China and Russia the former Government granted a rebate of three-tenths of the Customs Duty on her imports over the Manchurian border as a set-off against the necessarily heavy freight charges of the railway. Japan has obtained most-favoured-nation terms for the trade between Manchuria and Korea by an Agreement with China dated December 22, 1905. At present Japanese goods are shipped direct to Antung, and no rebate has been demanded. It is possible, however, that a line twenty-nine miles long from the mouth of the Yalu River will shortly be built and the bridge across the Yalu will shortly be completed. It is possible that rebate may then be charged, although the freight charges on the railway will, of course, be infinitesimal. It is felt, therefore, that a British representative should be re-appointed to Antung to watch developments, and that representations should be made before proposals so injurious to British trade are put forward. It is impossible to forecast with accuracy the future of the Far East. But if the feeling is allowed to gain ground that His Majesty's Government cares not, and it will speedily be translated into dares not, to uphold British interests such as those I have put forward, it will go far towards undermining and destroying British influence throughout the Far East and the Orient.
There is one further point. Sir Edward

623
Grey, in a speech which he recently delivered in another place, made a statement with which I think every member of this House is in cordial agreement. I refer to his desire that this country should draw closer to the United States of America. By the Anglo-Japanese Alliance Great Britain is bound to make war in common with Japan for the preservation of Japan's territorial rights in the Far East. When that Alliance was signed Korea was not even a Protectorate of Japan. Manchuria at the present day is not a part of the Japanese Empire. Japan at that time had guaranteed equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of all nations in Korea, and she has made similar protestations with regard to Manchuria. It is possible—in fact, those who know the Far East best consider it probable—that some day Japan may be inclined to take similar action with regard to South Manchuria. We all know that the United States have considerable interests in that region, and they place so much importance upon them that Mr. Knox recently went so far as to suggest the neutralisation of all railways in that region to conserve as far as possible the question of the open door. My Lords, Korea may form a dangerous precedent. a precedent difficult to withstand when applied to Manchuria; and this country may either have to make explanations and withdrawals which once again will earn for us the name of la perfide Albion, or make war on a nation bound to us by every tie of common language and of common origin—a nation whose interests are identical with our own in the Far East. I apologise for having detained your Lordships so long, and I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to the decision of the Hague Tribunal with regard to perpetual leases to foreign residents in Japan; and also as to the protection of British interests in view of the change in the status of Korea.—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, before replying to the Questions which stand on the Paper in the name of the noble Earl, I hope I may be permitted, without its being thought impertinent on the part of a very junior Member of your Lordships' House, to say how extremely glad I am sure
624
every member of this House feels at seeing the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition once more in his place.
The first Question on the Paper is whether the decision of the Hague Tribunal with regard to perpetual leases to foreign residents in Japan has been fully put into effect. The Award of the Hague Tribunal, given on May 22, 1905, laid down that the Treaties concluded between this country, France, and Germany on the one hand and Japan on the other hand exempted from all taxes or payments of any kind except those contemplated in the Treaties all land held by British, French, or German subjects on perpetual lease; and not only all land, but also all buildings upon such land, whether they were already constructed or to be constructed in the future. The Award referred to taxes imposed on the properties in question, but did not expressly refer to taxes imposed in respect of the properties in question. The Japanese Government accordingly proceeded to levy State and Municipal Income Tax assessed on properties held under perpetual lease, on the ground that Income Tax was a personal tax; but as the action of the Japanese Government indicated that they placed a different interpretation upon the Award from that placed upon it by the three Powers, the Powers felt that it was eminently desirable to have a clear and definite statement of the taxes and charges from which the land renters could, in view of the Award, claim exemption. In the meanwhile the levying of the taxes above referred to has been suspended, and an informal exchange of views is actually taking place with the Japanese Government in the hope of arriving at a satisfactory settlement of the question. I feel sure that in these circumstances the noble Earl will readily understand that it is impossible for the moment to make a more detailed statement on this point.
I now turn to the second Question, which is whether, in view of the change in the status of Korea, His Majesty's Government propose to take measures to protect British interests in that Country. First of all let me say that the Secretary of State is fully alive to the question of British interests in Korea, and he is doing, and will do, everything which may be possible or practicable to promote those interests. I should like to state very briefly what is the position, broadly speaking, at present.

625
The Japanese Government, in explaining the motives which led them to undertake the complete annexation of Korea, gave certain assurances. Firstly, they gave the assurance that as the Treaties between Korea and other Powers ceased to be operative, Japan's existing Treaties would, as far as possible, be applied to Korea. Foreign residents in Korea would, so far as conditions permitted, enjoy the same rights and immunities as in Japan proper, and they would also enjoy the protection of their legally-acquired rights subject in all cases to the jurisdiction of Japan. Secondly, they undertook to continue the existing Tariff arrangements for a period of ten years. Thirdly, for a similar period, vessels under the flags of Powers having Treaties with Japan would be permitted to engage in the coastal trade between the open ports of Korea and any open ports of Japan. And, lastly, the existing open ports of Korea, with the exception of Masampo and with the addition of Shinwiju, would continue to be open ports. As to foreign settlements, jurisdiction over British subjects, prisons, and other kindred questions, His Majesty's Government informed the Japanese Government on December 16 last, in consultation with His Majesty's Embassy at Tokyo, that they were willing to leave these matters to the sense of justice and good faith of the Japanese officials on the spot. Satisfactory assurances have already been received from the Japanese Government on the question of land tenure, and also on the question of ownership and the working of mines. With regard to the present Tariff, as I have already said it was to be continued for a period of ten years, and it is clearly impossible to ask the Japanese Government to definitely commit themselves in advance to a continuation of the present arrangement after the term specified.
With regard to the withdrawal of the British Vice-Consul from Antung, this took place for purely Service reasons. In December, 1909, His Majesty's Minister at Peking reported that the British political and commercial interests at Antung were, in his opinion, insufficient to warrant the permanent residence of a Consular officer in that place, and it was considered that these interests could be sufficiently protected by periodical visits from Mukden. However, quite recently—at the end of last month—His Majesty's Minister in
626
Peking has been asked whether he has had any reason to modify this opinion during the past year, and I need hardly say that when his answer arrives it will receive full consideration. I think that is all I am able to say on the present occasion. With regard to the Motion for Papers, I am desired to say that the Secretary of State does not see his way for the present to lay Papers on the Table of your Lordships' House, but that as soon as these various matters have been definitely settled he will consider the question of laying whatever Papers he may be able to.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON:My Lords, as one who has taken great interest for many years in Korea and who is still more interested in the Treaty rights of British subjects and notably of British traders in those parts of the world, I should like to add a few words. In the first place, I am sure we shall all agree in thanking the noble Earl for having raised this question. He did so, if I may be permitted to say it, with a wide knowledge of the facts, with perfect fairness, and with a correct appreciation of the issues he was placing before the House. The noble Lord who has replied has given us the information which he was no doubt instructed to lay, but he will pardon me for saying that it does not cover the whole of the ground and does not remove the apprehensions which my noble friend behind me expressed. In fact, a good deal of the information given us by the noble Lord, if not beside the point—and I will not say that—was irrelevant to the particular fears entertained by my noble friend.
I need not say anything about the first Question. I would not desire to push the noble Lord further than the point to which he went in replying to the Question concerning lands that have been leased in perpetuity in Japan. A point of great importance, however, is raised by our Treaty rights in Korea as affected by the recent action of Japan. What has been going on in the past few years in Korea? During the last seven years there has been a steady progression in the hold which Japan has acquired over that unhappy country. In 1904 a Treaty was concluded by which Korea promised to follow the advice of Japan as regards administrative improvements, and in which Japan undertook to maintain the integrity and independence of the Korean Empire. Then in 1905, after the

627
war between Russia and Japan, there was another Treaty in which Japan assumed control of the foreign relations of Korea and pledged herself, in language differing somewhat from the former Treaty, to maintain the dignity and the welfare of the Korean Throne. The next step was in 1907, when Korea placed herself under Japanese suzerainty, and administrative authority was transferred from her to the dominion Power. And the last step—in July, 1910—was when Korea was finally annexed by Japan.
Thus there has been during the last seven years a progressive tightening of the hold on Korea by Japan. I am not for one moment complaining of that. Korea has been one of the most unhappy of all nations in the world. She has been a sort of football kicked about by the Powers of the East, and that at last she should be steered through the goal-posts of Japan is in all probability in the long run the best thing that could happen to her. Neither do I desire to say anything about the manner in which Japan has executed her self-imposed task. What I am concerned with, and exclusively concerned with, are the rights of British subjects in Korea, guaranteed by Treaties and calling for defence on the part of His Majesty's Government. The noble Earl referred to the Second Treaty concluded between Japan and ourselves in the year 1905, and he quoted these words, which the House will perhaps permit me to repeat—
"Japan possessing paramount political, military, and economic interests in Korea, Great Britain recognises the right of Japan to take such measures of guidance, control, and protection in Korea as she may deem proper and necessary to safeguard and advance those interests, provided always that such measures are not contrary to the principle of equal opportunities for the commerce and industry of all nations."
It is the last words to which I call attention. The noble Earl alluded also to the circular Letter to the Powers that. was issued at the same time as the Treaty of 1905 was concluded. This was the Letter in which the Japanese Government, in assuming control of the foreign affairs of Korea, declared that they would see that in assuming charge of those relations the Treaties existing between Korea and the Treaty Powers should be maintained and respected, and they also engaged not to prejudice in any way the legitimate commercial and industrial interests of those Powers in Korea. That was the state of
628
affairs as regards public international pledges up to 1905.
Then we come to annexation in 1910, and at this stage Japan claimed that annexation should carry with it an abrogation of all existing Treaties. Here we raise on the one hand a question of international law, and on the other hand a question of practical importance for our own people. On the question of international law, no one has argued with greater force in times past than the present Foreign Secretary himself, Sir Edward Grey, that, whatever territorial changes might be effected, the economic status quo, the principle of the open door and of equal opportunities to the commerce of all nations, ought to be respected. The noble Earl behind me alluded to the negotiations that followed the annexation of Madagascar by France in 1899, and, while pointing out the analogy between those circumstances and the present, he rightly told us that the analogy was not. a perfect one. But I remember nothing better, having been Lord Salisbury's Under-Secretary at the time, than this, that when France annexed Madagascar Sir Edward Grey went round the country saying that we as a Government had no right to allow the Treaty rights we enjoyed with Madagascar to be abrogated by that act of annexation by France unless we obtained a substantial quid pro quo. In a speech at Liverpool on January 20, 1899, these were Sir Edward Grey's words—
"Lie did not believe that trade followed the flag, but what was no doubt true was that where the flag of other nations went British trade might be excluded. An instance of that was to be found in Madagascar. All they desired in regard to the matter was to request France to respect our Treaty rights, or, if our Treaty rights were to be extinguished, to see that they were only extinguished in return for compensation elsewhere. What had happened in Madagascar might happen on a much larger scale in China. They would continue to do their best, and would stand up and ask that the influence of this country should be used in favour of the policy of the open door."
That was what Sir Edward Grey said in 1899. Yet if I correctly apprehend the position, when Japan annexed Korea in 1910 His Majesty's Government do not appear to have made any fight for a quid pro quo. As far as I can understand, they have surrendered the whole position; they have—nothing has been said to the contrary—acquiesced in the annexation; they have surrendered our extra-territorial rights, and, if I am right, disabled themselves from any further action in the matter.

629
What is the present position? It has been explained to us by the noble Earl in his speech just now. You have—I am not complaining of Japan in the matter—Law Courts and Police Courts set up to which British subjects have to take their cases, which are far below the standards of those that exist in any civilised countries, or even in Japan itself. You have a position as regards land holding, mining concessions, and so on, which is, at any rate, somewhat precarious; and you have an engagement as regards the tariff, that the present tariff shall only remain in operation for ten years. The noble Lord who replied for the Government very properly said that it is not for him to prophesy what will happen ten years hence. That is perfectly true. But what I want to know is, What has His Majesty's Government been doing all this time? When it was known that annexation had taken place, did negotiations take place between the two Governments? Was any attempt made to stand up for the Treaty rights of Great Britain, or have we given away the whole thing? I should be the last upon incorrect information to blame His Majesty's Government, but we know nothing of what has happened. We merely have the bald facts that annexation has taken place, that extraterritoriality has been abolished, that our Treaty rights have been impaired, and that His Majesty's Government have apparently acquiesced in this arrangement. If this be the state of affairs, then I must confess that I think there has been some departure from the enunciation of high principle by Sir Edward Grey ten years and more ago. I might quote other passages from Sir Edward Grey's speeches, because I have many of them, in which he has over and over again insisted on the same point. I cannot pursue the matter now, because he is not here to answer me. But I do submit that the case is one that calls for a reply, that we owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Earl for having brought it before the House to-day, and that until further information is placed at our disposal we are justified in entertaining the opinion that there has been some sacrifice of British interests in this matter.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, the noble Earl beside me (Earl Stanhope) has brought forward a matter of great importance in a speech of considerable ability, and while I recognise that there are some points on which in existing circum
630
stances we cannot press His Majesty's Government for any further information, two points have been raised by the noble Earl on which I should like to say a few words. The first is as regards the coasting trade. I cannot help thinking that that is a matter which seriously deserves the attention of His Majesty's Government, not only as regards Japan, but also as regards some other countries. We know that we are excluded from the coasting trade both of France and of the United States. That is a very serious matter, and I am rather disposed to think that it does more injury to France and to the United States than it does to us. But there can be no question that it does sonic injury to us also.
In Germany the law is much fairer. In Germany they also have a law that the coasting trade is reserved to German vessels, but there is a proviso that where any country allows German vessels to share the coasting trade of that country, then the German Government gives the same privileges to vessels of that country in connection with their own coasting trade; and as we allow German vessels to carry goods between ports in this country, I believe I am correct in saying that Germany allows us the same privilege in regard to'German ports. I cannot help thinking that it would be very desirable if His Majesty's Government would raise this question wherever we are deprived of coasting rights; and we may fairly point out to a foreign Government that it is unfair that we should allow them to trade from one British port to another and that they should prevent us from trading from one of their ports to another; and the example of Germany might be brought forward as a fair way of dealing with this question.
With reference to the duties in Korea in the future, the Council of the London Chamber of Commerce have passed a unanimous resolution calling the attention of His Majesty's Government to the injury which might be inflicted on our commerce with Korea under the annexation. Of course it may be said, and said quite truly, that the case of Madagascar is not exactly upon all fours with this of Korea, but still it is one of a very similar character, and we know that our trade in Madagascar suffered very much when that country was

631
annexed by France. It is, of course, quite open to France, or to Germany, or to any foreign country, to make any changes in her own duties which she may think to her advantage, and as a Free Trader I am bound to believe that in doing so she inflicts more injury upon herself than she does upon us. But it is a different thing when a country like France annexes Madagascar, or a country like Japan annexes Korea. There the duties did not stand at all upon the same footing, and surely it is somewhat unfair that French goods should be admitted to Egypt on the same terms as ours and vet our goods should be excluded from Madagascar unless they pay high duties to France.
Now we have very nearly the same question raised with regard to Korea, and, as I say, in the City of London we are a good deal exercised in our minds as to the injury which may be inflicted upon our commerce by these arrangements. It is, no doubt, some advantage that there should be the undertaking that the duties will not be raised for ten years, but, after all, in the history of nations ten years is but a very short time, and when you get towards the end of the period the uncertainty of what may happen will have a very serious effect. My noble friend who replied on behalf of His Majesty's Government said he did not think we could ask for anything more. But, after all, we had something to give. We had to consent to the annexation of Korea, and it seems to me, as it did to the noble Lord below me (Lord Curzon) and to the noble Earl who brought forward this subject, that we ought not to have agreed to any arrangements of that kind without serious protest and without doing everything to protect our commercial interests. Japan, of course, is quite entitled to raise her own duties as much as she pleases; but it is a different thing when we have to consider the question of Japan raising the duties in Korea, and we are afraid in the City of London that the arrangement which has been made will be very detrimental to our trade in Korea. I do not know how far the matter may have gone, but if it is possible to make any strong remonstrance on the subject I venture to hope that His Majesty's Government will do so.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I do not wish to press the Motion, as I understand
632
that His Majesty's Government will produce Papers on as early an opportunity as possible. There is, however, one point on which I should like to say a word—namely, with regard to the Consul at Antung. It has happened on more than one occasion that we have allowed things to slide until the scheme has been definitely formulated and it is impossible for us to get as great privileges as might otherwise have been the case. It is obvious that if we wait until the harbour at the mouth of the Yalu is finished and the railway constructed, it will he difficult for us to object to a rebate being given to the Japanese. But if we put forward our plea now that the rebate is only given for very high freightage over a long distance of railway and that therefore it is not an analogy which can be compared with a railway line 29 miles long, I venture to think His Majesty's Government will be able to take up a much firmer attitude than if they wait until the whole matter is settled.
LORD HERSCHELL: I think the noble Earl slightly misunderstood what I said. The promise I gave was that, as soon as all these matters were definitely settled, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would consider the question of submitting Papers to Parliament. I cannot definitely promise Papers.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I cannot help remarking that that does not put us in a very satisfactory position. The settlement may take years to effect, and I fully understand that neither the noble Lord nor in all probability the Leader of the House can pledge himself with regard to laying Papers in the absence of the Foreign Secretary. This instance emphasises the complaint which I made last week that we ought to have a representative of the Foreign Office in this House. In the present case the noble Lord who replied for the Government has given the official answer to the noble Earl's Questions, but he is stumped when we put a simple question like this with regard to the laying of Papers. All we can do, therefore, is to ask the noble Lord and the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to be kind enough to convey our humble request to the Foreign Secretary to listen to what we have said this afternoon, perhaps to read our speeches, and to give us Papers if he can do so. I suppose it is no good pressing the Motion for Papers further; but I think my noble

633
friend will be justified in asking at no distant date whether Papers on the subject can be laid, and, if the answer is unsatisfactory, there will be nothing left for us but ourselves to raise the question again.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN): My Lords, there are difficulties in the way of presenting the Papers asked for, as other people have to be consulted. I will, however, convey to my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for. Foreign Affairs the desire of the House, and I will endeavour to convey the impression of humility with which the request is preferred.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

UNCERTIFICATED OFFICERS ON MERCHANT SHIPS.
LORD MUSKERRY LORD MUSKERRY rose to call attention to the necessity of further legislation, within reasonable limits, ensuring that British merchant ships shall be commanded and officered by men who can produce adequate proof of their fitness for doing so in the shape of Board of Trade certificates as master or mate respectively; to allude to certain recommendations on this matter which were adopted by the Manning Committee; and to move for a Return of those official Board of Trade inquiries in this country, of Naval Courts, and of marine inquiries in our Colonies and Dependencies, or a synopsis of them, which have been issued since the Manning Committee concluded its deliberations, and which contain any material comments or statements relative to the dangerous and common practice of merchant ships being in charge of uncertificated and irresponsible masters and mates.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the question which stands in my name is one of grave importance, for it concerns the safety of life and property at sea. In nearly every occupation where men are entrusted with duties where default or neglect on their part may endanger life, it is taken for granted that they should be qualified to discharge these responsibilities and that they should hold a certificate of qualification and fitness, or a document of some similar kind, which will serve to ensure their responsibility and impress them with the nature of it. But the
634
British mercantile marine is a glaring exception. There is a deficiency of the law in this respect, and the magnitude of the evil is but seldom realised.
In the first place. I may say that so long as a British ship is outside the three-mile limit of these shores, there is nothing incumbent upon her in law that she shall carry either a certificated master or a single certificated officer. I make an exception in the case of certain of our Colonies, such as Australia, where they will not countenance such a thing, and where they will not permit our ships to sail from their ports unless there are a sufficient number of certificated officers on board. Take, for instance, such a ship as the"Mauretania."It is permissible for her to proceed to sea with a full complement of crew and passengers, and carrying His Majesty's mails, with a certificated master and one certificated officer only. It is fortunate for the safety of our seamen and the seagoing public that companies such as that which owns the"Mauretania"fully realise how inadequate the law is in this respect and who, far beyond their legal responsibilities, ensure that their ships shall be commanded and officered by an adequate supply of certificated and responsible men. I will go even further. If the"Mauretania"were making a coasting voyage and did not happen to be carrying passengers, there is no obligation that she should carry a single certificated man, whether he be master or officer. As an actual matter of fact there are many large merchant vessels, both steam and sail, constantly trading round our coasts without a single certificated man on board. As showing how extraordinary the law is, we find that in the case of the fishing trawler, a small vessel, she is compelled to carry a certificated skipper and secondhand. A second-hand is equivalent in a fishing vessel to a mate in another ship.
So far back as the year 1896 the Committee appointed by the Board of Trade to inquire into the mantling of British merchant ships commented as follows:—
"It is truly an anomalous state of things under which a fishing vessel with a certificated skipper and second-hand may incur the risk of being run down by a large steamer in the home trade, which has not a single certificated person on board, or one the efficiency of whose eyesight has been officially tested and certified."
The Manning Committee, on the conclusion of their deliberations, stated that they

635
were strongly of opinion that no vessel of large size or power should be permitted to go to sea unless provision had been made that the deck should always be in charge of some person who had given proof of his qualifications for such a position. They regarded the question as one closely allied to manning, and one urgently demanding legislation.
Your Lordships will appreciate what urgency has been attached to the matter by the Board of Trade when we find things in exactly the same position now as they were in 1896. Ten years later the Government passed the Merchant Shipping Act of 1906. While that measure was passing through your Lordships' House I proposed an Amendment which would have given effect to the recommendations of the Manning Committee. But the Board of Trade through their representative in your Lordships' House, though sympathising with the Amendment, said that they could not agree to it, on the lame excuse that its scope was too large for inclusion in the Bill. Time has gone on, and case after case has arisen where the scandal of allowing merchant vessels to be commanded and officered by uncertificated men has been exposed over and over again.
I will not task your forbearance by quoting these various cases, but I will briefly allude to two or three of the latest. One of these is where the cargo steamer"Paragon,"in charge of an uncertificated man, sank the pilot steamer"Excelsior,"loss of life ensuing. The Court which investigated the circumstances attending the accident expressed the opinion that—
"A man in sole charge of a steamship at night in a busy waterway, possessing no certificate of competency, is charged with a responsibility which should never be imposed on an officer without full professional qualifications:'
It is not long ago that the steamer"India,"the master and mate of which were both uncertificated, sank the sailing ship"Kate Thomas,"when nineteen lives were lost. In the course of the decision of the Board of Trade Inquiry into this catastrophe the Court expressed the decided opinion that for safe navigation those in charge of steam vessels such as the"India"should be certificated—an opinion, I may remark, that very few would endeavour to dispute.
The latest case is that where the fishing boat"Alice"was sunk by the steamer
636
"Melissa,"which was in charge of an uncertificated man at the time. The Court found that the cause and the consequent loss of life was the absence from the deck of the"Melissa"of a responsible officer, and the neglect of that vessel to observe the Regulations for preventing collisions at sea. As it so happened, the master of the"Melissa"held a certificate, but was below at the time of the collision. The Court suspended his certificate for twelve months, and ordered that he should pay £50 towards the costs of the Inquiry. The following extract from the judgment of the Court is very significant—
"The Court is aware that in suspending the certificate of the master it is inflicting a more or less nominal penalty, inasmuch as masters and mates of home trade ships not carrying passengers are not required to possess certificates of competency; and the Court is strongly of opinion that, in the interests of safe navigation, the time has come when all masters and mates in the home trade should be certificated."
This matter is one upon which, very properly, I consider, the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, which represents over 15,000 certificated captains and officers, has agitated for many years past. They have appealed to me once more to refer to it in your Lordships' House, and I cannot but feel that they have absolute justice on their side. All these gentlemen have certificates at stake, and the suspension of a certificate is a very serious matter and may mean the ruin of a man's professional career. When they navigate our home waters they are exposed to undue and unfair risk when meeting vessels in charge of uncertificated and irresponsible men. I hear that, owing to constant pressure having been brought to bear upon them, the Board of Trade are now considering the framing of a measure which will deal with the situation. This I think we will all hail with considerable satisfaction and I sincerely trust that my noble friend representing the Board of Trade in this House will be good enough to give us some definite information upon the point. A measure of the kind must inevitably be introduced sooner or later, especially as, from what I am given to understand, the leading representatives of all the principal sections of shipping are in accord as to the necessity for it.
Perhaps my noble friend will also give us information as to what views on this matter have been communicated to the Board of Trade by the Merchant Shipping

637
Advisory Committee. Personally I am of opinion that so soon as a measure of the kind is introduced Parliament should be provided with the fullest information, which will enable us not only to realise the evidence in favour of the Bill, assuming, as I believe I am right in doing, that it will be under the sponsorship of His Majesty's Government, but information of the kind would disarm opposition and facilitate its passing through its various stages with the smallest trouble and in the least possible time. I have moved for a Return from the year 1896, as it was then that the Manning Committee declared that the matter urgently demanded legislation. If we had a Return reporting these cases of accidents at sea where the evils of uncertificated masters and officers have been referred to it would be enlightening to the members of both Houses of Parliament who may have to consider the measure, and, further, would be of the greatest use to His Majesty's Government as a complete justification for dealing with it.
Moved, That a Return be laid before the House of those official Board of Trade inquiries in this country, of Naval Courts, and of marine inquiries in our Colonies and Dependencies, or a synopsis of them, which have been issued since the Manning Committee concluded its deliberations, and which contain any material comments or statements relative to the dangerous and common practice of merchant ships being in charge of uncertificated and irresponsible masters and mates.—(Lord Muskerry.)
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, this is one of the questions which the noble Lord has frequently raised, but never, I think, since I have had the honour of answering for the Department. I may congratulate him on having put it down at this time because otherwise he might have been too late and the legislation to which he refers might have been already before your Lordships' House or the other House of Parliament. I am afraid that the noble Lord has not always derived much satisfaction from the official replies, but I am happy to think that on the present occasion we are prepared to grant all, or nearly all, he asks.
I am afraid I cannot quite agree with what the noble Lord said as to the regulations with regard to officers' certificates, and even at the expense of keeping your
638
Lordships for a few minutes I should like to run over what they are. For the purpose of determining what certificates are required British ships are divided into, three classes. There are, first, foreign-going ships sailing from the United Kingdom, and in this class are included home trade passenger ships. I ought to explain that the home trade includes all ships trading, between ports in the United Kingdom and also with certain Continental ports situated between the River Elbe and the Port of Brest. In the second class we have the home trade cargo ships, and in the third class British ships trading wholly abroad. The provisions with regard to the officers who must be carried apply only to the first of these classes. Those regulations are broadly these—that every British foreign-going ship and every other passenger ship must carry a duly certificated master and must also carry at least one other officer holding a mate's certificate, except in the case of certain small sailing ships. But there is a further provision. which extends that rule considerably, and that is that where, as a matter of fact, two mates are carried, one of those must have a first mate's certificate and the other must have a second mate's certificate at least. There are further regulations to which the noble Lord has not alluded which apply to engineers. Every foreign going steamship of 100 horse-power and. upwards must carry two engineers, one with a first-class and the other with at least a second-class certificate, and if of less than 100 horsepower it need only carry one engineer with a second-class certificate. Those are the regulations, and what I have to say with regard to them is that, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, regarded as a minimum—and your Lordships must remember that these are minimum regulations—they are sufficient, and it is thought at the Board of Trade that, considering the enormous amount of shipping which goes in and' out of our ports, the wreck returns and, other information available do not show that our ships are insufficiently officered.
The second class are the home trade cargo ships. With regard to this class I agree with the noble Lord that at present there are no requirements as to certificates of officers, but, as I have already stated, my right bon. friend does propose—he hopes this session—to introduce legislation dealing with that subject. And I may say

639
that it is largely done for one of the reasons given by the noble Lord—that at present there are no means of dealing with these officers, because they have no certificates which can be forfeited in cases of misconduct and carelessness. I would also like to say of the men who carry on that trade that they are a fine body of men, and I do not wish to say anything in any way disparaging about them, because their trade, which is carried on in narrow waters very full of ships, has been carried on with extraordinarily few accidents. I would also observe that the men who are at present carrying on this trade will not suffer in any way, because we propose that they shall be given certificates of service to which they will be entitled by reason of the time that they have carried on the trade.
LORD MUSKERRY: I take it that if a man's certificate of service is suspended through any fault of his own, it will be understood that he will not be allowed to command during the period of suspension.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: The noble Lord will not expect me at this stage to give details of the legislation which it is proposed to introduce. The third class consists of British ships which trade wholly abroad. There are, of course, difficulties in making regulations for them, because it is extremely difficult to enforce any regulations you may make, but I may say that my right hon. friend is considering that question as well, though I do not definitely promise any legislation regarding it.
The second part of the noble Lord's Question deals with the recommendations of the Manning Committee. There are two principal recommendations, as far as I can make out, which are applicable—No. 31, which suggests certain detailed requirements with regard to the certificates of officers engaged in the foreign trade; and No. 32, which suggests legislation with regard to the home trade. As to the first of those recommendations, I have already said that in the opinion of the Board of Trade those requirements are not necessary, and with regard to the second, it is, as I have said, proposed to carry that out. As to the Return for which the noble Lord asks, we are quite willing to give it to him, and the only suggestion I would make is that he should consult with me as to its exact form with the object of limiting its size.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down has made a very kind reply in answer to the Motion of my noble friend behind me. But I am not sure that the noble Lord realises what a service my noble friend has rendered to the country and to the merchant service by pressing this matter upon your Lordships' House and upon the country for so many years, and, may I add, for so many years in vain. My noble friend began to agitate in this matter some eight or nine years ago, and it is only now that His Majesty's Government are able to say that they hope—the noble Lord opposite was characteristically cautious—that they hope to introduce legislation on this subject in the present session. I confess I do not understand why there should be any doubt. Where does the difficulty lie? Does the noble Lord think he will be opposed in your Lordships' House if he tries to legislate in a matter of this kind? Does he anticipate in another place there may be opportunities for delay of which advantage will be taken when the interests of those engaged in the merchant service are at stake I can assure the noble Lord that he is quite mistaken if he thinks that there will be any difficulty in passing legislation of this kind if it is really called for.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: May I interrupt the noble Marquess? I do not anticipate any delay. I believe that the legislation will be introduced this session, but the noble Marquess himself must understand that there has been difficulty in the past. The Manning Committee reported in 1896, but no President of the Board of Trade, not excluding the noble Marquess himself, has seen his way to introduce legislation up to this date.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think my noble friend has indulged in what we used to call in my early days a tu quoque, but I cannot charge my memory with its having been brought to my notice when I was at the Board of Trade. The broad fact remains that this matter is at present under the notice of the Board of Trade, and my noble friend behind me is justified in his complaint. Therefore I should have expected an absolutely confident promise that legislation would be introduced, rather than the cautious hope that it would be introduced this session. However, that may be a form of words

641
equivalent to the same thing. If legislation is not introduced I hope that my noble friend behind me wilt return to the charge.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: The Bill is drafted.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I apologise for having criticised the noble Lord's phraseology. The Bill is drafted, and no doubt will be introduced forthwith. Just let me say one word upon the remarks of the noble Lord opposite. He declined to go into the details of the Bill. Of course, he is perfectly right. If the Bill is yet to be introduced it would be out of place to discuss the details. But I am rather concerned with the interruption my noble friend made in the noble Lord's speech—that if certificates of service are to be granted to those at present engaged in commanding ships, they should be liable to the same accidents which at present fall to the certificates of certificated officers—namely, that they can be suspended or removed altogether in case of misconduct. That seems to follow as a matter of course, and without that the certificates cannot be of much use. I noticed that the noble Lord made a marked distinction between cargo ships engaged in the home trade and ships engaged entirely in the foreign trade, and that whereas he confidently hoped that this Bill, which is already drafted, would be introduced with regard to the home trade, he was unable to give any promise with regard to ships engaged in the foreign trade.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: Those are ships which trade wholly abroad, and never conic home.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My noble friend was referring to the trade represented by a very large number of ships which never come home but which carry on trade between foreign ports. He said he was not sure that he could introduce legislation with regard to them because of the difficulty in enforcing it. That is a matter I should hardly like to go into now; but I should have thought that there was full opportunity of exercising such an authority over these ships as would be sufficiently effective to force them to carry out such regulations as to carrying certificated officers as Parliament and the Board of Trade might see fit to impose.
642
I know that these ships navigate the seas under a very strict code of regulations made by this Parliament, and therefore I do not see why in this matter they should not be subject to the same rules as those ships which are engaged in the home cargo trade. However, I do not want to press the noble Lord upon the point at this moment. He is fully entitled to reserve to himself the right to go into the details at a later stage. I will content myself on that head with merely asking the noble Lord and the right hon. gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to consider whether they cannot extend the same provisions as to enforcing certificates to ships trading between foreign ports as they propose to enforce with regard to the home trade. I do not think it is desirable to trouble your Lordships further. I wish to thank the noble Lord opposite for his promise, and to congratulate most heartily my noble friend Lord Muskerry on the success of his efforts.
LORD MUSKERRY: May I suggest that the Bill might be introduced into this House? It would expedite it very much.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANTS BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF CHICHESTER: Your Lordships will no doubt remember that a Bill to set up a register for England and Wales was introduced into this House two Parliaments ago. That Bill met with considerable opposition from Scottish and Irish Peers, who feared that the Scottish and Irish accountants might meet with some disabilities under it. I need not further refer to that opposition, because it has been met by the setting up of three different registers and by Clause 22. But other objections were raised. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, raised certain objections, and as those objections apply as much to this Bill as to the last I will address myself to answering them. The noble Marquess said, in effect, that when introducing a Bill of this sort one ought to prove, first, that there was an evil, and then that

643
the Bill went some way to remedying that evil. I am afraid he added that I had not done so. I hope the noble Marquess will blame me, and not my cause. But before I proceed to answer him, I think I should remind your Lordships of the present state of the profession of accountants, and what they are expected to do.
There are in Scotland three great societies of considerable age, and I think I am right in saying that they include almost every practising accountant in Scotland. The society in Glasgow received its Charter in 1855, the one in Edinburgh in 1854, and that in Aberdeen in 867. With regard to Ireland, there is one society, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ireland. This society was given its Charter in the year 1888, and I think I may say that practically all practising accountants in Ireland belong to it. In England, the position is somewhat different. There are two great societies. There is the Institute of Chartered Accountants, which was incorporated by Royal Charter in 1880. And then there is the Society of Incorporated Accountants and Auditors, which was incorporated in 1885 under Section 23 of the Companies Act, 1867. They were then allowed by the Board of Trade to dispense with the use of the word"Limited."These two great societies exercise, as do the Scottish and Irish Societies, considerable control over their members, and ensure, as far as they can, that their members should be efficient and practical, first by examination and then by a long course of apprenticeship. They also ensure a high standard of integrity through their disciplinary committees.
There are also in England certain unattached accountants who belong to no societies, and who, not having undergone the terrors of an examination, give no guarantee of efficiency. Their ranks have been and may at any time be added to by accountants who, for some unprofessional conduct, have had to leave the society to which they belonged. Besides these unattached accountants certain limited liability companies have recently sprung up. I have no doubt most of your Lordships have had communications from one or other of them. I shall have something more to say about them afterwards, but I may say here that the view that the profession take of them is that in a great many cases the members of these societies
644
are in no way accountants at all, and would not so define themselves. They are bookkeepers, most estimable people, but they have not the knowledge to practise, and I do not know that they even want to.
What are the duties that accountants are called upon to perform? I think the most important duties are these: (1) auditors of public companies; (2) trustees in bankruptcy; and (3) liquidators of insolvent companies. Those are the three businesses that public accountants are called upon and ought to be ready to perform. With regard to the accounts of public companies, these men have to deal with incomes that amount to millions and to consider the interests of shareholders in the case of hundreds of thousands. Their labours have not been lightened by recent legislation. On the contrary their duties are more responsible now than they ever were before. I believe a recent judgment has laid down that it is not enough for an auditor to prove that the balance sheet of a company is rightly and truly drawn according to the books of the company—he has to go beyond that and to himself make sure that the books themselves are likely to give the right position of that company. And it has been laid down that unless he does so his audit is a farce. Then with regard to trustees in bankruptcy. This is au important point with regard to this Bill, because it is, I think, more as trustees in bankruptcy that inefficient men—and I am hound to say in some cases men who have betrayed their trust—have been appointed. And when you consider that trustees in bankruptcy have annually to deal with sums amounting to £5,000,000, you will see that this is a very serious thing in the public interest. I shall have later on to quote some cases from Parliamentary Papers and from the official reports which the Examiner in Bankruptcy has made, and in which he says that these cases are becoming much too numerous.
When the previous Bill was introduced the attitude of the Board of Trade was described by one noble Lord as"cool but correct."The other day I read my noble friend's speech again, and I need hardly say it was perfectly correct, but I cannot describe it as cool. However, I think I am entitled from what he said then to draw these conclusions—he will correct me if I

645
am wrong—that the Board of Trade do approve of the principle of this Bill, that they do not see anything in the way that it is drafted to disapprove of, but that they hold to themselves the right to propose Amendments in Committee. I hope I am not going too far, but that is what I read into my noble friend's words. I must say that I shall be very much surprised if the Board of Trade did not look benevolently on this Bill. Because what is their position? Auditors of public accounts, trustees in bankruptcy, and liquidators of insolvent companies all have to file their accounts with different officials of the Board of Trade, and it is rather anomalous for these accounts to be so filed when there is no definition of what a public accountant is, and no guarantee that the man who has certified these accounts is efficient, or even honest.
Let me support my case not from ex parte statements but from official Reports which are also Parliamentary Papers. First, the Home Office Report of 1896 dealing with criminal statistics found it necessary to explain away the high percentage of crime amongst so-called accountants by the statement that betting agents and similar persons are in the habit of so describing themselves when they come within the meshes of the law. The Reports of the Inspector-General in Bankruptcy may also he cited as evidence of the difficulties experienced at present in dealing with unqualified and dishonourable accountants. On page 14 of Report No. 17 for the year 1899 the Inspector-General says—
"The extent to which deeds of arrangement are executed and carried through without any reference to the wishes of creditors is becoming serious. This system is much facilitated by the methods of certain accountants, not belonging to any of the recognised professional bodies, who carry on an advertising and touting business under the cloak of seine high-sounding name of an association for the guardianship or protection of trade."
Then on page 12 he states—
"There are numerous instances in which trustees after realising assets have absconded…Persons entirely without means and of indifferent character frequently obtain trusteeships. Bankruptcy does not disqualify a trustee from acting under a deed, and instances occur in which the person appointed is either an undischarged bankrupt or becomes bankrupt or executes an assignment while continuing to act as trustee. The Department is put to great trouble and expense in obtaining accounts from such impecunious trustees, and when an order is obtained against them they are unable to pay the costs."
646
Further, on page 13 the Inspector-General says—
"In July last a creditor under a deed complained that he could get no dividend, although the trustee had sold the estate and received the proceeds in February…ticular accountant has had thirteen cases since December, 1897, only one of which has been wound up. In three of them complaints have been received as to his dealings with the estate or as to non-payment of dividend, and in several the trustee is in default as to his accounts."
On page 24 of Report No. 20 for 1902 particulars are given of the case of a bankrupt whose real and only business, although he styled himself an accountant, consisted of acquiring options for the purpose of gold mines and other properties. Then there is the case of a man who, though he was excluded from membership of the Society of Incorporated Accountants in 1903 for failure to distribute trust monies left in his hands, subsequently continued to practise as an accountant and was elected trustee of a bankrupt's estate in 1905. The Board of Trade refused to certify the trusteeship on information supplied by the society.
May I trouble your Lordships with just one other quotation' It is from Report No. 22 for the year 1904—
"Prosecution and conviction of a fraudulent trustee.—This trustee had been an undischarged bankrupt since July, 1000, but had, notwithstanding, succeeded in securing trusteeships under twenty-two deeds of arrangement by using the names of other persons …n one case no accounts have yet been obtained. The imprisonment of this practitioner has for the time being checked his activities, but there is apparently nothing to prevent him from acquiring trustee ships under deeds as previously when he is released"—
that is, unless your Lordships pass this Bill.
I will ask your Lordships to look at the Bill for one moment and allow me to explain three or four of the clauses. Only a very few of the clauses need any explanation. Clauses 7, 8 and 9 give in triplicate the list of persons who can claim as a right to be registered. Those who can claim registration are all present and future members of the Institutes and Societies mentioned in the Bill, and the members of certain Colonial institutes or societies who give notice of their intention to practise in any part of the United Kingdom, and all persons who, though not members of any of the said institutes or societies, were in practice in any part of

647
the United Kingdom at the passing of the Bill. Persons not being entitled as aforesaid but who were articled before the passing of the Bill and who pass the prescribed examinations will also be entitled to be registered. Clause 12 allows appeal by either of the three Committees to the Privy Council in cases where it is thought that the standard of proficiency, required at the examination of any of the great societies falls below the proper standard. Clauses 13 and 15 give power to refuse registration in certain cases, and power to remove a name from a register; but a right of appeal against such decision is permitted under Clause 17—to the High Court in England or Ireland, or to the Court of Session in Scotland, as the case may be.
Clause 22 is, perhaps, the most important in the Bill. It prohibits, under a penalty, the use by an unregistered person of the title of professional accountant, etc. The clause further permits an accountant on the register of one of the three countries to go on his client's business—to conduct audits and so on—in the other two countries without registration there, provided he has no place of business in those countries. I might mention that similar Bills to this have been passed in the Transvaal, in New Zealand, and quite lately in Natal, and that the societies which have come ipso facto on to the registers in those Colonies are also parties to this Bill.
Now, I come to the opposition—I hope of a very limited character—that this Bill will have to meet. That opposition comes from certain self-constituted societies which think they have a right to be on the register ipso facto, and en bloc. I think it is easier for me to put our case in the words of the President of one of, perhaps, the most active of these societies which desire to be on the register. I will not mention names. Two sentences from his speech describe better than I can myself the feelings that we have on the matter. He said—
"The membership of our Association is now 1,102; that is, at November 30 last. May I just show you how we have gradually grown. At the end of our first year—1905—we had 314 members; the next year we had 653; it has gradually gone up—without burdening you with figures—till in 1909 we had 746, and now we have 1,102, an increase of 350 members in one year…I am pleased to say that during the past year we have had 23 candidates sitting for examination, 12 in the month of June and 11 just the other day."
648
Later on, in dealing with the accounts, the President said—
"You will note the item,' Special issue of Journal and Objects, £276 18 s. 4d.,' but on the other side yon will find that the entrance fees were £439, so that you see we spent. £276 to get £440, and I think that shows that the money has been well spent, the result being that our membership has jumped up from about 746 to 1,102."
That so clearly sets out the objects and aims of one of these societies who desire to be registered that I do not think I need give the reasons why we trust they will not be so included. I do not know whether that was a post-prandial oration, but your Lordships will probably say in vino veritas. I do not think I need further comment on that. But we do feel that some of these bodies may have a case, and that individuals may possibly have a case to put before the Committee to which your Lordships send this Bill. We are extremely anxious that no injustice should be done, and, therefore, if you grant this Bill a Second Reading, I shall move that it he sent to a Joint Committee of both Houses, in order that these associations or individuals may state their case, and that their arguments may be weighed and considered.
I do not wish in any way to minimise the importance of what we seek. We are asking for statutory powers in order that the discipline and control exercised by these great societies may be made effective, and, bearing in mind that recent legislation has given new responsibilities to the profession of accountants, I do not think it is too much to ask that these accountants should be enabled to raise their profession, to set their house in order, and thus give a guarantee of high efficiency and integrity throughout the whole profession. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a—(The Earl of Chichester.)
LORD ASHBOURNE: After the very important statement made by the noble Earl, I assume that your Lordships will be disposed to give a Second Reading to this Bill. I listened with particular attention to his statement, because I remember what occurred when the Bill was introduced two years ago. I myself criticised certain of its provisions, and pointed out that the position of Ireland had been entirely ignored. I am glad to see that that omission has now been rectified. Other objections were

649
raised to the Bill, sonic of which have been removed and some of which still remain. Upon them I offer no opinion now, but I can readily see that when the Bill goes into Committee Clause 22, which was objected to before, will be again criticised and closely examined. I am glad to know that it is intended to keep an open mind in reference to such arguments as may be addressed on Amendments in the Committee stage. Just before the sitting of the House, I was handed a statement of four pages dealing in detail with the Bill, and discussing it apparently with considerable knowledge. I shall myself keep an open mind on that memorandum. If have only had time to read it hastily, but from what I can gather there are a good many people who would like to see the Bill considered from an amending point of view. Therefore I am satisfied that it will be necessary when the Committee stage of this Bill is reached to be prepared to listen to some arguments that will be addressed in reference to the matter.
LORD ALVERSTONE: My Lords, I hope your Lordships and the Government will give a favourable consideration to this Bill, because it has frequently come before me in the last eight or nine years that there is a necessity for preventing the use of the word"accountant"in many cases. I have known eases where people have used the term"accountant"to cover all sorts of objectionable businesses, and I sincerely hope that steps will be taken to strengthen the Bill with a view to preventing that. I see that the Bill contemplates permitting persons who are now accountants to be registered. That has been done already with regard to surveyors and engineers, and you can only introduce examinations by steps. I am glad to know that there is an idea of stiffening the examinations, and I hope that the dame which enables the authorities to reject people who are not worthy to be members will be carefully and strictly worked. The present law wants strengthening, because at present the term"accountant"is used to attract people, whereas those using it have no qualifications for it, and are not really carrying on the business of accountants at all. I will not describe some of the businesses now using that title, but they are certainly not callings which your Lordships would wish to encourage under that name. All I desire to see in reference
650
to Clause 22 is that chartered accountants and professional accountants are described by a name which is not to be taken by other people in future. I am satisfied that this Bill will require amendment in Committee, but I think it is a most desirable Bill, and I hope the Government will favourably consider it.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, as I was one of those who criticised the Bill on this subject some two years ago, I may say I did so because I thought that Scottish accountants should have equal facilities with English accountants, and in my opinion they did not get them under that Bill. It was then my opinion that the Bill could not be altered in Committee to meet these objections, and I congratulate the noble Earl opposite on the result of what has taken place since. This Bill is a far better Bill, as I am sure your Lordships will agree. I shall be very glad to withdraw the whole of ray objections to the Bill, although certain Amendments can be made, and to very heartily support the Second Reading.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, I would like to say one word on behalf of the London Chamber of Commerce, who are very anxious that your Lordships should give this Bill a Second Reading on this occasion. It is supported by two bodies which are closely associated with the Chamber, and which now comprise 7,784 members, every one of whom is in favour of the principle of this Bill. The business men who are represented in the Chamber of Commerce are very anxious that there should be a definite register of accountants by Statute in the interests, not only of the accountants themselves, but also of the general public.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, I do not think anybody will be surprised, after the very undecided answer my noble friend received when he introduced his Bill the year before last, that he has come forward with another Bill on the same subject. On that occasion, out of the twenty-eight noble Lords who remained in the House fourteen voted for the Second Reading and fourteen voted against it. The noble Lords who comprised that small band will perhaps remember—my noble friend behind me has referred to it this evening—that the attitude of the Government towards the Bill was described by a noble Lord as being"cool but correct."

651
That was a very accurate description at the time, and rather appropriate in view of the international character which the dispute had assumed. But now when my noble friend is, I believe, able to come here and tell us that not only has he removed the opposition of the Scottish and Irish accountants but has actually enlisted their support, I think I may say that the attitude of the Government, while still, I hope, correct, is appreciably warmer and more cordial than it was on that occasion. What the Government hope you will do—and it is the same advice that we gave before—is this, that you will accord the Bill a Second Reading and then agree to the further Motion to refer the Bill to a Joint Committee of both Houses, in order that those who, rightly or wrongly, consider that they have a grievance under the Bill as it stands may have ample opportunity of being heard.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As your Lordships have been informed, there is no desire on this side of the House to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. The noble Earl who introduced it referred to me personally, and perhaps I may be permitted to say that the reason why I ventured not to agree with him on the last occasion was that it appeared to me that in the case of the introduction of restrictive legislation an ample case ought to be made out. There are a great number of bodies of persons engaged in different pursuits, and sometimes it is proper to have their professions or trades made into a close profession or trade; but sometimes it is not proper. It depends on the circumstances of the case. Prima facie every subject of His Majesty has a right to call himself anything he pleases, and to trade in any way he pleases, so long as what he does is legal. If you call upon him to refrain from describing himself in a particular way, you have to show some reason for that restriction. The noble Earl gave himself a great deal of trouble, which I cordially appreciate, in his speech this
652
afternoon to show why he thought in this particular instance of accountants such restrictive legislation was necessary in the interests of the public, in order that the public should not be deceived when they see the term "accountant" or "public accountant" inscribed over the door of a particular professional man. I think prima facie the noble Earl has made out his case this evening, and I am pleased to be able to reckon myself as one of the supporters of the Second Reading of the Bill. As to the actual details, it is necessary that they should be carefully scrutinised lest the particular standard which is set up should not be appropriate and should be not fairly drawn, and also to secure that those who administer it should not exclude such rules as would enlist the confidence of the profession and of the public. But that is a matter for Committee, and I am delighted to hear that this subject is to be carefully scrutinised by a Joint Committee of both Houses. I do not think the noble Earl could have taken a better course, and I think he is entitled to the thanks of your Lordships' House for the way in which he has submitted this particular measure.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Then it was moved, That it is desirable that the Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament—(The Earl of Chichester); agreed to: Ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution and to desire their concurrence.

PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANTS BILL. [H.L.]
Petition against; of the Central Association of Accountants, Limited; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.