Sitting of 28 March 1911

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Metropolitan Electric Tramways Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
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:—
Slough Urban District Water Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
Private Bills [Lords] (Petition for additional Provision (Standing Orders not 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 Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders hve not been complied with, namely:—
Aberdare Urban District Council Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders. London United Tramways Bill,
Not amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Sligo and Arigna Railway (Abandonment) Bill (by Order),
Belfast Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

LABOURERS' COTTAGES (IRELAND).
Return ordered, "in respect of Labourers' Cottages in Ireland, showing (1) county and rural district; (2) valuation of rural district; (3) number of Labourers' Cottages, (a) built, (b) in course of construction; (4) amount of loans, (a) sanctioned, (b) received; (5) amount required to be raised annually in repayment of loans sanctioned; (6) amount which would be raised by the maximum rate of 1s. in the £ allowed for the purposes of the Acts; (7) amount which it has been proposed to raise in each rural district under the provisions in Section 12 of the Act of 1906; (8) rate per £ required to raise amount specified in column 5; (9) present poundage rate levied on rural district for the Labourers' Acts purposes; (10) amount of Exchequer contribution for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1911; (11) amount of rent received from tenants of cottages and plots during the year; (12) unissued balance, if any, of county's share of the Exchequer contribution; (13) totals per county and province and for all Ireland; and (14) Return made up to the 31st day of March, 1911 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 216, of Session 1910)."—[Mr. Flavin.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Brussels Sugar Convention.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can say at what date the Brussels Sugar Convention will come up again for ratification by or can be denounced by this country; whether the artificial restriction of the export of sugar from Russia and elsewhere to this country under the Convention has raised the price of sugar to consumers in this country; and whether His Majesty's Government intend to take the earliest opportunity of reverting to free trade in sugar so far as the United Kingdom is concerned?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): I must refer the hon. Member to Article 10 of the Sugar Convention of 5th March, 1902, and to Article 1 of the Additional Act of 28th August, 1907, which regulate the denunciation and continued operation of the Convention. It will be seen that the next date on which it is open to one of the contracting States to withdraw from the Convention is 1st September, 1913, provided that notice of withdrawal has been given twelve months in advance. There is no reason to believe that the limitation of Russian exports under the Additional Act has given rise to an increase in the price of sugar in this country, seeing that during the year 1909–1910 the amount of sugar exported by Russia to Conventional markets has been much less than that allowed to her under the Additional Act. During the sugar year in question steps have been taken by the Russian Government themselves, quite independently of their obligations under the Convention, to lessen the export of sugar, as a measure of control over the price of sugar in the home market. In regard to the last part of the question, I would point out that, under the Additional Act, the United Kingdom is at liberty to import sugar from any country which desires to export it, and that this country is not a party to the arrangement under which Russia voluntarily limits the exportation of her sugar.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Am I to understand the right hon. Gentleman that the reduction of supply has not caused a rise in price?
  Sir E. GREY: No; what I said was this: the Russian Government have lessened the export of sugar on their own account without any reference to the Sugar Convention at all, and, therefore, nothing that has taken place under the Sugar Convention could be responsible for the rise in price.

  Declaration of London.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention had been called to the terms of Article 49 of the Declaration of London, which authorises the sinking of a neutral prize if the taking of the prize into a port for adjudication—peut compromettre le succès des opérations dans lesquelles le bâtiment de guerre est actuellement engagé—and whether the French words above quoted are accurately translated by the words—would involve danger to the success of the opera-
  1118
  tions in which the warship is engaged at the time?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer is in the affirmative. If the hon. Member will refer to the Report of the Conference, on Article 49 (page 56 of the Blue Book, No. 4, Miscellaneous, 1909), he will see that the French words employed were expressly declared to be the equivalent of the words of the English translation.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Are we to take it that the Report is competent to say what the English equivalent of the French term is.
  Sir E. GREY: You cannot get a more accurate translation than the one specially agreed upon by the whole Conference as being accurate. They discussed this very point, and it was agreed that this should be regarded as the equivalent.
  Mr. BUTCHER: In view of the numerous statements made as to the mis-translation of the original text by the United States and others, will the right hon. Gentleman direct that a new translation be made?
  Sir E. GREY: I am not aware that any of the complaints are well founded.
  Mr. RUSSELL REAasked whether the right hon. Gentleman will consent to publish a statement of the representations which were made by Chambers of Commerce and Shipping Associations during the Russo-Japanese War to the late Foreign Secretary, with a view of obtaining a clearer definition of contraband, and the replies which were made by Lord Lansdowne?
  Sir E. GREY: I am having the Papers examined, with a view to including them when further Papers are laid.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that some Members of this House might desire to support the Second Reading of the Naval Prize Bill who were opposed to the ratification of the Declaration of London, and that other Members might desire to oppose such Second Reading who were in favour of such ratification, he would inform the House at what stage in the proceedings on the Naval Prize Bill, and by what mode of procedure, the opinion of the House could be taken on the definite question whether the Declaration of London should be ratified or not?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The undertaking that His Majesty's Government have given will be fulfilled when the time comes in whatever way is found to be for the general convenience of the House and the course of public business. The undertaking cannot be carried out until the matter has been brought before the Imperial Conference.
  Mr. PEEL: Is the Prime Minister aware that in another place they have had an opportunity of discussing the Declaration of London for three whole days? Will he give this House a similar opportunity?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say what goes on in another place.
  Mr. PEEL: The Secretary of State for War will tell you.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Will the Prime Minister state for the convenience of the House the form in which this very important question can be raised here?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think it would be premature to do so yet. It has to go before the Imperial Conference, and that cannot be before the month of May.
  Mr. H. W. FORSTER: Will this House be given no opportunity of discussing the question until after the Imperial Conference?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Is the Prime Minister aware of the very great importance attached to this question by Chambers of Commerce and other important commercial bodies throughout the country?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I thought it was the general desire of the House that the Imperial Conference should first have an opportunity of considering the matter.

  Baghdad Railway.
  Mr. DILLONasked whether the Foreign Secretary will lay on the Table a copy of the agreement or treaty with the Sheik of Koweit; and whether he can define the status quo in regard to Koweit which the British Government insists on maintaining?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot at this stage of the negotiations respecting the Baghdad Railway usefully add to what I have already said on the subject of Koweit.
  Mr. FELLasked if the negotiations regarding the Baghdad Railway have pro-
  1120
  ceeded so far as to give to Germany the right to construct a branch line from Alexandretta to join the main line; and if in these negotiations care was taken to assure the active construction of the difficult and expensive portion of the railway through the Taurus mountains, so that the main line shall be completed from the Bosphorus to Baghdad and not only from Alexandretta to Baghdad?
  Sir E. GREY: The only answer I can give to the first question is to refer the hon. Member to the recent agreement come to by the Turkish Government with the Baghdad Railway Company, the substance of which I gave on the 23rd instant, in reply to the Noble Lord the Member for Hornsey. But I would also draw the hon. Member's attention to Article 12 of the Baghdad Railway Convention of March, 1903, granting the concessionnaires certain preferential rights in respect of any railways which might be built between Mersina and Tripoli. I cannot, not having been a party to the negotiations in question, give precise and definite information in regard to the second question, but construction has already begun on the Taurus section.

  Persia.
  Mr. DILLONasked whether the Foreign Secretary's attention has been called to the statement made by Lord Morley that further Papers on the affairs of Persia would be published; whether, in view of that statement, he will reconsider his refusal to lay papers upon the Table of this House; and, if he does, up to what date will the papers come?
  Sir E. GREY: I have seen Lord Morley's statement, and I will lay papers as soon as I can. They will cover the latest date practicable, but I cannot at the moment fix the date. I have not refused to lay papers; on the contrary, in my answer to the hon. Member on 16th February, I stated that I would consider the question of laying papers as soon as there was a favourable opportunity, and I gave my reason for delaying to do so at the moment.
  Mr. DILLONasked whether the threat to the Persian Government to take over the policing of the southern roads by a militia commanded by officers from British India still holds good, in face of the protest of the Persian Government?
  Sir E. GREY: I beg to refer the hon. Member to the remarks which I made on this subject in this House on the 23rd

  1121
  instant in connection with a question asked of me by the hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs in the course of the Debate. I have nothing to add to the statement which I then made.
  Mr. DILLONasked whether there have been received any despatches from the British Minister in Teheran in reference to the assassination of Sani-ed-Dowleh, late Persian Minister of Finance, and the subsequent fate of the assassins; whether the right hon. Gentleman can state whether the assassins have yet been brought to trial; and, if so, what punishment has been inflicted upon them?
  Sir E. GREY: I have received a despatch on the subject, stating that, after a preliminary inquiry at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs at Teheran, held in the presence of a Russian official, the murderer and his accomplice were handed over by the Persian authorities to the Russian Legation, according to treaty, to be sent to Russia for trial and punishment. I have no information as to their subsequent fate.
  Mr. DILLONasked whether the Russian Consulate still refuses to surrender the ex-chief of police who fired at the Governor of Ispahan early in February last; and, if so, what punishment has been inflicted on him?
  Sir E. GREY: I have no information as to what has passed in connection with this question, later than a report dealing with the incident itself, and an account of the statement made by the Persian Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Mejliss, which it would probably be more convenient to give in answer to an unstarred question, as it is rather long for a verbal answer.

  United States and France (Arbitration).
  Mr. FELLasked if the Governments of the United States and France are commencing negotiations for a treaty of arbitration; and if, under the circumstances, he will approach the French Government with proposals of a nature similar to those he has suggested between this country and the United States?
  Sir E. GREY: I have no information on this subject, and I cannot at present make any statement as to approaching the French Government or other Governments.

  Opium and Dangerous Drugs (International Conference).
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLORasked the date upon which the International Conference upon Opium and Dangerous Drugs is to meet at The Hague, and which are the Powers to be represented there?
  Sir E. GREY: The 1st of July has been suggested as the date for the meeting of the Conference at The Hague, but no definite decision has yet been come to regarding it. The countries invited to attend are those which took part in the International Opium Conference which sat at Shanghai in the spring of 1909. They are:—The United States, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Austria-Hungary, Italy, Siam, and Persia.

  Viceroy of India's Council (Alleged Insult to Native Member).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention had been drawn to the insult offered by a lieutenant of the British Army in India to Mir Allah Baksh Khan, a member of the Viceroy's Council, whilst travelling in a first-class railway carriage; whether any apology has been offered to Mir Allah Baksh Khan; and what other action, if any, has been taken in connection with the matter?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The Secretary of State has no official information on the subject, but has asked for a report.

  Bengal Police (Alleged Torture of Prisoners).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked whether the Under-Secretary's attention has been called to the latest official report of the Inspector-General of the Bengal Police, in which he mentions that, in the Purneah district, two men were so tortured by the police that one of them died; whether the only punishment inflicted by the police authorities was degradation for the inspector and extra drills for the men who inflicted the torture; whether, subsequently, judicial proceedings were taken against these men; if so, what was the nature of the torture disclosed; and what was the result of the trial?
  Mr. O'GRADYasked whether the case of the man whose arms had been tied so tightly by a policeman that blood-poisoning supervened was, according to the Inspector-General of Police, under con-

  1123
  sideration at the end of 1909; whether proceedings were only taken before a magistrate in April, 1910; whether the India Office has now any information as to whether these proceedings have been concluded; whether at these proceedings the statement of the police that the only torture applied to the prisoner consisted in tying his arms tightly to his body, or the statement made by the dying man that boiling filth was placed under his armpits, was substantiated; and whether, in view of the delay in bringing this policeman to justice, the Under-Secretary will take some means of substantiating his declaration that the Government is doing everything it can to suppress physical punishment, amounting to torture, inflicted upon prisoners and witnesses by the police of India?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I will answer these questions, which are on the same subject, together. The Secretary of State has not heard the result of the trial. He had already asked for a report on the case, and has now telegraphed for it to be expedited. Pending its receipt I can make no statement on the subject.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether there is any objection to hanging a policeman who causes another man's death, and whether, if it is not possible under the law, he will take steps to alter the law so that it can be possible?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The maximum punishment is laid down by the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. If the hon. Member seriously suggests a new definition of murder, I will convey his suggestion to the Government of India.

  Seditious Meetings Act (India).
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked if the hon. Gentleman proposes to lay Papers informing the House of the negotiations which took place between the India Office and the Indian Government with reference to the renewal of the Seditious Meetings Act?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The communications between the India Office and the Government of India are necessarily confidential, but the debate in Council can be laid, and will give all the requisite information.

  Cultivation of Opium Poppy (India).
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLORasked what is the acreage of land growing the opium poppy in India this spring; whether it is
  1124
  intended further to licence the growing of the opium poppy next autumn, and, if so, to what extent; and what is the number of chests of opium as yet unsold in the possession of the Indian Government?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The limit for this year's spring crop of opium was fixed at 360,000 acres. The limit for the 1911–12 has not yet been fixed. The number of chests in balance on the 31st of this month is estimated at 32,598. This stock will not be supplemented by the crop of the pre sent year until November next.

  Extorting Confessions from Untried Prisoners (India).
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked whether, in view of the admitted evils which continue to result from the practice by the Indian police of extorting confessions from untried prisoners, the Secretary of State has ever considered the desirability of so amending the Code of Criminal Procedure as to provide that no confessions shall be admissible in evidence except those made to the court by which the prisoner is tried; and whether the Under-Secretary is aware that, according to the latest Report of the Inspector-General of Police in the United Provinces, local magistrates have in certain districts already been stopped from recording confessions to the police, with the full approval of the magistrate of Meerut as well as the Inspector-General?
  Mr. MONTAGU: My bon. Friend probably refers to the proposal, put forward by the Police Commission, that the Code of Criminal Procedure should be amended so as to provide that confessions should be recorded only by the magistrate having jurisdiction in the case. In dealing with the Report of the Commission Lord Curzon's Government proposed that the power to record confessions should be restricted to magistrates having jurisdiction to try the case and to magistrates of the first or second class. This proposal was accepted by the Secretary of State, and effect will be given to it in the comprehensive revision of the Criminal Procedure Code which is now under the consideration of the Government of India. Confessions to the police are already inadmissible as evidence against the accused under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872. It is a fact that in the Meerut district local magistrates have been ordered not to record confessions.

  Subalterns Commanding Companies (Additional Pay).
  Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many subalterns, approximately, in His Majesty's Army are, at the present time, and have been for a period exceeding one month, commanding companies without any additional pay in consideration of the extra work and responsibility?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): In order to supply the information asked for it would be necessary to call for a return from every battalion, which would involve very considerable labour and long delay. But I may point out that additional pay is not given to a regimental officer temporarily employed in a higher rank, and that cases such as the hon. Gentleman refers to are very uncommon except in the leave season.
  Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his now undoubted influence in the direction of granting additional pay to subalterns who are in command of companies for periods exceeding one month?
  Colonel SEELY: I must have notice of that question.

  Army Commissions.
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked how many combatant commissions were issued during the five years 1885–9 in the Cavalry; how many of these were commissions from the ranks; and what are the corresponding figures for the years 1906–10?
  Colonel SEELY: The figures are as follows:—

  Total Cavalry Commissions.

  From ranks.

  1885 to 1889

  …

  377

  29

  1906 to 1910

  …

  298

  Nil

  Mr. KELLAWAYasked how many combatant commissions were issued during the five years 1885–9; how many of these were commissions from the ranks; and how these figures compare with the commissions issued during the five years 1906–10?
  Colonel SEELY: The figures are as follows:—

  Total Combatant Commissions.

  From ranks.

  1885 to 89

  …

  3,357

  159

  1906 to 10

  …

  3,049

  64

  Mr. KELLAWAYasked whether, in view of the steady diminution in the number of commissions from the ranks, the Government have under consideration any
  1126
  measures likely to increase the opportunities open to men in the ranks to obtain commissions?
  Colonel SEELY: This question was thoroughly discussed during the Debate on Army Estimates on 22nd March, and a full statement on the subject was made by the Secretary of State. To that statement I have nothing at present to add.

  Case of Colonel Waldron.
  Sir EDWARD CARSONasked whether any opportunity will be available for discussing the case of Colonel Waldron and the petition presented by him to the Secretary of State?
  Colonel SEELY: The question can be raised when the Vote for the Secretary of State's salary is under discussion.
  Sir EDWARD CARSONasked whether all the reports furnished by the various officers consulted with reference to the qualifications of Colonel Waldron for promotion to the rank of general have been furnished to that officer?
  Colonel SEELY: Under the King's Regulations the yearly confidential or other official reports on an officer, if adverse, have to be communicated to him verbatim; but when the question of an officer's fitness for promotion by selection to higher rank comes before the Selection Board, the Board is guided not only by the official reports, but also by the personal knowledge which the members of the Board may possess of his qualifications for employment in a higher grade. Mere seniority gives no claim to promotion, the rule being to select for advancement the fittest officers for the appointments tenable by them if promoted. Sir Neville Lyttelton is understood to have consulted Lieut-General Parsons privately about Colonel Waldron, who afterwards appears to have become acquainted with the correspondence; but it was not of a nature to prejudice the Board against Colonel Waldron. I may add that no officers were consulted by the Selection Board, nor were any reports placed before the Board other than the annual confidential reports and the correspondence above referred to.
  Major WHITE: May I ask whether it is not the fact that Lieut.-General Parsons's report of a private letter was almost the only, if not the only, adverse report against Colonel Waldron?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not think that the hon. and gallant Member can assume that the report was adverse.
  Mr. DILLON: May I ask whether any specific weight is given in considering the claims of officers to promotion to service in the field?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes, of course, that is one of the elements which will weigh with the Selection Board as to his general merits, and, of course, they can best be judged by the period of service in the field.

  Infantry Officers (New Sash).
  Mr. SANDYSasked why it is considered necessary to put Infantry officers to the expense of buying a new and costly sash when the policy of the Government is stated to be to reduce and not to increase officers' expenses?
  Colonel SEELY: I understand that, after due consideration, it has been decided that the new sash is more suitable than that recently in use.

  Army Meat Supply.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, as he finds frozen meat, less those parts removed on account of disease, to be of equal nutritive value as fresh-killed meat and to be considerably cheaper, he proposes to supply the British Army with frozen or refrigerated meat on all days of the week instead of upon three only; and, if not, why not?
  Colonel SEELY: No, Sir. It is considered that it is in the best interests of the soldier to vary his diet.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: If it is proved that the British soldier does not want this change and prefers fresh meat grown at home, will the right hon. Gentleman receive a deputation on the subject?
  Colonel SEELY: Perhaps the Noble Lord would put a question on the Paper with regard to that.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: That reply was given by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. May I ask if the only reason why it is bought abroad is because it is cheaper?
  Colonel SEELY: Another cause is, as I say, because it is desirable to vary the diet.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Am I to understand that we may eliminate the question that it is only on the score of cheapness that the meat is bought abroad, and that is on the score of change?
  Colonel SEELY: It is not only on the score of cheapness, but it is most difficult to ensure, even if the change the Noble Lord suggests were made, that the meat should really be bred and fed in these islands.

  Coronation.
  Captain CRAIGasked whether, on the occasion of the Coronation, representatives of Irish Special Reserve or extra reserve battalions will be detailed for duty on the line of route or in the procession itself?
  Colonel SEELY: Representative detachments of every unit of the Special Reserve, both in Great Britain and Ireland, will be employed on the line of route on both the 22nd and 23rd June.

  Compulsory Service.
  Sir CHARLES HUNTERasked whether the Secretary of State for War will, having regard to his statement in the opening sentences of his preface to the book Compulsory Service that it is important that the materials for forming a judgment on the subject should be before the public, give similar sanction and facilities to those given for the publication of Compulsory Service for the publication of other views of a different complexion held by general officers on the active list?
  Colonel SEELY: I have nothing to add to the replies given by the Secretary of State on the 21st instant in reply to questions put by the hon. Member for Taunton.
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: Can we now know the profits from the sale of this book?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not think that question has yet been asked.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I ask it now.
  Colonel SEELY: I am afraid I do not know.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes.

  Officers' Training Corps (Glenalmond and Fettes).
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked if the annual grant for the officers' training corps of Glenalmond and Fettes Colleges has been withheld owing to these two corps having been unable to do more than three days in camp on account of the inclemency of the weather; and, if so, whether he will reconsider his decision?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes, but in view of the appeal which has now been received on their behalf, the question of making some special grant is under consideration.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is causing considerable friction in the north and that it is a very genuine case?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes, I understood it did cause comment. As I say, the matter is under consideration. Six schools did stay out all the time.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I was present, and I may inform the right hon. Gentleman——
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lord can give his information by letter.

  Army Manœuvres (Supply of Horses).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, instead of inviting tenders from contractors and dealers for the supply of draught-horses for the purposes of the annual manœuvres, he will, by advertisement in the local papers or otherwise, give the farmers and other owners of horses in the manœuvre area the opportunity of supplying direct the horses required by the War Office and so save the middleman's profit of from 60 to 80 per cent. now charged upon the taxpayers of the country?
  Colonel SEELY: The question is entirely one for the local military authorities, with whose discretion it is best not to interfere.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will not use his influence with the local authorities to ensure that the farmers should get this legitimate trade?
  Colonel SEELY: That is no doubt highly desirable, but I would not like to commit myself to any precise step.

  Army Pay Department (Limit of Service).
  Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREWasked whether the emergency during which a colonel of the Army Pay Department was retained in the Service, under Article 472, Royal Warrant, after reaching the age for retirement on 5th June, 1909, still exists; if so, what is the nature of that emergency; if not, why is this officer still retained on the active list; and when will he be placed on the retired list?
  Colonel SEELY: The re-organisation for which this officer was retained is now practically completed, and he will retire in the course of a few months.

  Adjutants of Yeomanry (Rate of Pay).
  Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREWasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the fact that in the case of the adjutants of yeomanry the rate of pay of those appointed before the issue of the Royal Warrant in February last has been confirmed to them, he will now reconsider his decision with reference to adjutants to Territorials and give to those officers appointed before 12th July, 1910, the same rate of pay as those appointed on and after that date?
  Colonel SEELY: The reply is in the negative. The case of the Yeomanry Adjutants mentioned is quite distinct from that of the other Territorial Adjutants.

  Uganda Protectorate (Jinja-Kakindu Railway).
  Mr. SCANLANasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what subsidy His Majesty's Government has given to the Uganda Protectorate for the construction of the Jinja-Kakindu Railway; whether he is aware of the fact that for fourteen miles this railway is planned to pass through a district which is infested with tsetse fly and in which the plague of sleeping sickness prevails; and whether the Government have taken any, and, if so, what steps to ascertain the views of the medical officers of Uganda, and of the officers in charge of the Sleeping Sickness Commission in Uganda, as to the adoption of the route through the plague infected area?
  The SECRETARY OF STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): The sum provided by His Majesty's Government for the construction of the Jinja-Kakindu Railway is £180,000. With regard to the second part of the hon. Member's question, I understand that the line is being

  1131
  carried higher in the hills for the express purpose of avoiding fly-infested areas in a sleeping sickness belt.
  Mr. SCANLAN: May I ask if the medical officers in Uganda, and especially the medical officers in charge of the Sleeping Sickness Commission have been consulted on this matter?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I could not give details as to whether they have been consulted or not, but if the hon. Member puts a question down I hope I will be able to give him the information.

  West Indian Legislatures (Resolutions).
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any and, if so, which of the West Indian Legislatures have passed resolutions in favour of closer political union with Canada; and whether he will lay any such resolutions adopted upon the Table of the House?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I have received a telegram stating that such a resolution has been passed by the Legislature of the Bahamas, but I am not yet in possession of the text of the resolution as passed.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay papers?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I had better receive them first before I consider the question of laying papers.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information as to when he is likely to receive them?
  Mr. HARCOURT: In the ordinary course of post. As soon as I receive them I will inform the hon. Member.

  Art Teachers (Qualifications).
  Mr. HOAREasked why a Syllabus of fourteen pages was issued in 1911 of the qualifications required for the art class teacher's certificate and the art master's certificate, when possible candidates were specifically warned on the front page that to enter upon a series of tests at the present moment might entail a waste of labour?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): The Syllabus, which continues for 1911 the regulations already in force, is issued for the benefit of candidates who have already
  1132
  entered upon a series of tests; and who desire to complete that series. It is, of course, hoped that persons who have not yet entered upon a series of tests will pay attention to the advice given them on the front page.

  Unemployment (Suggested Permanent Royal Commission).
  Mr. HOAREasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention had been drawn to the permanent Royal Commission on unemployment that had recently been appointed in Belgium; and whether he would consider the advisability of creating a similar body, representative of trade industry, and labour interests, to deal with questions of unemployment in the United Kingdom?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Tennant): An account of the Belgian Commission referred to by the hon. Member appeared in the March issue of the "Board of Trade Labour Gazette," of which I am sending him a copy. Their proceedings will be watched with much interest, but I doubt whether, under existing circumstances, there would be any advantage in appointing a similar body in this country.

  Labour Exchange Superintendents (Service on Public Bodies).
  Mr. COOPERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the superintendents of Labour Exchanges were allowed to contest for seats for town councils, boards of guardians, or co-operative society management; if not, would he state what instructions had been issued to the superintendents bearing on this matter?
  Mr. TENNANT: Officers of Labour Exchanges are informed in their Letter of Appointment that they are subject to the same Regulations with regard to membership of local authorities as Civil servants in the Board of Trade, and that, in addition, they will not be permitted without the sanction of the Board of Trade to stand as candidates in any public election, or to fill any post for which a public election is necessary. No such sanction has been given, but in a Few cases officers who held such posts at the time of their appointment, and had only a short term of office to run have been temporarily exempted from this Regulation.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Have any applications been made, other than those referred to, in which permission has been refused?
  Mr. TENNANT: I should like notice of that question.

  Railway Servants (Wages and Price of Food).
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he was aware that in the week in December of each of the years 1899 to 1909 inclusive, upon which the chief British railway companies reported the actual cash earnings of their servants, in four principal departments, to the Board of Trade, the average earnings, as distinguished from rates of pay, per week per man were stationary, at or about 25s., within a few pence; if, in the same period, the retail prices of food, as tested by a properly weighted index number, for London, rose in the period named by over 12 per cent.; and, if so, whether, seeing that the actual average, real or commodity, earnings of British railway servants fell considerably in 1899–1909, he would direct the attention of railway companies to these facts?
  Mr. TENNANT: I must refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the President of the Board of Trade on 23rd March to his previous question on the same subject, in which it is pointed out that the figures quoted cannot be used to compare the relative rise in rates of wages and retail prices.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is it denied that the real earnings of these men fell considerably in the period?
  Mr. TENNANT: I do not think it is denied; but the figures are not comparable.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why they are not comparable?
  Mr. TENNANT: That would involve giving the reply to a question which the hon. Gentleman himself asked only a few days ago, and it would be wasting the time of Parliament to repeat it.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is it not a very serious matter that the earnings of a considerable number of men should fall in this way in a period of ten years?
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: How is it that the food of the people costs 12 per cent. more under a Liberal than under a Conservative Government?

  Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve (Surgeons).
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked when the new scheme for surgeons in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve would be issued; and whether the scheme would grant them rank equal to that of surgeons in the Territorial Force?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The new scheme for medical officers of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve will be issued shortly. Under this scheme these officers will, as is the case at present, rank with medical officers of the Territorial Force of corresponding rank according to the dates of appointment in their respective ranks.

  Naval Construction (Armoured Vessels).
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked why, since the sum taken for each unit was practically double the amount allotted to the "King George V." and "Centurion," the armoured vessels to be built at Devonport and Portsmouth under the Estimates of 1911–12 were not to be laid down until the end of December, 1911, or January, 1912?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The provision included in the Estimates for 1910–11 for the "King George V." and "Centurion" was made on the basis of these vessels being laid down on 31st January, 1911. The provision for the two dockyard vessels of the year 1911–12 is on the basis of their being laid down in December, 1911. The hon. Gentleman will therefore understand that it will be possible for us to spend more within the financial year upon these two last-named vessels than upon the vessels to which he refers belonging to the 1910–11 programme.
  Mr. BURGOYNE: If the "King George V." and "Centurion" were laid down on 16th January, a fortnight in advance of the advertised time, has additional financial provision been made?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot answer that off-hand.

  Stokers (Promotions to Warrant Rank).
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked how many stokers had been promoted to warrant rank since the institution of such rank?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Five mechanicians have been promoted to the rank of warrant mechanician since the institution of that rank. Three more will be promoted on the 1st April.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: May we take it for granted that no stokers have been promoted to warrant rank?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think that that follows.
  Mr. BURGOYNE: Is it any great encouragement to stokers that since this rank was created in 1904 only five have been promoted?

  Obsolete Warships (Conditions of Sale).
  Mr. PENRY WILLIAMSasked whether there had been any, and, if so, what, modification of the conditions of sale of old and obsolete warships since July, 1910; and if it was intended to make a further modification in the conditions of sale in the case of the "Nile" and "Trafalgar," advertised for auction on 4th April next?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: There are four sets of conditions of sale of obsolete ships. Ships sold under what are known as "Conditions A" must be wholly broken up in the United Kingdom. Ships sold under Conditions A—as modified and brought into use for the sale of H.M.S. "Howe" (aged twenty-one years) in October, 1910—must be wholly broken up, but only certain specified work need be done in the United Kingdom. Ships sold under Conditions B must be wholly broken up, but not necessarily in the United Kingdom. Ships sold under Conditions C are sold without restriction. It was proposed to sell the "Nile" (aged twenty years) and the "Trafalgar" (aged twenty-one years) by auction on 4th April under Conditions B, but since that decision was arrived at it has been found impracticable to prepare these two ships for sale as early as was expected, and they have therefore been withdrawn from the advertisement of the forthcoming sale.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: What proportion of ships broken up have been broken up in the United Kingdom?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I must have notice of that.

  Political Pensions (Review by House of Commons).
  Mr. LEES SMITHasked the First Lord of the Treasury whether he would take steps to transfer political pensions from the Consolidated Fund to the Supply Services in order that, like almost all other pensions, they might be open to the review of the House of Commons?
  Mr. MacNEILL: Before the Prime Minister replies, may I ask whether political pensions, including the pension of Lord Balfour of Burleigh, will come under the condition of Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Referendum Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The pensions in question are charged upon and payable out of the Consolidated Fund under Section 8 of the Act 32 and 33 Vict. c. 60, and their transfer to moneys provided by Parliament could only be effected by legislation, which I do not see my way at present to propose.
  Mr. LEES SMITH: Is there any reason why the pensions of admirals, generals, and working-class old age pensioners should be subject to annual review in this House, while we are precluded on all normal occasions from discussing these very unpopular political pensions?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is a debatable question, upon which I have my own opinion.

  Plural Voting Bill.
  Mr. FRANCEasked if it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Plural Voting Bill this Session?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I must refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on this matter yesterday.
  Mr. FRANCE: In view of the public approval recently given by the Leader of the Opposition to the principle of one man one vote, will the Prime Minister consider the advisability of passing this Bill as a non-controversial measure?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think my hon. Friend takes rather a sanguine view.

  Dewsbury Schools Scheme.
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTTasked the Prime Minister if he has observed a Notice of Motion standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool relating to the scheme promoted by the Board of Education in respect of certain schools at Dewsbury; and if he can allot suitable time for the Motion praying His Majesty to disallow the scheme?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Motion in question can be taken any night after eleven o'clock.

  Examination of Estimates.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Prime Minister, whether he is yet in a position to announce the decision of the Government as to the appointment of a Standing Committee to examine Estimates prior to their presentation to the House?
  The PRIME MINISTER: This matter is still under consideration with special reference to the practice which prevails in foreign legislatures.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the claim of this House to be paramount in finance would be strengthened in proportion to the opportunities we get to consider it?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As a general proposition, yes.

  Supply (Allotted Days).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that every year many millions of pounds are automatically voted without any discussion, he will consider the desirableness of amending the Standing Orders by the addition of ten allotted days to Supply?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; I do not see my way to propose such an addition to the allotted days.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that shortly before this Government came into office, addressing his own Constituents, he said that this system amounted to "a creeping paralysis of the Parliamentary organism," and pledged himself that it would be one of the first duties of the Liberal Government to alter it?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will refresh my memory upon that.
  Mr. KEBTY-FLETCHER: Will the Prime Minister consider the desirableness of appointing a Finance Committee of business men in this House, based either on a scheme of his own or on the Finance Committees of the County Councils?

  Fishery Questions.
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked the Prime Minister whether his attention had been called to the facts that the Development Commissioners have appointed a committee to advise on fishery questions; that the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries considered that its constitution gave no adequate representation to
  1138
  English and Welsh fishery interests, and made representations to the Development Commissioners accordingly; and that the Development Commissioners have given no effect to those representations; and whether he will take steps to see that in fishery matters the expressed views of the Government department in charge of fishery matters carry their proper weight in other departments of the Government whore fishery interests are concerned?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): In reply to the first part of the question, I beg to refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Grimsby on the 14th ultimo, giving the composition of the Committee. In reply to the remaining parts of the question, I would refer to the numerous answers, exceeding ten in number, which I have given to questions put by him in the course of this Session.

  Invalidity Insurance Bill.
  Mr. BOOTHasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, who stated that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department was busy drafting the Sickness Insurance Bill; and whether he can say when a statement from the Government may be expected to be made in this House?
  The PRIME MINISTER: My attention has not been called to the speech in question. I am not yet able to fix a date for the introduction of the Government's proposals.

  Justices and Clubs.
  Mr. LANE-FOXasked the Prime Minister whether he has received from a number of petty sessional divisions resolutions passed by the justices asking for the control and power of restriction of drinking clubs; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Resolutions to the effect indicated in the question from a considerable number of benches of magistrates (mainly borough benches) have been received in the Home Office. The matter is one which must form an integral part of any measure of Licensing Reform, and Part IV. of the Licensing Bill of 1908 was devoted to it.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a copy of the Committee of Clubs Bill, and has not the principle of the Bill received approval?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I have not yet seen a copy, but I will be very glad to look at it.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Is it not a fact that the necessity for these refreshment clubs has arisen entirely owing to the restriction on public-houses?

  Trawling for Mines.
  Mr. ASTORasked whether trawlers and fishermen are to be enrolled at Grimsby for the purpose of trawling for mines; whether a subsidy or annual retainer is to be paid to the owners of the trawlers and to the fishermen; and whether it is proposed to give trawler owners and fishermen of ports other than Grimsby an opportunity of earning the subsidy or retainer?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, annual retainers will be paid to the skippers and men of the trawlers, but no subsidy will be paid to the owners. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

  Floating Docks.
  Mr. WHELERasked whether, in the event of one of the floating docks now under construction being removed to Rosyth, the Admiralty propose to replace the dock moved by another capable of containing a "Dreadnought"?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The large floating docks now under construction are not due for completion until late in the year. There is no present intention of removing either of the floating docks to Rosyth.
  Mr. WHELER: Did not the First Lord of the Admiralty in his statement mention the fact that possibly one of these docks would be removed to Rosyth?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: That is a fact. The First Lord of the Admiralty said on 16th March that possibly one or other will be ultimately removed to Rosyth. What I have said now is perfectly consistent with the fact that there is no present intention of removing either of the floating docks to Rosyth.

  Portsmouth Dockyard (Engineering Mechanics).
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that four engineering mechanics in the new factory at Portsmouth are rated at 34s. 6d. per week, although all other engineering mechanics, Devonport included,
  1140
  are rated at 36s.; and whether he will favourably consider the raising of these four men to the level of the others?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, except that the 34s. 6d. rate is not confined to the Portsmouth Factory. It is also in operation at Devonport. It should be noted that the men receiving 34s. 6d. are on the established list, their rate corresponding with the standard rate of 36s. paid to hired men. It is not proposed to take any special steps to advance the wages of the men in question.

  Dockyard Hired Writers.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether paragraph 13 of Clause VI. of Admiralty Letter, dated 13th April, 1907, A. 1806, which states that hired writers will be entered as required in the dockyards either by selection from boy writers who have reached the age of nineteen, or by appointment from a general list of successful candidates at an educational examination to be held periodically at the respective yards as occasion demands, is to be considered as no longer operative; and, if not, will he state why Mr. Sydney Taylor has been entered as a hired writer in the Naval Store Department, Sheerness, without being called upon to pass a competitive examination for this position?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The paragraph referred to is still operative. In the instance given by the hon. Member, however, there was no boy writer available for promotion, and there was no general list at Sheerness, no examination ever having been necessary in that yard, as boy writers have always hitherto been available. A special examination for one vacancy would not have been justified, especially as the whole matter of the system of examination for writers is under revision. Accordingly, the place was filled by direct appointment, the applicant presenting himself with thoroughly good qualifications.

  Coastguard (Allowance).
  Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREWasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether he is aware that for the last fifty years men of the coastguard have received an allowance of 1s. a day for food; whether he is aware that the cost of living has increased considerably during that period; and whether he can see his way to increase this allowance?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, except that the allowance is at the rate of 1s. 4d. a day. This allowance is granted as the equivalent of Service victualling, which costs the Crown about 10d. a head, and no reason is seen for any alteration. In certain isolated cases, where the cost of living is exceptionally high, special arrangements are made to relieve the men in the matter of expense.
  Sir R. POLE-CAREW: Are not the coastguard men the only men in the Service who have not had an increase of subsistence allowance?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say whether that is so or not; I will look into it. But what I do say is that in certain isolated cases where the cost of living is exceptional we do make special arrangements in order to enable the men to meet the increased cost.
  Sir R. POLE-CAREW: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly look into the question?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes.

  Scottish Deer Forests.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Lord Advocate whether the last Return of deer forests in the crofting counties, showing 2,958,490 acres in forest assessed at £132,041 per annum, was published in 1908; and whether, in view of the increased emigration from Scotland he will cause a more recent Return to be prepared and printed?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Government are fully alive to the situation referred to by my hon. Friend, but they do not think that the advantage of making a further return after such a short interval since the last would be commensurate to the labour required for it.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Would the right hon. Gentleman see that we have completed returns giving the names of the owners and the size of the holdings in these deer forests?
  Mr. URE: Yes.

  Scottish Universities (Extra Grant).
  Mr. MORTONasked whether the Government propose to appropriate only £20,000 extra Grant to the Scottish Universities next year; and, if so, why the full
  1142
  extra grant of £42,000, as recommended by the Elgin Commission, is not to be appropriated?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to a question by the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities on 27th March, 1911.
  Mr. MORTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any answer as to the recommendation made by the Commission?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I hold that point covered by the answer I gave to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow.

  School Board Election (Stirlingshire).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the refusal of the returning officer in the school board election for the parish of Balfron, Stirlingshire, to accept the nomination of Mr. Robert Sewell on the ground that, as ex-headmaster of the public school, he draws a pension from the funds of the Board; and whether he proposes to take any steps to test the legality of this refusal?
  Mr. URE: My attention has been called to the matter referred to by my hon. Friend. It is not in my power, or in the power of the Departments I represent, to take any steps to test the legality of the refusal of the returning officer to accept the nomination of the gentleman named.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is there any reason why the receipt of a pension should disqualify for a seat on a school board, when it does not disqualify for this House?
  Mr. URE: That is a matter of opinion.
  Mr. WATT: Would the hon. Gentleman say who is responsible for the instructions given to this returning officer?
  Mr. URE: The statutes.

  Experiments in Afforestation (Scotland).
  Mr. FLEMINGasked how many acres of the area acquired by the Government at Inverliver, Argyleshire, for experiments in afforestation have in fact been planted with young trees; what progress has been made in preparing the ground not already planted; and whether the Government receive any grazing or shooting rental from the part of the estate where development is not actually in process?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: About 310 acres of the Inverliver Estate have already been planted, and a further fifty acres, which have been fenced in, drained, and cleared of bracken are being planted this spring. Preparations are at present being made for enclosing a further 180 acres, which will be drained and cleared during the summer, and planted next season. A nursery of about seven acres for raising plants for the new plantations has also been formed and partially sown with seeds or planted with seedlings. Grazing and shooting rents are received for that part of the estate where forestry development is not actually in progress.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how many crofters have been cleared off this Government ground?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I cannot say from memory, but I went up there last year and I imagine none.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the nature of the planting that is being pursued?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: A considerable variety of trees have been planted.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Is it mixed planting?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No. I believe the trees are conifers.

  Imported French Milk.
  Mr. MOUNTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has any information showing that the fresh milk and cream which is imported into this country from France is produced under restrictions and conditions similar to those imposed upon dairy farmers in England?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): Inquiries were made in 1908 as to the methods adopted at the creamery in France from which the bulk of the fresh milk which has been imported into this country appears to be obtained and from which also a considerable quantity of cream is imported. The results of these inquiries appeared generally satisfactory, as also the results of examination of certain samples which have since then been taken in London.

  Small-Pox and Vaccination.
  Mr. ASTORasked whether, since the recent outbreak of small-pox, the number of persons vaccinated has increased beyond the average of the previous four years in the following towns: London, Manchester, Glasgow, and Plymouth; whether in the above towns parents who had applied for certificates of exemption have, since the outbreak, had their children vaccinated; and what are the respective numbers of such cases in the above towns?
  Mr. BURNS: No figures as to vaccination and exemption certificates since the commencement of the present small-pox outbreak are yet available.
  Mr. H. W. FORSTER: In view of the outbreak, will the right hon. Gentleman take any steps to recommend vaccination?
  Mr. BURNS: I do not consider that any further recommendation is necessary than the circulars periodically issued by the officers of the Local Government Board, and the notification that appears on the general form handed to parents when they come to register their children.

  Outdoor Relief (Report of Departmental Committee).
  Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked whether Article 2 (1) of the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Orders Relating to the Administration of Relief would, if embodied in an Order, compel the guardians to refuse out-relief to persons of sixty-five years and upwards who, though suffering from no physical disability, are by reason of their age unable to obtain employment?
  Mr. BURNS: Boards of guardians are not at present empowered to give outdoor relief on the ground that the applicant has attained the age of sixty-five years. Under Article I. of the Prohibitory Order, which is in force in 528 of the 644 Unions in England and Wales, boards of guardians are precluded from giving outdoor relief to the able-bodied, except in certain specified cases. The Article in the draft Order to which the Noble Lord refers is substantially the same, except that it expressly allows out-relief to be given in the case of infirmity arising from old age.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is it not proposed to restrict the outdoor relief?
  Mr. BURNS: That is not so. I tried to inform hon. Members of that three weeks ago.

  Pwllheli Workhouse.
  Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked whether, in the Pwllheli workhouse, there are seventy-nine inmates including twenty-nine children, also vagrants to the amount of about one hundred a month; whether there are only three attendants at this workhouse; if so, whether he has satisfied himself that under the circumstances the children are properly attended to; and what steps he is prepared to take to enforce a more humane administration on the guardians?
  Mr. BURNS: I have recently received a special report from one of my inspectors with regard to this workhouse giving me the facts generally as stated in the question. I understand that the guardians have recently appointed a boarding-out committee to deal with as many children as possible, but the whole situation is engaging my attention, and I am in communication with the guardians respecting it.

  English and Welsh Fishery Interests.
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture what steps, having regard to the fact that the Development Commissioners have given no effect to the representations of the Board as to the constitution of the advisory committee on fishery matters, he proposes to take to ensure that English and Welsh fishery interests shall have due consideration in matters coming before the advisory committee?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Edward Strachey): The Board propose to address further a communication to the Commissioners on this subject.

  Small Holdings.
  Sir RANDOLF BAKERasked whether the Dorset County Council have only placed forty-four out of 196 applicants for small holdings on the land?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Yes, only forty-four directly, but, indirectly, in addition ninety-four through private landowners.
  Sir R. BAKER: Would the hon. Baronet kindly inform the hon. Member for Burnley officially of the facts he made statements to the contrary?
  Mr. MORRELL: Does the hon. Baronet consider that the placing of small holders
  1146
  on the land by private owners is in fact carrying out the Small Holdings Act?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Certainly; if the same object is achieved.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is my hon. Friend aware that the tenant does not obtain the same security of tenure?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: To my own knowledge some small holders have themselves asked county councils to allow them to rent their holdings direct from land owners.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is my hon. Friend aware that in one case the action of the county council in referring small holders to private land owners has had the effect of breaking up a co-operative society formed for the purpose of carrying out the Act?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I am not aware of that. If my hon. Friend will give me the particulars I shall inquire into it.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the view that small holders under private landowners would not have the same security of tenure as under county councils, and if not to what section of the Act he refers; and is it a fact that under private landowners the rents are lower?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: It depends upon the landowner.
  Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the attention of the Board has been drawn to the fact that a proposal of the county council of Buckinghamshire to supply two applicants with small holdings, by putting in force a compulsory order for fourteen acres of land, was thwarted by the owner thereof letting thirty acres, including the fourteen acres, to his son; whether the owner is a member of the council; and whether the Board will adopt the same attitude as they did on a similar occasion at Rainham and proceed with the compulsory acquisition of these fourteen acres?
  Sir EDWARD STRACHEY: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. The Board understand that the county council have been advised that in the circumstances it is not competent for them to make a compulsory order for the acquisition of the land in question, and it is not possible, therefore, for the Board to take any steps for the purpose. But the council are

  1147
  under an obligation to satisfy the requirements of the applicants for the small holdings, and we shall at once take steps to ascertain what further action the council propose to take in the matter.
  Sir HARRY VERNEY: Where it has been shown that a deliberate evasion of the Act has been attempted, is the Board prepared to take steps, irrespective of what the county councils may do?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The Board of Agriculture have no locus standi in the matter, but they have informed the Buckinghamshire County Council that if they take action they will indemnify them in the matter of costs.

  Trustees of Local Charities.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the hon. Member for the Stroud Division, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether they have authorised trustees of local charities to evade their responsibilities under the Finance Act by insisting upon leaseholders paying the Reversion Duty upon the renewal of a lease; and whether such insistence is in accordance with the practice of the Department?
  Mr. C. P. ALLEN: The Charity Commissioners have not authorised trustees of charities to insist upon leaseholders paying the Reversion Duty upon the renewal of a lease. Such insistence would not be in accordance with the practice of the Department. If the hon. Member is referring to a particular case, and will mention it to me, I will inquire into it.

  Telegraph Facilities (Whitehaven).
  Mr. THOMAS RICHARDSONasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention had been called to the absence of a telegraph office at Whitehaven railway station, Furness terminus; and, in the interests of the inhabitants and travelling public, whether he will consider the advisability of opening an office at an early date?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I will ask the company if they will undertake telegraph business at the Whitehaven Railway Station (Furness).

  Scale of Postal Wages (Scotland).
  Mr. WILKIEasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the action of his Department in
  1148
  fixing wages maxima upon a lower standard of living for Scotland as compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, and to the views recently expressed by the Secretary to the Post Office to the representatives of the Staffs' Associations, that the separate standard was justified on the ground of the Scotsman's predilection for small tenement dwellings and an oatmeal dietary; and, if so, what action he proposes to take to make the Scottish standard of wages equivalent to that of England?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The cost of living standard used for purposes of classification of towns for scales of pay was fixed by the Board of Trade for England and Ireland on the basis of inquiries made at a number of towns in those countries, and for Scotland on the basis of inquiries made at a number of Scotch towns. Representations made by the Staff Associations to the Secretary to the Post Office against this method of fixing the standard in Scotland are under consideration.
  Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary said that Scotsmen are usually fed upon porridge?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, Sir; that is a travesty of his remarks.

  Postal Facilities (Fortwilliam and Garvan).
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Postmaster-General if he has received a petition, and, if so, when, from or on behalf of the inhabitants on the south side of Lochiel asking for a daily delivery of letters and papers between Fortwilliam and Garvan; and if he can arrange to have a six days' delivery of letters and papers, instead of the four days' delivery, between Fortwilliam and Garvan?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am having inquiry made in the matter, and I will communicate the result to the Noble Lord.

  British-made Paper.
  Mr. BIGLANDasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the statement made by His Majesty's Government that the whole of the paper supplied to the Government Departments, amounting to £250,000, is British made, he will state the clause in the contracts binding all contractors to supply British-made paper?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is the established practice of His Majesty's Stationery Office to restrict to Mills in the United Kingdom invitations to tender for the supplies of

  1149
  paper for the Public Service. Clause (4) (a) of the conditions of contract reads: "All papers delivered shall be manufactured on the premises of the Contractor.."

  Sir Francis Hopwood.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether Sir Francis Hopwood has ceased to be a member of the Development Commission, and, if so, as from what date; also what amount he has received by way of salary as Commissioner since his appointment?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Sir Francis Hopwood has received salary as a Commissioner since January 1st, 1911, at the rate of £3,000 a year.

  Acetate of Lime and Acetone.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether any complaints have been received by the Office of Woods and Forests, or by the Treasury, from manufacturers in the neighbourhood with regard to the proposal by the Government to carry on in the Forest of Dean the process of the destructive distillation of wood and the manufacture thereby of charcoal, naphtha, methylated spirit, ethyl, alcohol, acetate of lime, and other allied. products and byproducts of such distillation; and whether the Government will consider the advisability of purchasing acetate of lime from local manufacturers for conversion into acetone, rather than of entering into competition with them, with the possible result of the extinction of their business?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No such complaints as are referred to in this question have been received by the Office of Woods and Forests. The abject of the proposed works is to utilise produce which at present is almost unmarketable, and of which large quantities are annually available in Dean Forest and the adjoining woodlands. As it is not at present proposed to manufacture acetone in the Forest of Dean, the question of purchasing acetate of lime from local manufacturers for conversion into acetone does not arise there.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Why is not the Government prepared to manufacture acetone when it is required for national purposes?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Member is not well informed, I understand, as to what is required. It is acetate of lime that is required, and not acetone.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that acetone is a further product of acetate, and is it not that that is required?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The facts are as I have stated.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether the Government have altogether abandoned the idea of manufacturing acetone in the Forest of Dean; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that this necessary factor in the manufacture of cordite for our national requirements is now obtained almost wholly from other countries with whom we may be at war hereafter, the Government will reconsider their decision?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The idea of manufacturing acetone in the Forest of Dean has not been altogether abandoned, but, acting on the best advice, the Commissioner considers it better in the first instance to stop short at the production of acetate of lime. When the manufacture of acetate has had a fair trial the question of manufacturing acetone can be further considered, if desirable.

  Aliens (Vaccination).
  Mr. ASTORasked whether aliens are examined by the medical inspector on landing to see whether they have been vaccinated; and whether any steps are taken to secure the vaccination of aliens who are found not to have been vaccinated?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: This is not a matter which conies within the duties of a medical inspector under the Aliens Act.

  Sessions House, Clerkenwell (Witnesses).
  Sir SAMUEL SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state what accommodation is provided for witnesses at Clerkenwell?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: My right hon. Friend understands that the question refers to the Sessions House at Clerkenwell; but two years ago the North London Sessions were transferred from Clerkenwell to Newington. One of the chief reasons for the transfer was the inadequate accommodation for witnesses at Clerkenwell.

  Census of Religious Establishments.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked, in view of the fact that the Census schedules will be filled up by the heads of religious establishments of all denominations giving

  1151
  particulars as to the inmates of these establishments, he will undertake that a Return shall be prepared from these figures showing the total number, locality, and number of inmates, male and female, respectively, of each of such religious establishments of each denomination?
  Mr. BURNS: I understand from the Registrar-General that the suggestion of the hon. Member is not a practicable one.

  Akbar Reformatory.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked whether Mr. Adam, the principal witness at the inquiry into the management of the Akbar Reformatory, has complained of the manner in which the evidence of himself and his witnesses was taken; and whether he has further complained that such evidence has been distorted in the Report recently issued; and, if so, what action does he propose to take in the matter?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Since the question was put on the Paper, a communication has been received from Mr. Adam complaining that his evidence in the recent inquiry at Heswall School had been "distorted." My right hon. Friend can find no warrant for such an assertion. Mr. Adam himself acknowledged, at the close of his examination, that he had received a fair hearing. My right hon. Friend does not propose to take any further action in the matter.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Does Mr. Adam state in his letter that he was astounded at the version of his evidence contained in the hon. Gentleman's Report?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not sure.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Has not the hon. Gentleman read Mr. Adam's protest?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Yes; but I cannot charge my memory whether he said he was astounded or not.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Was the Return prepared by the hon. Gentleman himself or prepared for him?
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the fact that on page 7 of the Report upon the Akbar Reformatory School it is stated that it was freely acknowledged that the full punishment of eighteen strokes with a birch, or in most cases anything over eight strokes of the cane, would result in the cutting of the
  1152
  skin and the necessity for subsequent antiseptic dressing, and that antiseptic dressings were always applied in order to prevent poisoning; whilst on page 19 it is stated that no boy could be found who had been medically treated after the caning s; and what explanation he can furnish of this apparent discrepancy?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: There would appear to be no discrepancy in these statements. I could find no evidence of boys being medically treated as a result of corporal punishments inflicted at Heswall School. One of the under-officers provided antiseptic dressing in any cases where the skin was cut or bruised.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to give notice that at the earliest opportunity I shall move that this Report be remitted back to the Home Office for revision by a competent and impartial officer.

  Court of Appeal (Reversals of Judgments).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Attorney-General whether it would be practicable to prepare a Return showing the number of reversals by the Court of Appeal of the judgments of courts of first instance during the past ten years, in order that the public might be made aware of the relative competence of the judges of such courts?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): It would not be practicable to prepare such a return as is suggested. Its preparation would involve considerable expenditure of time and labour, and, when completed, would necessarily be misleading, inasmuch as a Judge of first instance is often reversed, although he has decided strictly in accordance with the law laid down by a court of co-ordinate or superior jurisdiction. Moreover, the decision of the Court of Appeal reversing a judgment of a Judge of first instance is itself sometimes reversed in the House of Lords, and the decision of the Judge of first instance is thus restored.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman think there would be any difficulty in adding to the annual volume of official statistics a column showing the names of the judges whose decisions have been reversed by the Court of Appeal?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It would be quite useless to do that unless you went into particulars as to why the decisions were reversed.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I asked the hon. and learned Gentleman whether it would be practicable, not whether it would be useless. That is an argumentative question?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It would be practicable if you devoted enough time and expenditure to it, but the result would be useless.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I am willing to defray the expense.

  Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that local authorities are in considerable doubt as to their position in regard to the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, particularly in reference to the nature of schemes of development under the very wide provisions of Section 1 of the Act, since they have nothing to guide them with regard to what sort of proposals would be likely to receive favourable consideration by the Commissioners and by the Treasury, and they are naturally reluctant to incur expenditure in preparing definite plans for such things as local transport improvement, land reclamation, experimental farms, and other developments obviously covered by the Act if the Commissioners have no prospect of being in a position to make a grant in the near future; and if he will therefore cause to be prepared and issued to public authorities a memorandum in explanation of the Act itself and of the nature of such national and local schemes as the Commissioners, with due regard to available funds, have in contemplation, or in connection with which they are likely to be able to give practical assistance?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Chairman, Vice-Chairman and staff of the Development Commission will always be most ready to see representatives of local authorities informally on the subject of proposed applications and will give them all possible assistance and advice. Such assistance appears to me a better course to adopt than the issue of a general memorandum, which could not meet the requirements of individual proposals.

  Earl Manvers Court (Purchase of Copyhold Property).
  Mr. BENTHAMasked the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that, on the purchase of copyhold property in the
  1154
  court of Earl Manvers, at Crowle and district, worth £200 and of a rental value of £10, the fine on admittance to the court roll is one and a-half year's rent, viz., £15, and also the steward's fee of £3; and that, to enfranchise the same property, the cost is four years' rental, or £40, with the steward's fee £7, making a total of £65 with fine on admittance; and if he will take steps to bring in a measure to reduce these payments to the lord of the manor?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I will call my right hon. Friend's attention to the figures cited in the question.

  Lion Brewery Company (House of Lords Decision).
  Mr. LANE-FOXasked whether, as a result of the recent decision of the House of Lords in the case of the Lion Brewery Company, an advantage is given to the brewer, who is allowed to deduct from his assessment for Income Tax the amount of his contribution towards the compensation fund in the case of a tied house; whether such advantage does not apply to the; private owner of the free house; and whether the Government will take steps to remedy this difference of treatment?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The payments made by brewers to the compensation fund are deducted as a trading expense in computing their profits as brewers for assessment under Schedule D, when it is found that they hold and let the tied houses solely for the purposes of their business. A similar deduction is allowed in the case of an owner-occupier of a free house.

  Land Valuation.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can say what has been the cost of hiring or purchasing buildings or offices for the purpose of carrying out the land valuation required by the Finance Act, 1909?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The amount of rent paid by the Inland Revenue in respect of their valuers' offices for the current financial year is about £6,750.

  French Automatic Rifle.
  Sir SAMUEL SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the French War Office has adopted after trials a satisfactory type of automatic rifle, he will continue experiments on automatic rifles in this country?
  Colonel SEELY: I presume the hon. Baronet is alluding to the statement in the French Chamber that although it was not intended to make any change of Infantry armament at present, the experiments carried out by their Government would enable them, if necessary, to manufacture automatic rifles at once. Trials with automatic rifles are being continued by the War Office.

  Remounts (Train Time-Table).
  Sir SAMUEL SCOTTasked whether any railway company has been approached by the General Staff with the view of working out a train time-table for collection of remounts and concentration of troops on mobilisation?
  Colonel SEELY: The arrangements necessary for moving troops, horses, and material by rail on mobilisation are constantly under the consideration of the military authorities, and are confidential. I cannot, therefore, supply the hon. Baronet with any detailed information on the subject.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BALFOUR: Will the Prime Minister give us a sketch of the course of business, and what he proposes to take on Friday next?
The PRIME MINISTER: On Thursday, after the Revenue Bill is concluded, we shall proceed with the House Letting (Scotland) Bill, and the Second Reading of the Army (Annual) Bill.
On Friday we shall take the Second Reading of the Shops Bill.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: When will the Home Secretary introduce the measure for which he asked the special consideration of the House the other day, dealing with the expenses of the military when sent in aid of the police?
The PRIME MINISTER: I should like to have notice of that.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I ask because I think this is an opportunity for the Home Secretary, who asked for the special indulgence of the House to deal with the matter.
Sir F. BANBURY: May I remind the Prime Minister that during the all-night sitting the Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave a pledge that the Government would take no Bills before the 31st March, and under those circumstances
1156
I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman cannot reconsider his decision?
The PRIME MINISTER: I was not here during the all-night sitting, but I am bound, of course, by anything that took place on that occasion. I was not aware of that pledge. I am not complaining in the least, but I thought that, after the arrangement which was made last night, it would be convenient to take those two Bills. I was not aware that there was any obstacle in the way. If a pledge has been given it shall be observed, and in that case we shall have to put down Supply. In any case, we shall take the Shops Bill on Friday.
Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: As there will be three hours at the disposal of the House on Thursday, can the right hon. Gentleman devote that time to the Second Reading of the Irish Labourers' Bill?
The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid the same objection applies. It seems the pledge was not to take anything until after the 31st March. I think, however, we might be released from that pledge by a general understanding.
Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Seeing that there are such a large number of the supporters of the Government desirous of discussing the Revenue Bill, can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to give those extra three hours to that measure?
Mr. MORRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of putting down the Board of Agriculture Vote, as a great many hon. Members desire to discuss small holdings?
Mr. JAMES HOPE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to suppose that the House of Lords will not gladly enter on the discussion of the Consolidated Fund Bill at 11 p.m. on Thursday so that we may have the extra three hours here.
The PRIME MINISTER: We made an arrangement upon this question last night, and we must not go back upon it. I will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

DIVISIONS.
Mr. BYLES: May I ask you, Sir, whether an incident which occurred at the door of the Division Lobby last night has been reported to you? The order, "Lock the door," was given by the Chairman when a very large number of Members were pressing to go into the Lobby, and it

1157
was only by physical force they were able to record their votes in this House. May I ask whether it would not be right to consider some modification of the rule so that in a Division such as that last night in which nearly all the Members desire to vote in the same Lobby, the moment at which "Lock the door" is called does not arrive before Members of this House have time to get into the Lobby?
Mr. SPEAKER: I was not aware of the difficulty. It had not been officially reported to me. I think the difficulty really arises from the fact that all Members seek to enter by the Narrow Way.
One other Member took and subscribed the Oath.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—Andrew Bonar Law, esquire, for South-West Lancashire (Bootle Division).

BILLS PRESENTED.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To amend the provisions of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, so far as relating to Clubs," presented by Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON; supported by Mr. Eugene Wason, Mr. Watt, Mr. Pringle, and Mr. MacCallum Scott; to be read a second time upon Monday next.
  PENSIONS (COLONIAL GOVERNORS) BILL.
  "To consolidate and amend the Law relating to the payment of Pensions to Colonial Governors," presented by Mr. HOBHOUSE; to be read a second time upon Monday next.
  MONEY LENDERS BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to money lenders," presented by Mr. ATHERLEV JONES; supported by Mr. Carr-Gomm, Mr. Frederick Edwin Smith, Mr. O'Grady, and Mr. Ponsonby; to be read a second time upon Monday next.

REVENUE BILL.
Considered in Committee (Progress, 27th March).
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]

REVENUE BILL.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 26 (1) 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
  1158
  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 have been valued before the passing of this Act, if the request for the valuation under this provision 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."—[Mr. Hobhouse.]
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, after the word "contiguous" ["pieces of land which are contiguous"] to insert the words "and which do not in the aggregate exceed ten acres in extent."
  If my Amendment is accepted, the material words of the Clause will read, "The Commissioners may, on the request of the owner of any pieces of land which are contiguous, and which do not in the aggregate exceed ten acres in extent, value those pieces of land together, although those pieces of land are under separate occupation." The object of the original Clauses, adopted by the Government on the suggestion of hon. Members opposite, was quite clearly stated last night by the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave). It was to meet a particular case which he illustrated by an estate within his own knowledge in Paddington. There was a street of houses, the leases of which were falling in, and he complained that the Government valuers came down and valued each particular house site as the lease fell in. These sites were subject to certain easements depending upon the other houses upon the same estate, and by this method of valuation an unduly low value was set upon these isolated house plots. He very rightly urged that these easements reduced the value of particular plots of land and improved the collective value of the whole estate. The whole of the site value given in the new Domesday Book, therefore, was incorrect, incomplete, and ought to be put on a correct basis by allowing the landlord to take the whole estate into consideration. It was to remedy that difficulty that this Clause was introduced. I entirely agree with the hon. Member that it is desirable that a street of houses where there are special easements of that description should be valued as a whole and not individually. You will get a more correct value of the estate in that way. If that be

  1159
  the object, and the only object, of the hon. and learned Gentleman, it would be entirely met by the new Clause as amended by my Amendment. My Amendment does not affect that in the least; none of these streets of houses exceed ten acres in extent, and therefore they will be able to get the fair value of the land in towns whether there are streets of houses or whether there are open spaces.
  4.0 P.M.
  We object to the Clause as originally put down by the Government, because in addition to meeting that particular difficulty it injures the complete valuation of the property. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] I do appeal to hon. Members opposite. I am not trying to obstruct the course of the debate; I am merely anxious to get this put right. If this Clause is allowed to stand as it is it not only affects urban land but suburban and country land as well. It will enable owners of large agricultural estates to average down the value of land along a road or near a station by taking in all the purely agricultural land of low value at the back with the valuable land, and thereby getting the total value below £50 per acre, so as to avoid the ½d. tax on undeveloped land. That is a very serious thing. You are valuing by 1,000 acres instead of by field, by farm, or by plot, and, in doing that, you get an absolutely untrue value in the new Domesday Book. I do ask hon. Members to listen to what I have to say. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide; divide."] This valuation is one which affects us on this side of the House very considerably. I should like to ask the Noble Lord the Member for Thirsk (Viscount, Helmsley)——[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."]
  Mr. PARKER: Has an hon. Member on this side of the House any right to speak at all?
  Viscount HELMSLEY: You need not occupy the whole time.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I wish to emphasise the fact that it is essential to get a correct valuation. We want it to be a genuine one, and not faked, so that big landlords owning many farms may not be able to average their land down to a figure which is not really representative of its value, but which has been averaged down by taking large areas into account. This clause as it stands would enable big landlords to evade the ½d. tax. You may have a road on one side of which there will be a big landlord with several thousand acres
  1160
  of land. He will get the value of that land brought down below the £50 limit by including the whole acreage. On the other side you will have the small owner of from three to five acres, who will not be able to average the value down, and he consequently will be called upon to pay the Undeveloped Land Tax, which his rich neighbour opposite will escape. That is obviously unfair.
  There is more in it than that. A great many Members on this side of the House, including the Labour party, have looked upon this valuation as being of enormous value from the point of view of the purchase of land by local authorities. They consider that if local authorities found it necessary to purchase land compulsorily they would be able to refer to the valuation and to base upon it the price which the landlord will receive for the land. Nowadays, when the local authority wants to put up a new school what happens? You have expert witnesses on one side saying that the land is worth £100, while those on the other side swear it is worth £2,000. Between those witnesses the arbitrators come to some sort of decision which probably mulcts the local authority in ten times the proper value of the land. We had hoped that when once we had got this valuation the arbitrator in these cases would have something definite to go upon, and he would be able to dispense with expert witnesses and would say, "Here is a valuation, either made or approved by the landlord: we found the value he put upon the land is £100 per acre, and we consider that is all he shall get for it." Now, when you have this new Clause——
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Is the hon. Gentleman entitled to discuss the whole Clause on his Amendment, especially as we have such a very short time at our disposal?
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is travelling rather wide of the Amendment.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: This is an important question; we are going to let the landlord average the value of his land down below £50 per acre, and we are anxious to provide a valuation which would enable judges and arbitrators to compel the landlords to accept a reasonable price for their land instead of the exaggerated prices they now demand. I submit that that directly arises out of my Amendment. We have here the means of protecting the local authorities in this country from the extortions of landlords.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is all very general. I want to ask the hon. Member to apply himself to the question of ten acres. That is the point.
  Mr. STANLEY WILSON: Yes; tie him down to the ten acres.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: My Amendment provides that everything over ten acres shall be excluded from the purview of this Clause, and I maintain I am justified in showing that if you do not cut it down to ten acres you will be defeating the objects of the valuation set up by the Budget of 1909–10. May I point out to hon. Gentlemen opposite who are so anxious to defeat me, that the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) himself yesterday entirely approved of this Amendment, and said he would accept it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I have his words here.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: On the point of Order. All these arguments were used two or three times yesterday. Is not the hon. Gentleman transgressing Standing Order 19 as to irrelevancy?
  The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter which must be left to my discretion. This is a new Amendment, and the hon. Member must have a reasonable chance of stating his case, but I do again ask him to try and come to the actual Amendment and not deal simply in generalities.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I will certainly confine myself to the Amendment. I deny that these arguments were used last night. If anyone will look through the OFFICIAL REPORT he will find no reference whatever to the prices paid under arbitration by the local authorities who compulsorily purchase land. This is what the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford said. I wish he was here, as I am sure he would support me. He said:—
  "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 laud 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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1911, col. 1013.]
  I want to impress upon hon. Members the importance of getting this true valuation. I see the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir Gilbert Parker) in his place. No hon. Member has been more active in going up and down the country urging that we
  1162
  should help people to purchase their own land in order to have small holdings. If you get a fair valuation, such as you would have got under the Budget of 1909–10, you would have a basis on which you could fix the price for land to be compulsorily acquired for small holdings. If you allow the three Noble Lords below the Gangway opposite to prevent this Amendment being carried, you will enable landlords to snap their fingers at the valuation under the Budget and to insist upon exaggerated prices for their land. Do you want to help the small cultivator or not? Do you want to help him get his own land? If you do you want a fair and impartial valuation and not that sort of valuation which apparently they want at Thirsk and Malton. The Government Clause was asked for by the landlords opposite. I am only sorry that the Treasury accepted their suggestion and that they have been enabled——
  The CHAIRMAN: Order, order. That is on the Clause and not on the Amendment.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: My Amendment will make it perfectly clear that the Government Clause refers only to urban land, and if it is carried all rural land will be left out of the purview of the Clause. On that ground I am proposing that we should carry this Amendment, in order to exempt all except purely urban land from the operation of this Clause in order to get a fair valuation of agricultural land. I say that the acceptance of this Clause, as it stands, in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, means that you are whittling away the valuation which was given under the Budget of 1909–10. You are playing into the hands of the vested interests, which are too strong for me and for hon. Friends around me. You are enabling them to cut down this valuation in order to destroy it, and I am here to protest against that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide."] We shall divide presently, and into that Lobby will go with the Government——
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: May I call attention to the conduct of the Noble Lord the Member for Thirsk and Malton.
  The CHAIRMAN: It is my business to attend to that, and not the hon. Member's.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: On a point of Order, am I entitled to call your attention to anything or am I not?
  The CHAIRMAN: I have already given my answer.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: As I was saying, into that Lobby will go the Government and their Parliamentary and Private Secretaries, and they will be followed by the ranks of the landlord party opposite. We may only get about forty or fifty Radicals into this Lobby here, but I should like to know whether there is any hon. Member who thinks that such a Division will carry weight in the country. Vested interests may rule in this House, but go outside and see what is thought of them in the country.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): I do not want to go over the whole of the ground traversed by the hon. Member, because I really do not think that his Amendment possesses the extreme importance which he apparently attaches to it. He suggests that we should limit the amount of land that may be aggregated for the purposes of valuation to ten acres. As a matter of fact, at the present moment, for the purposes of such valuation areas in excess of fifty acres are actually being dealt with, and the only result of accepting the Amendment as it stands would be that portions of valuation now going on under the existing Act would have to be put back, as the existing powers for valuing land would be diminished, and there would be an actual reversal of the practice now obtaining.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: The words are, "The Commissioners may," not "shall."
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think the hon. Gentleman will see that his proposal would amount to an actual reversal of the present practice, and I am quite sure that is not what he wants. I gather from the tenour of his speech that he really wishes to prevent agricultural land being drawn into the same category as urban land, thereby diminishing the value of the urban land. That is what I understand he wants. As I said to him last night in this House, we do not desire that in the general valuation of an estate a great parcel, say a thousand acres, of agricultural land should be mixed up with the urban land, but we do want to give a discretion to the Commissioners so that they may take such areas together as they think fit. We think that their discretion is best not limited by any actual statement made to them. In some cases I can conceive it would be proper to value ten acres together and in others a thousand acres, but I would rather trust to the discretion of the Commissioners in such a matter as that, and give them an absolutely free
  1164
  hand. As I pointed out last night, under Section 29 the Commissioners can assess the value in respect of any such pieces of land which are in conjunction or not as they think fit, and, having assessed the land, they can make such an apportionment or apportionments as to original site value for Undeveloped Land and Increment Land Duty as they think fit in their discretion. I think myself the object of my hon. Friend would be much better obtained by leaving the Clause as it stands, than by attempting to put in the limitation which he seeks to insert. If in practice it is found that there is anything indefinite, and the Government have assented to agricultural land being brought in improperly, then I undertake, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he will at once meet that situation. There is only one more point that I should like to make. The hon. Gentleman suggested that concessions were being made in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that he would not agree to them. That is not the case. This Clause is introduced in pursuance of an undertaking given by the right hon. Gentleman himself to hon. Gentlemen in this House and outside it, and it is in accordance with his wish that this Clause is introduced.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: I do not think the explanation of the Secretary to the Treasury disposes of a point, which is a very serious one, in the minds of some hon. Members. In order to meet an undoubted difficulty in regard to urban land, the Government, has made a concession which is going to have very far-reaching and mischievous results in regard to rural land. It is not a case as between rural and urban land with which this Amendment is intended to deal, and it is as between agricultural land and land having a building value in the villages. I support this Amendment because I think it is essential to have some modification put in if you are going to have a halfpenny tax brought into effect in a great part of the country side. The gravest condition in the villages to-day is the housing condition, and unless this Clause is amended on the lines which it is proposed to alter it by the Amendment you are going to allow men who hold building land having a building value in a village to average with a little plot of frontage hundreds of acres of land having a purely agricultural value. I can justify my contention with instances in my own knowledge. In Northampton-

  1165
  shire I am closely acquainted with the villages in the Grafton country. The Grafton country contains a great many villages where the housing problem is probably as acute as in any part of this country. You have in the Grafton country—and it is exactly such a country as that that this Amendment is intended to deal with—some of the finest stables and kennels in the kingdom, and you have the worst cottages. What will arise unless you put in this Amendment is something like the following: In the parish of Blisworth, in that county, where the land as to a large part of it is owned by the Duke of Grafton, you have land which some of it has a building value. A friend of mine there said, "We could do with thirty cottages if we had them, but we cannot get a bit of land to put a cottage on, because the Duke will only part with it on a thirty-three years' building lease."
  No man is going to build cottages on a thirty-three years' building lease, and unless you are going to have some such amendment as this you are not going to put any pressure upon a landlord of that kind to part with his land. In consequence, great stretches of land, hundreds of acres of land, perhaps, if you allow the Clause to remain unamended will be aggregated together. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] The hon. Member is not only wasting my time but his own. If the Chairman tells me I am out of Order I shall sit down, but until the Chairman tells me to do so I shall continue what I was saying, however unpleasant it may be to the landlord garrison. No man who knows country life, and who has lived in the villages and seen the cottages of the agricultural labourer will deny that the conditions some of the labourers cottages now existing are so abominable that they are a disgrace to a Christian country, and we want by this Amendment to put some economic pressure upon the landowner to compel him to part with land he is now holding up. I can take the Members of this House into a great many of these villages, and if I asked them if they would rather live in the stables or in the cottages they would prefer the stables, and would be well advised in doing so. I hope that the Government and the men who value social reform on these benches, and who know the tragedy involved in the condition of these villages, will help us to pass this Amendment which is intended to deal with a real deficiency in the Revenue Bill. If the Amendment is not adopted in regard to urban areas you will prevent the
  1166
  most valuable provision of the original Act carrying out its most beneficient work and dealing with the social problem in the countryside. I hope the Government will realise that the feeling on this Amendment will not be represented entirely by the number of Members who go into the lobby in support of it, and that they will be making a great error if in order to please their Friends on the other side they deliberately place an obstacle in the way of something which is going to help to the solution of the housing problem in the villages.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: I rise because the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) has now arrived, and I want to explain just for a moment what the situation is that has produced this Amendment. It is not an obstructive Amendment, and if it was accepted we would go on merrily at once. Last night a discussion took place upon the question whether this Clause in its present form would not be too extended in its applicability, and whether it might not be quite possible for a landlord if this Clause were carried, while he might have some fine building sites on a public road insisting upon having a considerable amount of hinterland brought into the valuation in order to reduce the value down to a certain point. Then he could claim a reduction of the Land Taxes. The landlords have considerably more power than any other section of the community, and they can bring pressure to bear on the Government in a way in which no one else can. It was, therefore, suggested that there should be some limitation as to the amount of land that should be brought into a single valuation for the purpose of reducing the site value. It was pointed out that if the Clause remained as it was it might be insisted on a big estate being put into one valuation, and that would interfere with and reduce the whole business to a nullity. The hon. Member for Chelmsford said himself that he thought after the difficulties had been pointed out and the possibilities of the Clause without limitation had been explained that there ought to be some limitation in the amount which should be taken in on one valuation and valued as one plot of land. He himself, therefore, suggested this Amendment, which is now being moved, strange as it may seem to Noble Lords below the Gangway, on the other side of the House. I am bound to confess that if there was one thing which would

  1167
  have caused me to be suspicious of the Amendment it is the fact that it was suggested by the hon. Member for Chelmsford, but, evidently, he did that without having considered the whole effects of its legislative action, because I notice now he is not giving the proposition the support which he gave it last night, as he is already shaking his head at my suggestion that he inspired the Amendment. It is not an obstructive one; it is not an unfair one; and I am sure if Noble Lords opposite were not great landlords themselves they would see that it was absolutely fair and would not shout, "Divide, divide," at every Member who suggested that the Government should insist upon introducing into the Clause something which would at least give effect to the principle supported by the hon. Gentleman on the front Opposition Bench last night.
  Mr. W. R. PEEL Mr. W. R. PEEL 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 wish, if I may, to bring the Committee back to the real point made with regard to this Amendment. The hon. Member for Chelmsford stated quite frankly last night that this new Clause was inserted at the instance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the fulfilment of a pledge that he gave him. That is perfectly plain. In the course of the discussion the hon. Gentleman frankly and freely admitted that the Clause, as drafted, was considerably wider than the case for which he asked the concession. He stated that he had no idea that such a state of things as the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) indicated, would be possible under the Clause, and he further said in the most definite language that if an Amendment were proposed for the purpose of putting that right he would support that Amendment. I am endeavouring under those circumstances to ask the hon. Member to fulfil the pledge he gave last night, and I think the whole of this suggestion of obstruction will immediately come to and end if the hon. Gentleman will rise in his place and say that now today he supports this Amendment as he supported it last night. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] He did support it in the most definite manner, and the Noble Lord said this afternoon that if he did he knew nothing about it. I can only say that in the whole political history of this country
  1168
  there has never been greater ingratitude than that of the Noble Lord to the one Member on that side of the House who has been able to make an Amendment to this Bill even plausibly in the House or in the country. We are fully entitled, in view of the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman that what he asked the concession for was to deal merely with the case of small houses in towns, to say we will not have imposed upon us a Clause so wide. Even ten acres is said to be excessive. We who are interested in this matter have deep convictions. We are not here to defend vested interests. We are here to defend deep-seated convictions. When the right hon. Gentleman assures us that if, when the Clause is put in operation, the difficulties we foresee actually occur, we shall then get other legislation, I desire to remind him that he is legislating not for the lifetime of this Parliament, but for the lifetime of future Parliaments, and I ask him, in view of the exhibition this afternoon, if it is found that these difficulties arise when a Conservative Government is in power, what hope he thinks the people of this country will have that the matter will be dealt with with fairness or impartiality. When Noble Lords will not even allow discussion——
  The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the Noble Lord not to continue constantly interrupting our proceedings in the way he is doing.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I should like to ask you, Sir, whether you consider it fair when we are carrying on a debate under these strict conditions of time, Members on the Government side should take up the whole time of the House?
  The CHAIRMAN: It is not a matter for me to express an opinion on at all, but I am perfectly certain, if the debate were carried on more quietly and with less interruption, we should proceed very much more quickly.
  Mr. RAFFAN: I desire simply to make an appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman). I think I am entitled to put fairly to the House and to the Government if, in view of the exhibition this afternoon, they think that when a Conservative Government is in power there is the slightest hope that the matter would then be remedied. I appeal to the Government, if they object to the hon. Member's (Mr. Wedgwood) form of words, at any rate to give us limiting words which will give some permanent protection to the people of this country. I wish it to be

  1169
  remembered that we are discussing a Clause which is a concession to the Opposition, and therefore men upon this side of the House, who take exception to these concessions to the Opposition, ought surely not to be debarred merely because we are working under a Closure Resolution from the only opportunity which is open to them to express their convictions.
  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. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to move, to leave out the word "ten" and to insert instead thereof the words "one hundred." It must be generally agreed by anyone who has listened impartially to the Debate that the suggested new Clause, as it stands, leaves much too wide a latitude to the valuers—so wide that it almost seems a resignation of the powers of legislation by the House to the valuers. The only re-
  sult can be to create an enormous number of anomalies up and down the country. I, therefore, suggest that the Government should accept the Amendment, with the substitution of the words "a hundred" for the word "ten."
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I should be perfectly willing to accept the Amendment so that the Clause would run "shall not in the aggregate exceed a hundred acres in extent."
  Mr. BARNES: I should like to say a word or two in favour of the principle of the original Amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN: There is an Amendment moved to the Amendment. We must get that settled, and then there will be no objection to the hon. Member dealing with the Amendment as a whole.
  Question put, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 69; Noes, 310.

  Division No. 88.]

  AYES.

  [4.40 p.m.

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

  Harwood, George

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Alden, Percy

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Barnes, George N.

  Hinds, John

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Bethel), Sir John Henry

  Hudson, Walter

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Black, Arthur w.

  Johnson, W.

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Rowlands, James

  Byles, William Pollard

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Clynes, John R.

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Snowden, Philip

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Lansbury, George

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

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

  Sutton, John E

  Crooks, William

  Logan, John William

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Duncan, C (Barrow-in-Furness)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

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

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Martin, Joseph

  Wardle, George J.

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

  Neilson, Francis

  Watt, Henry A.

  Gill, A. H.

  Ogden, Fred

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Goldstone, Frank

  O'Grady, James

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Hancock, John George

  Pointer Joseph

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Harvey, T. E (Leeds, W.)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Wedgwood and Mr. Kellaway.

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

  Pringle, William M. R.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Acland, Francis Dyke

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

  Bigland, Alfred

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

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Bird, A.

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. V.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Boyle, w. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

  Barnston, Harry

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawich B.)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Armitage, R.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Brigg, Sir John

  Ashley, W. W

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Barton, W.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Astor, Waldorf

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Burgoyne, A. H.

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Baird, J. L.

  Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Butt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

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

  Butcher, J. G.

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

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bentham, G. J.

  Campion, W. R.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Cassel, Felix

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Cator, John

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cave, George

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Hughes, S. L.

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

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

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

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

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Quitter, William Eley C.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Radford, G. H

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Ratcliff Major R. F.

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Kirkwood, John H. M.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Knight, Captain E. A.

  Rice, Hon. W. F.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Robinson, Sydney

  Croft, H. P.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Royds, Edmund

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

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

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

  St. Maur, Harold

  Delany, William

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

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

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

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

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Lynch, A. A.

  Sanderson, Lancelot.

  Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

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

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Maclean, Donald

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Spear, John Ward

  Falle, P. G.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Fell, Arthur

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Laren, H. D (Leics.)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Ferens, T. R.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Summers, James Woolley

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Sykes, Alan John

  Forster, Henry William

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Taylor, T. C. (Radcliff)

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Meagher, Michael

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Touche, George Alexander

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Glanville, H. J.

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Valentia, Viscount

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Verney, Sir Henry

  Goldman, C. S.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Morgan, George Hay

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Grant, J. A.

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Greene, W. R.

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

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Gretton, John

  Muldoon, John

  Webb, H.

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

  Munro, R.

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Wheler, Granville C. A

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

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

  Hackett, J.

  Newdegate, F. A.

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

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Newman, John R. P.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Nield, Herbert

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Harris, Henry Percy

  O'Donnell, Thomas

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

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

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

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

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

  Winfrey, Richard

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

  Palmer, Godfrey

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

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

  Hills, John Waller

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Younger, George

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

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

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

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

  Hodge, John

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  Question put, "That the words 'one hundred' be there inserted."
  The Committee proceeded to a Division.
  Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland were appointed Tellers for the Ayes; but, no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, the Chairman declared the Ayes had it
  Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move to leave out the word "expedient" ["special circumstances of the case it is expedient to do so."] and to insert instead thereof the word "equitable."
  I feel confident no Member of this House would wish in a case where there is a conflict of opinion as between what is expedient and what is equitable that the Commissioners should be placed in the position that they could not do what was equitable, if they wished to do so.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I am willing to accept the word "equitable."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Saving for Statutory Companies.)
  Notwithstanding anything contained in the principal Act, where under the provisions of any lease or agreement any statutory company are required to pay over any part of the increment value of any land to His Majesty, or to any person on behalf of His Majesty, or and Department of Government, that part of the increment value shall, for the purposes of the provisions of the said Act as to the collection of Increment Value Duty, be treated as increment value arising in respect of land held by His Majesty.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."—[Mr. Hobhouse.]
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. STANLEY WILSON: As the originator of this Clause, I should like to say a few words upon it. Allow me, in the first place, to thank the Government for having accepted the Clause and thereby fulfilled the promise they gave to me a year and a-half ago. I will briefly explain to the House my reasons for having proposed the Clause, and also on behalf of the Government, I will explain their reasons for having accepted it. I placed this Clause on the paper originally in the interest of the Humber Conservancy Board, and also in the interest of any company that may be placed in a similar
  1174
  position. The Humber Conservancy Board are a statutory company under the Act, and they are the leaseholders of the foreshore of the Humber. They hold it under a 999 years' lease; but there is a reservation that on any sale of the foreshore a third of the price that is paid is to go to the Board of Trade. The Committee will see that this Clause gives a small, but only a very small, relief to the Humber Conservancy Board. It frees from Increment Duty that portion of the price which goes to the Government. I think everybody must admit that this is a fair and reasonable proposition. If the Government wish the figures showing what the effect would be, and how small the benefit would be to the Conservancy Board, I have got them in my pocket, and will give them if desired; but I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee unnecessarily. Hon. Members below the Gangway, the land taxers, have already occupied the time of the Committee to such an extent that I hope on this Clause they will not consider it necessary to intervene, because I think even they will see the entire justice of the Clause. I should like incidentally to remark that the Humber Conservancy is not one for making profit. Its sole, object is the benefit of the traders on the river Humber. A year and a half ago the hon. Member for East Hull (Mr. Ferens), a supporter of the Government, and I did our best to get this Clause inserted in the Budget Bill which was then before the House. On the Committee stage I moved an Amendment which was a great deal wider than that which the Government have adopted now. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told me then that he could not accept it, but he added that if something could be brought forward on Report which would commend it to him, he would accept it. Negotiations took place before the Report stage, and this Amendment was put on the Paper with the full approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but unfortunately, for family reasons, I was unable to be present on the Report stage. Through some misunderstanding the Attorney-General, who was left in charge of the Report stage on that occasion, refused at the last moment to accept the Amendment which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for East Hull. We were thus prevented from getting the Amendment accepted by the Government. Immediately afterwards, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted the mistake which was then made and promised to insert it on the first opportunity.

  1175
  This is the first opportunity he has had of accepting this Amendment, and therefore I thank him and thank the Government for having fulfilled their promise.
  Clause read a second time and added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to the Borough of Dewsbury.)
  The borough of Dewsbury (including the added part of Soothill Upper amalgamated therewith), and the urban districts of Ravensthorpe, Soothill Nether, and Thornhill, which in pursuance of the Dewsbury Extension Order, 1909, as confirmed by the Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 6) Act, 1909, were, as from the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and ten, to form one borough to be called the borough of Dewsbury, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in that Order, continue for the period of fifteen years from that date to be separate urban areas for the purpose of Scale 3 in the First Schedule to the principal Act.
  Motion made and question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."—[Mr. Hobhouse.]
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The Committee will remember that the Finance Bill of 1909 contained a provision that there should be fixed certain minimum license duties in county boroughs and other urban districts. These minimum license duties varied on a scale of the population of the places concerned, as stated in Scale 3, Schedule 1, of the Finance Act of 1909–10. While the Bill was under consideration representations were made on behalf of the borough of Stoke-on-Trent in connection with which a particular Amendment was made. Stoke-on-Trent at that time was being combined with a number of boroughs and urban districts into one single county borough under a Provisional Order, which was for a long time under the consideration of this House. But that Provisional Order recited that for twenty years, although those various localities should bear the title of Stoke-on-Trent, and should for many purposes be one, there should be differential rating, and they should not be financially homogeneous. It was pointed out that the effect of this Provisional Order then passing through the House would be that all the public-houses in Stoke-on-Trent
  1176
  would come upon the higher scale of minimum duty. Every publican would have to pay a minimum licence duty of £35, and there would be a minimum duty of £23 10s. for every beerhouse. It was suggested that this was an injustice, especially in view of the fact that Parliament, in the financial provisions of the Order provided that 20 years were to intervene before the borough for financial purposes should be a single borough, and consequently a provision was inserted in the Schedule to the effect that during those twenty years Stoke-upon-Trent was not to be regarded as one locality under the minimum scale, but should be counted as several localities, as it was in the Provisional Order. When the Bill was passed into law representations were made by the publicans of the borough of Dewsbury, showing that they were in precisely the same position as Stoke-upon-Trent. There is no other town in the country except Dewsbury in that position. They also were under the Provisional Order being changed into one large borough from several smaller towns. The effect would be to bring the public-houses of this small place under the higher scale of minimum duties. If the districts had not been so combined, the public-houses would have come upon a lower scale of minimum duties. They pointed out also that the Provisional Order made it clear that for a period of fifteen years the rating was to be differential, and they were to be considered a single corporation only for certain purposes, but not for financial purposes. This precise analogy of Stoke-on-Trent having been pointed out, it was impossible to resist the claim that the same provisions should apply to this place also. I hope, therefore, with that explanation the Committee will be able to do justice to the publicans of Dewsbury, even though they are represented by a Minister in this House.
  Mr. GRETTON: This is a very remarkable Clause and requires some little examination by the Committee before it is accepted in its present form. I am not opposing this Clause, which gives some relief to the licensed trade in Dewsbury and the district, but I claim that the relief now granted should be extended to other places in the same position. My objection to this Clause is that the relief granted is so limited as to be a very small thing. It will only affect Dewsbury and the surrounding districts, though it has reference to a grievance which affects very large areas indeed in the country. The remark-

  1177
  able thing about this Clause is that it is a direct acknowledgment by the Government itself that these minimum licence scales were a real hardship and that that hardship should be remedied in this particular case. Can the House think that if this borough had been represented by a Member on this side of the House it would have had the same consideration?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Certainly it would.
  Mr. GRETTON: I am glad to hear that, because we are going to move an Amendment to make all boroughs in the same position. I will take that as a pledge that that Amendment will be accepted. These minimum duties are extremely onerous. They commence at £5 for a public house and £2 10s. for a beer house in districts of less than 2,000 population, and they amount by successive increases in districts where the population is 100,000 to £35 in the case of a public house and £23 10s. in the case of a beer house, or exactly the same rateable value as in the smaller districts. They are crushing out of existence a large number of licensed houses in this country. I have in my pocket——
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is really discussing the scale. The scale does not affect an exception in regard to any particular case.
  Mr. GRETTON: My purpose is to show that this case is not an isolated one as argued by the Government, and that the exemption ought to be extended much further than about Dewsbury. I have on the Paper an Amendment which proposes to extend this exemption to other boroughs which are not represented by Members of the present Government.
  The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps as a matter of convenience, I might inform the hon. Gentleman that the Amendment is not in order because the Clause would not read after the Amendment was put in. The Clause, at a later point than that where the hon. Member moved to insert his Amendment, contains the words: "Shall not, notwithstanding anything contained in that Order." Obviously, those words do not apply if the words proposed by the hon. Member were inserted. With regard to the other Amendment which has been handed in by the hon. Member for Sheffield, I do not think he can move it as an Amendment of this Clause, it must be moved as a new Clause.
  Mr. GRETTON: The operative part of this Clause which the Government moved
  1178
  is the admission of the Government as to the existing injustice. It exists in every town in this country, and the complaint we make is that it is adopted by the Government for one borough only, and that borough happens to be represented by a prominent Member of the present Government. In the absence of some explanation much more thorough than that which has been just given by the Postmaster-General to this Committee, the only conclusion we can arrive at is that the Minister for Education is educating the Government in methods of using his influence for the benefit of his constituents which would not have been used for the benefit of any other constituency of this country.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Will the hon. Member give me any other case in which the circumstances are the same?
  Mr. GRETTON: Yes; other cases are coming forward in a few weeks. I understand that there are Provisional Orders before the House which are almost certain to be passed this Session, and which will create the very same circumstances, and there has been no indication by the Government that they are prepared, and there are no provisions in this measure which would permit them, to deal with other cases in the same way as they are dealing with the borough of Dewsbury. I suppose in a Bill of this nature we cannot urge an amendment dealing with the whole principle under discussion, but I can assure the Committee and the Government that there is no greater hardship on the licensed classes than the minimum scale, and that it is a matter we shall have to oppose to the utmost at every opportunity. Meantime I am glad to have from the Government an admission that they are prepared to apply the same principle to all cases which are on a similar footing to the borough of Dewsbury, and I shall hold them to the pledge they have now given publicly before the House and the country to introduce into the Revenue Bill the words of a new Clause which will enable them to carry out the undertakings that are inserted in this Clause and clear themselves of the suspicion that they are carrying out a bargain in the interests of a Member of their own Cabinet.
  Mr. CAVE: I think it is rather remarkable that the Government when it deals with a grievance which has been raised now for some months affecting a number of places only proposes to remedy the grievance in one place. For some months past complaint has been made that where you

  1179
  either turn a rural district into an urban district, or combine several urban districts or enlarge an urban district or a borough, the effect is automatically under the minimum scale of the Act of last year substantially to increase the Licence Duties of a number of public-houses. There is no doubt whatever that there are other eases besides the case of Dewsbury. I do not know whether there is any other complete case, but other cases are going to be completed immediately in which exactly the same point arises. Take one, for which I happen to have the figures. The effect in the Borough of Cambridge is this. There is in course of completion an order for extending the borough of Cambridge, with the result of increasing the population from about 38,000 to over 50,000. The effect there would be to increase by something like 50 per cent. the minimum duties upon the public-houses in that borough. Out of the 212 licensed houses in Cambridge no less than 154, or more than three-quarters, come under the minimum clause. With regard to those 154 houses, the effect of simply extending the borough would be to increase the licence duty by an average of £7 10s. per house. But besides that the order will bring into the Borough of Cambridge other houses which are now outside, in the rural districts. I am told there are thirty-one of those houses to be brought in. The effect on those houses is to increase their average Licence Duty per annum by about £12 10s. per house. Some of them will make a sudden jump by the mere fact of becoming part of this borough, from paying a duty of £5 to paying a duty of £30. The minimum is £5 outside the borough, in the rural district, and £30 is the minimum inside a borough having a population exceeding 50,000. Even as regards the rural beerhouse, paying £3 10s., it will suddenly jump to £20 under the minimum under the scale. This is hard upon houses which will not increase their custom owing to the mere fact that the arbitrary line of the borough boundary is extended to include it in the borough instead of its being outside. Here you have an instance of real hardship of the same kind as that to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and yet no step is taken in this Clause for remedying that hardship. As a matter of fact, it is only an instance, as my hon. Friend has remarked, of the many ways in which this minimum scale works injustice. If we get an oppor-
  1180
  tunity we shall certainly ask the House to consider whether the whole minimum scale ought not to be reduced to a more reasonable form. I cannot argue the whole point now, but I think I am entitled to add that in every case of extension, or urbanising or conversion into an urban district, this is what immediately occurs. And, more than that, we have the operation which is just going to take place of the Census Law, and the ascertainment of the result will immediately increase the Licence Duty of a number of these houses. I was astonished to find, on seeing the figures, to how large a proportion of cases the minimum duty applies. I was under the impression that only a small proportion would be subject to the duty, but I find that the minimum applies to three-fourths of the houses.
  Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order, Sir. I ask whether the hon. Member is justified in discussing the minimum scale?
  The CHAIRMAN: The minimum scale is not the subject of discussion; at the same time, the minimum scale has some bearing on this particular Amendment.
  Mr. CAVE: I am not going into the general question of the minimum scale, but I am giving an instance where, without increasing custom, and by the mere operation of the Census Law, the Licence Duty is automatically increased. My argument is that the Government ought to have provided, not for one isolated case, but for all cases coming within the same purview and having the same grievance. They should have come within a general clause. The mere operation of the Census Law will, owing to this minimum scale, increase the duties of a large number of houses, although everybody knows that in rural districts no increase of custom will come. I am not going to argue the whole case, but I have said enough to show that it is not right to deal with the matter in regard to one instance alone. I do not for one moment suggest that the Clause is due to the fact that a Member of the Government represents Dewsbury, but I cannot help thinking that if the Government had taken a little thought they would have seen that the grievance is a general one. I am unwilling myself to see one particular grievance dealt with alone, because I think the opportunity has come when the whole matter might be considered and dealt with by the House, and we ought not to restrict ourselves to one case only without considering all the others that are to come.

  1181
  I think we ought to have some further and better explanation why the Government have chosen to deal with one case, and not considered the whole matter which was fully before them.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster-General wants instances of cases similar to that of Dewsbury. I rise to call his attention to a case in process of completion which is of a very important character—I mean the extension which has already taken place, and is taking place, of the boundaries of the city of Birmingham. That municipality has already included, by a Local Government Board Order, and an Act passed in pursuance, the parish of Quinton, and there the work of unification is complete. But a very much more important scheme has passed through this House, and is likely, it is generally anticipated, to pass through another place—at any rate, it has been approved by this House, and as far as this House is concerned, the work of unification is complete—that is the annexation on an enormous scale by the city of Birmingham of another borough and urban and rural districts in my own Constituency. I am afraid I have not got the exact figures as to the population, or as to the effect of the Licence Duty, as was done with so much effect by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cave); but perhaps I may say this, as regards my own Constituency of East Worcestershire, there are, roughly, 25,000 electors in that constituency; and I think about half of them will be annexed by the Birmingham Bill—the whole of the rural districts of Yardley, King's Norton, and Northfield, which come in the Division of the hon. Member for North Worcestershire. Part of that is undoubtedly urban area, but part of it is essentially rural. There are many in stances of absolutely rural land over which there is no prospect of building for a good while to come, which will be included.
  An HON. MEMBER: They ought never to be included.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is a question which we cannot now discuss. I have taken no part in the discussion myself as to whether they ought to be included or not, being in the position of having one-half of my Constituency of one way of thinking, while the other half is of the other way of thinking. By the proposal promoted in this House and now before the other House, there is every probability that this enormous area will be brought into the city of Birmingham. It
  1182
  never could have been in the contemplation of the Government, and it certainly was not foreseen by them when the Finance Bill was passed, or when this Bill was before the House of Commons, that one result of the two Bills working together would be to automatically raise the Licence Duty of a great number of publicans, while other circumstances which affect their trade and the income that they could make would remain exactly the same. I cannot conceive on what principle the Government have acted. The Postmaster-General seemed to resent any suspicion of the fact that the Member for Dewsbury is one of the Cabinet, that he had peculiar opportunities of impressing the grievance of his constituency upon the Government, and that his own views should have weighed with the Government at all. But they must have known as well as everybody else that the borough of Dewsbury does not stand alone, and even if it were the only case which was completed up to the present, excepting the case of the Potteries town, which has been already dealt with, they must have known that the same kind of case would be constantly occurring in future, and if it was just to provide for the case of Dewsbury, it was equally just to provide for other cases. Why in these circumstances they should have singled out Dewsbury, except from the fact that Dewsbury had a powerful advocate in the Government, I have not been able to discover, and the Government have not been able to explain. I do not complain that in the case of Dewsbury the Government have met a real and admitted grievance; I do not want to blame them for anything they have done in that case; but I do say they are absolutely bound to extend to other constituencies which are not represented in the Cabinet the same treatment which they have given to the case of Dewsbury.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman calls for some further reply, although I had hoped I would be able to make the clause abundantly clear by showing the Committee quite distinctly that Dewsbury and Stoke-upon-Trent stand in a completely different category from any other borough in the country. What I have to say now will be to some extent a repetition of what I said before. Of course everyone is well aware that local Government bounds are frequently changed owing to changes in local circumstances. Almost every year extensions are made by some of the municipalities to include outlying areas, and this has an

  1183
  effect, not merely upon the Licence Duty, but upon the local rates. The householder who has been paying rates in a rural parish suddenly in one year, owing to the extension of the municipality, finds himself paying rates on the urban scale.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: In the case of Birmingham special rate privileges are accorded to districts which are incorporated. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Not all of them."] I think there was one case, but in that instance the rate was higher than in Birmingham. I believe that in every case in which the rates were lower these special rate privileges were accorded for a term of years, extending up to twenty years in one case.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am taking the general case given by the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave), who stated that Cambridge is extending its areas to places which are rural parishes. He did not say that there was any differentiation allowed to those parishes.
  Mr. CAVE: It is very common.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: As a rule, with Provisional Orders, the outlying districts are simply taken in, and the publican, like any other ratepayer, finds that the burden placed upon him is on the urban scale instead of, as previously, the rural scale. So far no cases at all have been brought to the knowledge of the Treasury, until this moment the case of Birmingham, which are on all fours with Stoke-upon-Trent and Dewsbury—not one. I have inquired of the officials of the Board of Excise, who say that not a single instance has come to their notice in any part of the country in which a town has been placed in a position such as Dewsbury and Stoke-upon-Trent have been placed in, namely, of having been united into a single borough within quite lately, and at the same time a long period of differential rating allowed, showing that, in the opinion of those who made the Provisional Order, the borough was not yet really one homogeneous borough.
  That is the basis on which we proceeded, and it is that which differentiates Dewsbury from other towns, and not the fact that it happens to be represented by a Cabinet Minister. I am astounded that the hon. Member, such as the hon. Member for Rutland (Mr. Gretton) should have thought it worthy of himself or of this House to suggest that this was done for Cabinet reasons, or that it was done for
  1184
  corrupt motives, and that we are giving revenue away in order to please a Member of the Cabinet, and not on any ground of principle. I was delighted to hear the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) do what anyone would naturally expect from him, and immediately express his entire disagreement from so unworthy a suggestion. The only differentiation between Dewsbury and other towns is, of course, that there has been the differential rating allowed for a period of fifteen years following a Provisional Order, and we have allowed differential rating for the same period for the assessment of the Licence Duty. In the case of Stoke we took a period of twenty years, because that was the period fixed in the Provisional Order relating to that town. Let hon. Members opposite, if they will, criticise the whole plan of the minimum Licence Duty, and we shall have a good answer to give, but on this particular occasion I think I have succeeded in showing that there is a differentiation with regard to Dewsbury from other towns.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will you include Birmingham?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If in the case of Birmingham the facts are on all fours then, of course, the matter must be considered on a similar footing.
  Mr. CAVE: And Cambridge?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is not on all fours. We must investigate into these cases if hon. Members are good enough to give particulars, but all I can say is that their constituencies have not been very well served since, with the analogy of Stoke-upon-Trent standing upon the face of the Act of 1909 they waited all this while, to the last moment before representing the case.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I think the last sentence has come very oddly from the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman. He is perfectly aware in the first place, or at least I imagine I am right in saying that the Members for those boroughs represent the old and not the extensive boroughs. Then what is the meaning of the taunt, the perfectly unnecessary taunt in any case and now meaningless?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Hon. Members pointed out how persons in the old boroughs were affected.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The old borough may be injured, but the injury is obviously greater in the districts which are added to

  1185
  the municipal borough but which are not added to the Parliamentary borough, whose local interests a Member of this House is bound to consider. Quite apart from that rather trifling point made by the right hon. Gentleman, I think he will see that the defence of the Government is utterly inadequate. The right hon. Gentleman objects, and very strongly, to the suggestion that the policy pursued by the Government is due to the fact that it is because Dewsbury happens to be represented by a Cabinet Minister. Let me say he must have perferctly well known that as the borough, to which this Bill alone referred, was represented by a Cabinet Minister, that it was all important to the Government, from their own point of view, to do their very best to show that they were not applying a general proposition to a particular case, that particular case being one of their own immediate friends. Why have they not taken the trouble, and if they will not take that trouble, why do they complain of the natural inference which the policy pursued inevitably suggests. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Treasury made anxious inquiries, but despite all their inquiries, they never succeeded in finding out what was going on in even the unknown and populous city of Birmingham. They are not only ignorant of what was going on in Birmingham, but as my right hon. Friend (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) pointed out, the Bill dealing with this very question of Birmingham has been before this House on more than one occasion.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: We cannot deal with the measure that is not passed.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I must say that if that is the principle on which the right hon. Gentleman is going, it is surprising. In this case it is not denied, whether it is a universal case or not, that there is a differential rating. The right hon. Gentleman admits that where there is differential rating that there the publicans have a case. Here is an example of a Bill that has passed this House, which is supported by the Local Government Board, which has every possibility of passing into law, and yet because it is not passed the whole interests of Birmingham and East Worcestershire are to be brushed aside. That is an incredible policy. In my opinion the Government case absolutely breaks down on the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. His statement does not go far enough. He lays down the proposition apparently that where there is no different-
  1186
  tial rating the publican can have no complaint. He says you bring in from outside of a borough a certain number of ratepayers, and, instead of allowing them to come in and pay the old rates, you immediately impose the heavier rate, which presumably existed within the old limits of the borough, and that where that is done the publican shares the fate of the ratepayer. The ratepayer is a ratepayer, but the publican is a taxpayer with no connection with the borough, and the two cases are quite different. I am not here to defend the equity of our rating arrangements. Everybody, including the Government, admits that the rating arrangements of this country leave a great deal to be desired, and press with great hardship and severity on certain classes of ratepayers. That is not denied. But simply to say that a man has to pay more taxes because he pays more rates when no other claim whatever is made, that surely is not a principle which the Government are going to lay down as a principle with any common-sense equity or high statesmanship.
  Here is the case of a publican whom you thought was adequately taxed, and I am not now speaking of rates. You put on him a Licence Duty of £5; you suddenly raise that Licence Duty for taxation purposes, and not for rating purposes, from £5 to £20. We say, why do you raise in and quadruple it when no alteration has taken place, when he has no more customers, and when he is under no more favourable circumstances? Why, when he is not better able to pay that £20, is he to be mulcted? You cannot show from any single point of view that that man is more properly a subject for taxation when he has been forced into the bigger borough or bigger population than he was before. Surely there must be some principle underlying the policy in this case. Why is the Dewsbury publican, apart from his felicity in being so admirably represented, apart from that exceptional piece of good fortune, why is he to be spared taxation that his brother publican in another and neighbouring borough, to which he has been attached or is in process of being attached, is to have no relief from at all. It appears to the right hon. Gentleman that the Dewsbury publican is specially worthy of being relieved from his taxes because an arrangement has been come to which relieves him of his rates. Why is that a claim for relief from taxation? I should have thought that he was exceptionally fortunate in enjoying that privilege, and that he had no additional claim to relief from taxation.

  1187
  The broad equities of the case surely are perfectly clear. They do not admit, of doubt. I do not believe any hon. Gentleman on the other side will contradict the broad proposition that if it be not just and right because a publican suddenly finds himself without any increase in his means of livelihood that he should be taxed four times his original amount simply because, by an arrangement with the Local Government Board, he is suddenly transferred to a larger area, if that is the broad principle, and it is the only principle which underlies the policy adopted in the Dewsbury case or the Potteries case, then you ought to extend that principle wherever it applies. If you do not extend that principle wherever it applies you are open to the charge or suspicion that some unknown motive not connected with the principle is really moving you. I should have thought the Government, in their own interests, would see the absolute necessity of extending to all cases, properly and equitably applied, the principle which they have chosen to embody in legislative enactment in the case of the Potteries, and which is now proposed in the case of Dewsbury. I think that they have behaved right in the case of Dewsbury and in the case of the Potteries, and they have applied a principle plainly capable of extension, or rather which should be plainly capable of extension outside those two boroughs, and if they wish to earn the title that they are really treating similar cases similarly without respect of party, without prejudice, without discrimination, then it seems to me absolutely necessary, even from their own point of view, that they should give a just and logical extension to a principle the equity of which they themselves have admitted both in the Bill before us and in the Act of 1909.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: I wish the right hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House knew a little more about Dewsbury. I happen to have some knowledge of it. I did not intend to take part in this discussion, but after the exhibition of ignorance on the part of the Leader of the Opposition as to this particular case which we are discussing I do so. I happen to have lived within two miles of Dewsbury all my life. There is a very material point of difference between the Potteries case and this case, and any other case that I have heard mentioned here to-night unless new Birmingham is to be in its
  1188
  essence an aggregation of separately, and almost equally, existing places before, which we know it is not. This is a case of a small area that is having some large areas added to it, and no doubt on a large scale. The important feature in the case of Dewsbury, and any one who knows the district will confirm me, is that whereas in the case of the Potteries, five towns, more or less equal, were combined in one, three of them, I think, boroughs, and one or two urban district councils, in this case one borough is being combined with three and a-half urban districts, but some of the districts are almost equal in importance to the borough of Dewsbury itself.
  Mr. BALFOUR: Will the hon. Member tell us why it makes a difference that joined bodies should be equal, and that there is not that difference when the planet falls into the sun?
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: I will try without any reference to the planet to explain. There really is, in my humble opinion, a difference in principle where a number of smaller bodies, that are practically offshoots of the central body, are joined in one from the case of several independent bodies which are highly organised, which have their own sewerage works, separate gasworks, and in several cases separate waterworks, and some of which once did not expect and did not desire to be joined to Dewsbury. I helped the proposal through the Committee upstairs, although I belonged to the borough of Batley, which is supposed to be somewhat jealous of Dewsbury. I am not in any way partial to Dewsbury, and Batley is supposed to be a rival as well as a close neighbour. But when that scheme came before the Committee upstairs arguments were brought forward which I think showed that this special treatment should be given. In one case a large part of the population is separated from the remainder by fields. This case is more a combination of several similar areas than a case of planets falling into the sun, if I may employ the metaphor which has already been used. It is quite different from the cases of Cambridge and Birmingham.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: In what way?
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: Birmingham is much more the centre of a district——
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think the hon. Member is familiar with

  1189
  the district of which Birmingham is the centre. The hon. Member lays stress on the fact that large populous districts included in Dewsbury are separated by areas of fields.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: In one case.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I can show him several cases exactly like that if he comes down to Birmingham.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: I believe the Government will treat the right hon. Gentleman's constituency as fairly as they are treating the constituency of the Member for Dewsbury. I cannot believe that any Gentleman has made in good faith the insinuation that they would do otherwise. This is a public matter, and it would be absurd to think that there could be smuggled through Parliament a Clause which was unfair to the rest of the community. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Members opposite think that that could be done they certainly underrate the ability of the junior Member for the City of London. I assure the Committee that the reasons which justify exceptional treatment in the case of the townships of which Dewsbury is now made up are very similar in character and apply to the same extent as in the case of the Potteries. I have not taken any part in this matter, public or private; nobody has asked me to speak, but after hearing what has been said I could not help feeling that the House ought to know from one Member who is familiar with the district that it is not at all the usual case of a large borough having subordinate areas incorporated with it. There are the same reasons for giving the publicans in this district preferential treatment as have operated in inducing a Committee of this House to give the added parts of the borough of Dewsbury preferential rating for the next fifteen years. I take it that the principle of amalgamation will not be fully consummated until the end of that fifteen years' period. The real question is not whether the principle of levying higher rates for licences in large populous centres than in smaller areas is right or wrong, but whether in this particular case that principle is being equitably applied. Speaking, as I think, with great knowledge and without any prejudice in favour of Dewsbury, I offer the House my sincere opinion that this is an exceptional case, practically, if not quite, on all fours with the Potteries district, and not on all fours with cases like Cambridge or an ordinary
  1190
  large borough which has a few smaller areas added to it. The hon. Member for Kingston referred to the Census. But the Census has nothing to do with the matter. It is only recognising facts which already exist. The real question at issue is whether the principle already laid down by Parliament is being fairly applied in this particular case, and I wish to offer my humble but well-informed opinion that it is.
  Mr. NEWDEGATE: May I also give my very well informed opinion? If Birmingham and the places which are taken into Birmingham are not treated in the same way as Dewsbury the Government will be doing an immense injustice to the locality which I represent. In my division there is the case of Erdington, which has been an urban district, with from 10,000 to 15,000 inhabitants. According to the original Act, the minimum duty on publicans' licences was £20, and on beer house licences £13. Now that Erdington is to be added to the City of Birmingham the minimum publican's licence will jump up from £20 to £35, and the minimum beer house licence from £13 to £23 10s. I am sorry the hon. Member for Aston Manor (Mr. E. Cecil) is absent through illness. Had he been present he would have spoken for Aston Manor. Personally I can only say that if the Government do not give a pledge that they will treat these districts in the same way as they are treating Dewsbury, I, and other Members on this side, will go all over the country declaring that the Government have been guilty of a very great job. Supposing we had been on the other side of the House, and hon. Members opposite had been criticising us; it would have been in every paper in the country and in every Radical leaflet that the Conservative party, the landlord party, the publicans' party, the licensed victuallers' party, had been guilty of a great injustice. If the Government and the Radical party act as they intend to do at present and do not give justice to Birmingham and the other districts which we represent, they will be guilty of a monstrous injustice. I hope that even at this late hour the Government will give a definite assurance that justice will be done to us who are so deeply affected.
  Mr. W. F. ROCH: I should like to be satisfied that the case of Dewsbury cannot be met by some general words or by some general principle which would bring in any other case in which the same facts exist. It is well known to many Members

  1191
  that the Brmingnam Bill was said to be a general test Bill and a forerunner of another Bill in which a similar policy would be adopted. To me the case of Birmingham seems very similar to that of Dewsbury, and in future, when these various solar systems have evolved, or the lesser have been swallowed up by the greater or vice versa, we shall have the cases of Birmingham and Dewsbury multiplied. I cannot see why, with the galaxy of legal talent on the Treasury Bench, general words covering the case of Dewsbury could not be drafted. I do not mean to say that there is any unpleasant flavour about mentioning Dewsbury, but it is curious drafting, and a very poor method of drafting to set up as a precedent. I hope that even now the Attorney-General will satisfy us that this case cannot be met by general words. Personally I shall not be able to vote for this proposal unless I am satisfied in that respect.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I hope the Government will see their way to accede to the request made by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Roch). They have got into an untenable position. It will be said all over the country that the town of Dewsbury is being specially favoured because it is represented by a Member of His Majesty's Government. It is impossible for them to get over that difficulty, and I strongly advise them to follow the course sugested by the hon. Member opposite and bring up a clause in general terms. I have handed in an Amendment to this effect:—
  "That this provision shall apply in the case of al future extensions of boroughs in a similar manner."
  The Chairman has informed me, however, that I could not move that as an Amendment to the Clause; it must be introduced as a new Clause. The difficulty is that if I put down a new Clause it will come at the end, and I shall not get a chance of moving it. I would suggest, therefore, that the Government, having heard the arguments, and, I think, being impressed by the difficulties of their position, should give an undertaking to bring up such a Clause on Report. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about making a distinction between extensions where there is a differential rating and cases where there is not. The Leader of the Opposition broke down that argument completely. The reasons are absolutely the same whatever be the extension. The publican is the same. What does it matter
  1192
  to him whether there is differential rating or not. The principle of differential rating is very common indeed. It is applied in the Committee Rooms almost every week. I had experience of it when in practice in a large city in a case in which we were obliged to give way to the outside areas by agreeing to differential rating for fifteen years. Now that the grievance has been pointed out to the Government I hope that they will meet it. I am told that inside the boundaries of the present town of Cambridge there cannot be any further building. There is no room for it, and the population cannot exceed 50,000. But under the extension which is going on it is to be artificially increased to over 50,000, with the result that the higher scale will apply. That is a grievance which will be felt both inside and outside the town of Cambridge. Therefore, I hope the Government will meet us in a reasonable manner.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The reason, may I once more explain to the Committee, that the Borough of Dewsbury was proposed to be dealt with was not on account of the merits of the particular case, but because our information was that it was the only case. The representations did not come to us from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman) but from the publicans of Dewsbury. The representations which were made by the publicans of Dewsbury—who, by the way, are not supporters of the Minister for Education, but are his most bitter opponents—were representations which could have been made by publicans in any other locality similarly situated. That is the sole reason why this particular instance was proposed to be included in the Clause. But I take it that it is the general desire of the Committee that an effort should be made to see whether or not general words should be used in this connection. While I give no pledge upon the subject, the Government are willing to withdraw this Clause, and to see whether or not this principle of differentiation is the right line of discrimination in these cases. If it is, then we will see in what form words, to give effect to that principle, should be embodied in the Bill.
  Mr. W. R. PEEL: After the criticisms which have been made upon them I am very glad that the Government are practically going to withdraw this Clause. I only want to call attention to one very peculiar point in connection with this case. The right hon. Gentleman has stated

  1193
  that the reason this Clause was put down by the Government had nothing whatever to do with the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Education. He said that it was entirely due to the fact that representations were made to the Government by the publicans of the district. I should like to call attention to a very remarkable fact in connection with this Clause. In the first place the Clause was put down in the name of an hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House, who, I am informed, is the Parliamentary private secretary of the President of the Board of Education. It is still down in his name. Apparently this story about the representations of the publicans of Dewsbury is all very well, but it certainly came first from the Gentleman I have mentioned. No doubt the private secretary came to the President of the Board of Education, and the President naturally used his influence in order to back up his private secretary, to back up the publicans whose vote he hoped to get. But let us be quite clear about this. Does not the action of the Government, the representations to the Government, come to this: That the Government take up a private Member's clause, that private Member happening to be private secretary to a Minister who happens to represent the particular town to which this particular Clause happens to apply. It is a most extraordinary set of coincidences, because we are assured by the right hon. Gentleman that the President of the Board of Education had nothing whatever to do with it.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I did not say so. I said that the representations were initiated by the publicans of Dewsbury. They naturally went to their Member of Parliament, as publicans in any place would do. Of course, the President was acquainted with all the circumstances of the case.
  Mr. W. R. PEEL: Then apparently it was intended that the publicans should be backed up, and powerfully backed up, by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education. That only makes the whole thing worse. I want to understand how it was that these arguments were put forward. When they were brought before the House of Commons they were found to be so weak that the right hon. Gentleman himself could not support them—and there is no more ingenious arguer than the right hon. Gentleman. He had to give way. I listened to the observations of the hon. Gentleman
  1194
  behind him. After having supported the right hon. Gentleman he has run away! He said that my right hon. Friend below me knew nothing whatever about the case. My observation to that is that I think ignorance is far better than knowledge, because the hon. Gentleman opposite only produced arguments that I confess I could not understand at all. The argument of the hon. Gentleman who knew all about it was an argument which proved exactly the converse of the circumstances of the case which the right hon. Gentleman got up to defend. I have been very interested in hearing these arguments, for I must say that if the Government were going to do something for one of the distinguished Members of their Cabinet they might, to support it, produce arguments more plausible.
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I raise no objection to the Government withdrawing this particular Clause. That may be the right course for them to adopt. But I should very seriously object, so far as my own opinion was concerned, to our sliding away from this particular case of Dewsbury, which can be, I think, distinguished on certain grounds, into the general principle, as I understand, that wherever you have differential rating in future you are going to differentiate the Licence Duties in districts such as we are dealing with. I see absolutely no grounds for such action, and I sincerely hope the Government will not adopt that principle at all. What is the principle on which minimum Licence Duties can be justified? I imagine it is this: that in populations of particular areas where licensed premises form part of a given community you may expect such an amount of trade that it is but a fair and proper thing to require a minimum payment to the State as partial compensation for damage done by licensed premises, and as some guarantee that they should not be more numerous than is desirable for the State as a whole. If that is the principle, as I imagine it is, the mere fact of amalgamation means that these licensed premises in the district which are brought into the area are really part of the larger community and ought to pay those minimum Licence Duties which this House has, in the Finance Act, thought proper for populations which, by the fact of amalgamation, it is admitted that they form a part of. To say that in future, on the mere grounds of differential rating, you are going to differentiate the tax, would, I think, cause great grievance and be manifestly unfair.

  1195
  Obviously there will be difficulties where-ever you draw the line. But why differentiate in reference to the rating? I believe it almost invariably is the case that this differentiation of rating is conceded because it is necessary to concede it in order to get amalgamation through, and for no other reason whatever. That is part of the bargaining which goes on. Therefore, I see absolutely no grounds whatever for differentiation in the case of Licence Duties, and I sincerely hope the Government is not going in future to say that in all these cases where there is differentiation of rating the Licence Duties are themselves going to be differentiated. What is the only ground on which you can justify special exemption? Take the case of Stoke. Stoke, we remember, was a point during the Debates on the Finance Act in 1909–10, because Stoke was in process of amalgamation when the Budget was actually passing through the House of Commons. It was perfectly fair, I think, for Stoke to come forward and say: "Here is an arrangement being made over our heads, before we have realised what is involved in the amalgamation. In this measure now passing into law we make our special bargain, our special compact in the circumstances of the case." In the case of Dewsbury, it seems to me to be mainly a question of date. The confirmation Order is apparently dated 31st March, 1910, just about when, I daresay, there may have been a great deal of uncertainty as to whether the Finance Act was to be passed into law or not. In that case, owing to the doubt as to whether the Finance Act would pass or not, there may be a case for the special exemption of Dewsbury, but I must end as I began by saying that I most sincerely trust that the Government is not going to give a general exemption. Take the case of Birmingham. When the amalgamation was brought forward we heard not a single word of this. It must have been in some of our minds. Certainly it was in my mind. Surely it was in the minds of those interested in the licensed premises of Birmingham when the Act was passed. Not one word of special circumstances was mentioned. The arguments put forward possibly justify the exemption of Stoke, and perhaps also the case of Dewsbury. If the Government withdraw this Clause perhaps they will find that that is the best way out of the difficulty.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Extension of the right to claim exemptions, etc., from Income Tax in certain cases to widows resident abroad who are in receipt of pensions.)
  The proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 71 of the principal Act (which gives the right to persons resident abroad to claim relief, exemption, or abatement from Income Tax in certain cases) shall apply to a widow who is in receipt of a pension chargeable with Income Tax and granted to her in consideration of the employment of her late husband in the service of the Crown as it applies to the persons described in the proviso.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Our proposal here is a simple act of justice to a very limited class of persons. If the Committee look at Section 71 of the principal Act they will see there that the power was for a long time held to be inherent in the Treasury to absolve certain persons from the payment of these taxes. The power was an extra-statutory one, though not, I believe, much exercised. It was finally abrogated under the terms of Section 71 of the principal Act. No person could get relief wholly or partially from the payment of any tax if they were resident out of the United Kingdom and if their total income from all sources brought it within the operation of the Act itself. Exemption was given by the first Sub-section in the case of certain Civil and Crown servants. The Clause which I will now move is going to extend that exemption in the case of widows of Crown servants—I will not call them Civil servants, because it would apply to Naval and Military officers as well as Civil servants—who are in receipt of an Imperial pension—not a Colonial pension—and whose total income, from whatever source, whether chargeable or not to Income Tax is within the statutory limit. The particular reason for introducing this Clause is that there are a very small class of persons, widows of Colonial soldiers who fought in the South African War, and who are in receipt of very small pensions from Imperial funds, and who have to pay Income Tax because they are resident outside the United Kingdom. This Clause will relieve them of the payment of that tax and remove a cause of injustice which. I am sure, the whole Committee would desire to remove.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am in entire sympathy with the object the

  1197
  right hon. Gentleman has in view. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is right in thinking that the Clause will effect the purpose he desires; but I think the intentions of the Government, as expressed by him, are narrower than what is actually expressed in the principal Act. The Proviso in the principal Act deals with:—
  "Any person who is or has been employed in the service of the Crown or who is employed in the service of any missionary society abroad or in the service of any of the native States under the protectorate of the British Crown."
  Surely that does not refer to the widows of servants of the Crown in the Dominions or Colonies, where the salary is controlled directly or indirectly by this House. I do not think the words of the Clause are sufficient, and certainly the words of the principle Act are not sufficient.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the concluding words he will find that the Clause applies to payment from Imperial sources, and persons described in the Proviso of the principle Act.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think so. I think, under the provisions of the original Act, it did not matter from what source the pension was drawn, provided it was under the limit the recipient was entitled to the abatement. The principle Act provided only for abatement if the person resided out of the United Kingdom, and by the Proviso certain exceptions were made to that exception, and what I am calling attention to is, the case of persons who had been in the service of the Crown but who lived practically the whole of their lives abroad, and brought up their children there, and who would not at the age of sixty or later, when they retired, desire to break with the surroundings and conditions of a lifetime, and leave their children and return to this country. It would be very hard to expect them to do so, and it was to meet their case however arising, provided it arises in the service of the Crown, and it did not matter if it was only a portion of the service under the Crown controlled by this House or other portion of the service to the Crown controlled by the advice of other Ministers, other than those who sit in this House that I intervene.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think this Clause was put down to meet the case raised by Clause of mine lower down on the Paper.
  1198
  This Clause does not seem to me to go far enough. As I understand it, the exemption in this Clause only applies to pensions which widows receive on the death of their husbands. The original exemption in Section 71 of the principal Act applies to the whole of such incomes. I cannot see if a man has been in the service of the Crown and for reasons of his own lived abroad when he left the service, why, when his widow succeeds him and has to keep a family upon a smaller income after a deduction of Death Duties and other charges she should not have the same exemption as her husband possessed. According to the Clause of the Government she will only receive abatement on that part of the income which is derived from his pension. If she happens to be the widow of someone who has been in the service of the Crown in such a way that she would not be entitled to a pension she would not get any advantage from the Clause. There are a large number of officials under the Crown who hold their salaries with pensions to themselves when they retire, but without any part of the pension being continued to the widows. If that be so the widows of officers in such circumstances will receive no benefit at all from this Clause. I venture to think that my Clause covers the case very much better than the Government Clause, because that simply extends the exemption to the widows of all those people exempt under the original Act.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think the extensions which we give to widows covers the case of all persons in the employment of the Crown in whatever part of the world they may be employed as long as the pension is one founded upon the resources of this country and controlled by this House. If it was not a pension controlled by this House it would not be chargeable for income tax. It is only in respect of that we give relief. If a person has income arising from a foreign State or British possession which does not pay Income Tax, that income is to be calculated in the total income the person receives, and that may bring them outside the relief given them by this Clause. That is to say, the whole income is to be calculated as the whole income of the persons resident in this country is. We give them relief to which they are not entitled at present; we do not give them any relief that the people of this country are not entitled to also.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move to leave out the words "to a

  1199
  widow who is in receipt of a pension chargeable with Income Tax and granted to her in consideration of the employment of her late husband in the service of the Crown as it applies to the persons described in the proviso," and to insert instead thereof the words "to the widow of any person mentioned in the said proviso."
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: On a point of Order, I think the right hon. Gentleman could not move that Amendment because it would at once raise a charge not covered by the Money Resolutions. I venture to take that objection before I meet the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I submit on the contrary it relieves the taxpayers of the charge, and that we are always entitled to do.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think the Amendment means any increased charge. It seems to me that the Amendment would be a relief to the taxpayer, and it is therefore quite in order.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Amendment would make the new Clause apply to widows of any persons mentioned in the proviso. As my hon. Friend pointed out the new Clause of the Government is very much narrower than the old proviso of the principal Act. Under the principal Act you allow Civil servants or other servants of the Crown resident abroad, relief on the whole of their income provided they are small enough to justify it. You only propose now to allow similar relief to the widow on such part of the income as is represented by the pension drawn by the husband formerly. I shall be very glad to know if I interpret the words of the Government Clause too narrowly. The widow must be in receipt of a pension. Any person who is or has been in the service of the Crown shall be entitled to relief. There is no necessity, therefore, for being in receipt of a pension. There are cases where there may not be any receipt of a pension, but certainly the person is not likely on that account to be better off. I think that is a point which affects very few people, and has very little effect upon the Exchequer, but I wish the Government would put their new Clause into exactly the same form as the proviso. What I am asking is, first of all, that a pension should not be necessary to qualify for a relief which
  1200
  would otherwise be given upon the income, and that, in the second place. relief should not be confined in the new Clause to income of servants of the Crown, but should be extended to widows such as those indicated in the Clause of the principal Act to those obliged to serve abroad or to native States under the Protectorate of the British Crown, and to any person resident in the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands. I am quite ready to do a deal with the Government if they will do a deal with me. Will they give it to the persons who have been in the service of the Crown, whether they have pensions or not?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Why? You say that a man may have this concession under any circumstances, and why should the widow not have it unless she has a pension. Upon what conceivable grounds of equity or justice can you do that. I am willing to put my Amendment in a more limited form, but if the Government are not prepared to make any concession it is not worth my while to explain the matter.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It is not possible for the Government to accept this Amendment. If a man goes abroad for the sake of his health and dies, and his widow remains there, she is not there for the sake of her health, and there is no reason why you should grant the exemption to her which you granted under special circumstances. What in substance is done by the Sub-section is to grant the same measure of relief as in the proviso. But it confines the relief given to the Civil servant or the widows of Civil servants and servants of the Crown.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman is confusing the points which I raised. It is not necessary for the widow to have a pension. If she has £20 a year from investments in this country that would be charged with Income Tax, but if she lived in this country she would be exempt. If she lives abroad where her husband lived and died, then she will be chargeable. I do not stand by the words of my Amendment, but what I ask the Government to do is to remove the necessity for her qualifying by the receipt of a pension for relief which she would otherwise get.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I understand what my right hon. Friend desires is that the widow whose husband is dead should

  1201
  come under the same exemption her husband came under, and that she should be entitled to the same benefit. It is quite possible that the words proposed by my right hon. Friend go too far, and what the Attorney-General has pointed out is quite right upon the terms of the Clause itself. A widow in receipt of a pension gets no benefit at all. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider, apart from these particular words, if a widow under these conditions is abroad subject to the same limitation as her husband while alive she ought to have the same advantage which he enjoyed whether she is in receipt of a pension or not. I suggest to the Attorney-General that this is a proposal half-way between the Clause as it stands and the proposal of my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot understand the justice of this proposal. The idea is to exempt the widow of a person who has been in the service of the Crown. By this Clause you exempt one and leave another without any relief at all. Where can justice come in unless you are going to carry out in favour of the widow exactly the same exemption as Section 71 gave to their husbands before they died. It is difficult to draft an Amendment at the moment, but I should have thought the Government might be willing to accept an Amendment which went as far as their own proposals down to the word "widow" and then insert the words "any person who has been in the service of the Crown abroad." If the widow comes home she gets the exemption anyhow. If you want to do justice at all you must make the exemption co-extensive with Section 71 of the original Act. There must be widows whose husbands' pensions die with them.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That must be so.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Those widows are worse off than those who have got a pension or some portion continued to them after their husbands' death. Why are you going to cut them out? I suggest that this is a very small amount, and the Government might as well treat the matter in a generous way instead of the niggardly manner they are proposing.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The suggestion is that any person resident abroad is to be exempt.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Only the widow of persons in the Service of the Crown.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The widow is to be exempt from Income Tax, as she would have been exempt in this country. We propose in the case of a pension controlled and payable from the funds of this House to the widow of any person abroad that such a pension should be exempt. If the widow chooses to live abroad, although she may be the widow of a servant of the Crown, she may think she is better off. If she gets her income from investments here and chooses to live abroad, I do not see why she should not pay Income Tax. She gets the security of this country for her investments, and she ought to contribute towards the safety and good government of the country in which her savings are invested. I really do not see why she should not contribute a small sum for that purpose. We think we have given a substantial relief to the persons who draw a pension and whose resources are small. I do not think we ought to go further than that. Those are the principles upon which I think we ought to proceed.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman has misstated what the Government are doing. He does not understand what the Government themselves are doing, and, consequently, he has given me an answer that will not hold water. He says that the Government in the principal Act decided that where a man spent his life in the service of his country abroad he should not forfeit the relief that he would obtain in this country by reason of the smallness of his income because he continued to live abroad. We ask that the widow of that man should be given exactly the same relief, and the right hon. Gentleman says that the Government propose that if she draws a pension controlled by this House she shall have relief in respect of that pension, but not otherwise shall she be relieved.
  Mr. PARKER: Does the officer receiving the pension get relief?
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Apparently the hon. Member does not know the principal Act. If an officer after retiring from the service of the Crown continues to live abroad, having been obliged by his service to live abroad, he is entitled to this relief during his lifetime.
  Mr. PARKER: Only on his pension.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is quite mistaken, for it is not only on his pension. It depends purely

  1203
  on the fact whether his income is so small that if he were living at home in this country he would get relief. We ask that the same privilege should be extended to the widow. The right hon. Gentleman says the policy of the Government is to extend it to any pension drawn by the widow which is controlled by this House, but not any further. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury mis-stated the Government case. If the Government's action meant that they could only give relief on a pension they would be consistent in saying where the widow has no pension she can have no relief. But the Government say they give relief on all incomes in the case of a man whether he has a pension or not. But in the case of a widow relief is only given on income if there is a pension, and no relief at all if there is not a pension. The probabilities are, other things being equal, that the widow who has no pension will be worse off than the widow who has. They are all people who are poorly off. They all live abroad, and the circumstances of their lives have forced them to live abroad. The Government oblige them to break up their homes. If I am permitted I shall be willing to withdraw my own Amendment and adopt the words proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Bridgeman). I think the Government would only be doing an act of simple justice in conforming to the policy of the principal Act, and unless they accept some Amendment of this kind they will be inflicting hardship in a number of deserving cases.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I will make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think I have mis-stated the policy of the Government, though it may not agree with what the right hon. Gentleman thinks ought to be the policy of the Government. I think I have stated it without any sort of mistake at all. The right hon. Gentleman asks for a wider exemption than it is proposed to give, and that is the difference between us. I stated the narrower limits within which we propose to give the exemption, and he has stated the wider ground which he proposes to cover. I am not prepared, I confess, at the present moment, to accept the wider interpretation he desires to give. I hardly like to make a suggestion, but, if he will withdraw the Amendment, I will take an opportunity between now and next Finance Bill, not this, to see what will be the effect of his proposal, and, if
  1204
  I can meet it, I undertake on behalf of my right hon. Friend to do so. I think now, however, I should have to ask the House to reject his proposal. Perhaps he would be as unwilling to get the opinion of the House on that matter as I should be unwilling to be forced to ask the House to reject the Amendment.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I quite admit this matter has been rather sprung on the right hon. Gentleman, and I recognise he is under special difficulties. I do not like to put it off and make it subject to all the vicissitudes of another Budget, but, if the House will allow me, I will withdraw the Amendment at this stage.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Government have had plenty of time to consider this matter, because I asked a question about it in the House. The answer I met with was that if there was a general opinion in favour of it on all sides of the House, and it was regarded as uncontentious, it would be accepted. I am sorry they did not think of it until the last moment when it was too late, according to them, to introduce it in a Bill of this year. It could have been done perfectly well, but I suppose it is better to have half a loaf than no bread, and therefore I will accept the promise of the right hon. Gentleman, and hope he will carry it through.
  Dr. HILLIER: I would venture to ask the right hon. Gentleman, as he is going to take this matter into consideration between now and the next Budget, to consider on what ground he can possibly justify exacting from the same income for the Treasury a greater revenue from the widow than he was exacting from the husband while he was alive. That is the effect of the Clause as it stands.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment as to ownership of securities for the purpose of s. 71 (2) of the principal Act.)
  When the securities of a Foreign State or British Possession are held under any trust, and the person who is the beneficiary in possession under the trust is the sole beneficiary in possession and can, by means either of the revocation of the trust or of the exercise of any powers under the trust, call upon the trustees at any time to transfer the securities to him absolutely

  1205
  free from any trust, that person shall be deemed to be the person owning the securities for the purpose of Sub-section (2) of Section seventy-one of the principal Act (which exempts from Income Tax under certain circumstances the interest and dividends of the securities of a Foreign State or British Possession.)—[Mr. Hobhouse.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Committee will see, from Section 71, Sub-section (2) of the principal Act, that a person not resident in the United Kingdom who owns securities and is entitled to the interest on them is exempt from Income Tax in the case of such securities as are securities either of a British possession or of a foreign State, if the dividends of those securities are payable in the United Kingdom. We propose that a person who is the sole beneficiary of a trust, and who can also call upon the trustees to transfer the securities to him, shall be deemed to be not merely the beneficiary, but the owner of the securities. Thus he will be brought within the exemption of Section 71, Sub-section (2). Some question might be put to me as to why we are exempting a person who is the sole beneficiary and not giving exemption in the case where there are two beneficiaries of such a trust. The answer is this. A person who is sole beneficiary and controls the Trust is really the master of the trustees in the disposal of the securities of his trust. He being resident abroad, the whole of the income would be payable to him and to nobody else. If there were two beneficiaries, one of whom is resident in the United Kingdom and the other of whom is not resident in the United Kingdom, the trustees might be in difficulties as to the allocation of the interest between the person resident in the United Kingdom and the person resident out of the United Kingdom. Circumstances have arisen which have drawn the attention of the Treasury to this case, and we think equity is met in the case of a sole beneficiary where he is resident out of the United Kingdom if he is treated as the owner as well as the beneficiary and gets the benefit of the exemption under Section 71, Sub-section (2).
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not object to the Clause, although I do not altogether understand why it has been brought forward. I think it ought to go further, and
  1206
  I do not understand the reason given by the right hon. Gentleman for confining it to a sole beneficiary. The right hon. Gentleman says he is going to confine it to a sole beneficiary because, if there are two beneficiaries, the trustees will have some difficulty in ascertaining whether both of them live out of the United Kingdom or whether one lives in the United Kingdom and the other abroad.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am afraid I did not make myself clear. I assumed a case where one lived in and the other lived out of the United Kingdom, and said the difficulty was the allocation of the benefit of the exemption.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I really do not see where the difficulty arises, but I do see where an injustice arises. Let me put a concrete case. There is the Under-Secretary for the Home Office sitting there (Mr. Masterman), who is the sole beneficiary of a trust whose funds are invested in the securities of a foreign State or British Possession. He lives out of the country, and he is going to get his income without paying any Income Tax. The right hon. Gentleman himself and the learned Attorney-General are joint beneficiaries under another trust, whose funds are also invested in the securities of a foreign State or British Possession. The hon. and learned Gentleman lives out of the country, and the right hon. Gentleman lives in the country. The hon. and learned Gentleman does not get the exemption which the Under-Secretary gets, because, unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary has also a benefit in the trust. It seems to me you are going to create a very grave injustice if this Clause is allowed to pass in this form. The right hon. Gentleman says it would be very difficult for the trustees to find out what money ought to be subtracted. I do not see it at all. I presume, if this Clause becomes law, the trustees, when a demand is made for Income Tax, will say, "No, we are not going to pay. The sole beneficiary lives out of the United Kingdom, and that complies with the enactments of this Clause." What is to prevent them, if half goes to the right hon. Gentleman and half to the hon. and learned Gentleman, saying there is a beneficiary out of the United Kingdom, and, therefore, we claim not to pay. I see no difficulty whatever, and I think the right hon. Gentleman must, on further consideration, amend this Clause.

  1207
  I have a further objection to the Clause. I want to ask whether it would not be possible to amend it so that it should read: "When the securities of a foreign State or British Possession are under any Trust the person who is the beneficiary shall be deemed to be the person owning the securities for the purpose of Sub-section (2) of Section 71 of the Principal Act, which exempts from Income Tax under certain circumstances the interest and dividends of the securities of a foreign State or British Possession." I would like to know whether the Government would be prepared to accept an Amendment of that sort. It has come to my knowledge that at present the Inland Revenue authorities are claiming Income Tax in the case of a widow living abroad and owning securities in a foreign State or British Possession, which are held by trustees in England. If these trustees were living abroad, there can be no doubt she would not have to pay Income Tax, but because they live in England the Inland Revenue authorities obtain Income Tax. If it is just that persons who have property in a foreign State or British Possession and live abroad, and who happen to have that property in trust, should be exempt, it is also just that all persons in similar circumstances should be exempt. I think it is really right that the right hon. Gentleman should accept an Amendment which I propose later on to move.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. CAVE: Take the case where both beneficiaries are out of the United Kingdom and come within the Section. Why should they not both have relief? If you leave out the words "is the sole beneficiary in possession and can, by means either of the revocation of the trust or of the exercise of any powers under the trust, call upon the trustees at any time to transfer the securities to him absolutely free from any trust," you will have a very simple Clause which will cover that case. Cases where a beneficiary has the right to revoke the whole trust or to have the securities transferred to him are rare. I suppose in ninety-nine cases out of 100 there is no such power, and I do not see why the limitation should be put in the Clause. Why should you not leave out the words, "and can, by means either of the revocation of the trust or of the exercise of any powers under the trust, call upon the trustees at any time to transfer the securities to him absolutely free from any Trust"? Then the Clause would cover the everyday case of a life tenant under a
  1208
  trust. Surely that is the exact case intended to be covered. This Clause will cover very few cases indeed. I think it has been framed for the purpose of covering one particular case, and I am always suspicious of clauses of that kind. I would rather far see a Clause which meets general conditions.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The Clause is intended to cover cases of a very rare kind. It is intended to cover that particular class of case in which foreign securities are held in trust for a beneficiare abroad by trustees residing in this country. It might be extended to further cases, but I that is a question of policy. It is a question how far we are prepared to make the extension. We realise, under the circumstances, that, in this particular case, the beneficiaire can revoke the trust and take the securities out of the country to deal with it in the way proposed. But we are not prepared to accept the suggestion to extend the exemption.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to leave out the word "and" ["and the person who is the beneficiaire"] and to leave out the words ["the sole beneficiary in possession and can, by means either of the revocation of the trust or of the exercise of any powers under the trust, call upon the trustees at any time to transfer the securities to him absolutely free from any trust that person."]
  As I said just now, there have been cases where people who are resident abroad—and I have in my mind the case of a widow lady who holds the securities of a foreign State—who would not be liable to Income tax if it were not for the fact that the securities were held for them by trustees living in England. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to exempt a certain class of people who are in this position. He says he is going to do it because they are so few, and it will not have very much effect on the revenue. But surely he must consider justice as well as revenue. I do not think he will put revenue before justice, and if he chooses to exempt certain people under certain circumstances it is no argument to say that he cannot exempt more people because it will cost money to do so. If it is right in one instance it must be right in another. I do not know why, if the law can be altered in the particular case of persons whose securities are held

  1209
  by trustees resident in this country, it cannot be altered in the case of others who are equally disadvantaged because their money happens to be not in English securities but in foreign securities held by trustees resident in England. The position of the Attorney-General is that he has begun to alter the law. If he had left the law as it stood he might have said there were reasons against this exemption for people who choose to leave money in England in the hands of trustees, and therefore he would exempt them from Income Tax. But having altered the law in one case, he cannot refuse to alter it in another where the arguments are equally good. If he cannot now accept my Amendment perhaps he will give me an answer to it to-morrow on the Report stage. If he will undertake to do that I may be inclined to withdraw it for the present; otherwise, it may be necessary to press it to a division.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Baronet proposes to extend the operation of the Act. I do not wish to repeat the arguments I advanced at an earlier stage. We cannot extend the limitations as suggested.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Excise.)
  In lieu of the Excise Duties payable on tobacco grown within the United Kingdom, which are specified in Part II. of the Fourth Schedule of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, there shall be charged, levied, and paid one-half part of such duties by any person holding an Excise licence to grow tobacco in the United Kingdom, provided that he can establish to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that such tobacco is to be used for the manufacture of sheep-dips, insecticides, or for other purely agricultural or horticultural purposes. The Commissioners of Customs and Excise shall have power to make regulations to secure this object similar to the regulations issued under Section eighty-three of the Finance Act, 1910.—[Mr. Laurence Hardy.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Mr. WHELER: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for the Ashford Division of Kent (Mr. Laurence Hardy) I have to propose this new Clause. It is a very
  1210
  simple one. We wish to reduce by one-half the Excise licence on tobacco grown in the United Kingdom, provided it can be shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that such tobacco is to be used for the manufacture of sheep-dips, insecticides, or for other purely agricultural or horticultural purposes. I think on reference to Part 2, Schedule 4, of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, it will be found that in one case the duty is to be reduced from 3s. 6d. to 1s. 9d., and in the other case from 3s. 11d. to 1s. 11d. per pound. After all it is only a small concession we are asking for, and I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be able to grant it. It is a concession which affects a very large number of people who have a licence to grow tobacco in the United Kingdom at the present time.
  The CHAIRMAN: I informed the hon. Member earlier in the evening that he would be allowed to move the Clause standing in the name of another hon. Member, but it has since occurred to me that it is rather hard for other hon. Members who are here in their place and ready to move their Clauses that I should allow an hon. Member who has not given notice of this particular Clause to move it before them.
  Mr. WHELER: I have given notice of a similar Clause further down.
  The CHAIRMAN: Yes, that is the exact point. The hon. Member has given notice further down, and, therefore, he is getting precedence by bringing in the Clause for another hon. Member, instead of waiting for his own turn. It is, perhaps, a new point, but it is a question whether it is fair to hon. Members who are here.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is there not a clear and definite rule of this House on this subject? I understood that in Committee anybody could move an Amendment or Clause of which notice had been given, but that on the Report stage the Member must be in his place to move his own Clause. I speak on matters of procedure in this House subject to correction and with great diffidence, because I have learnt that however long one sits here one comes to realise that he has not learnt all the rules of the House. But I think it is a clear right of any Member in Committee to move a Clause if notice of it appears on the Paper, and it is only when we come to the Report stage that it is required that the hon. Member in whose

  1211
  name the Clause stands must be present. If that has been the practice of the House without question up to this time I think it might act unfairly if, without notice, that practice was suddenly altered in the course of this Debate. The hon. Member in whose name the Clause stands might very well have gone away, believing that at this stage the subject could be raised by another hon. Member and that it would not be prejudiced by his not actually being in his place. I admit there are great difficulties, and that this is rather a new situation, but I submit, if I am right about the habitual practice of the House, it ought not to be changed without notice.
  Sir F. BANBURY: My right hon. Friend is quite right, but he has not gone far enough. My recollection is that in Committee one can move any Clause without notice, but on the Report stage it is absolutely necessary to give notice. In Committee it is not so. Anybody can get up and move a new Clause if it happens to be in order, and, that being so, it follows, as a matter of course, that if a Clause stands in the name of one hon. Member who does not happen to be present any other hon. Member can get up to move it.
  Mr. MOUNT: It may not be within your knowledge that the hon. Member in whose name this particular Clause stands was under the impression that the rule is as stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire, and he asked my hon. Friend to move this Clause for him.
  The CHAIRMAN: It did occur to me whether it was quite fair to other hon. Members who had later Clauses to call upon the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Wheler) to move a Clause of which he did not happen to have given notice at that particular stage, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire has put to me the practice of this House. Although I have been over five years in the Chair I do not remember passing over a Clause which another Member desired to move, and that being the case I shall not do so on this occasion. I will ask the hon. Member to proceed to move it.
  Mr. WHELER: I may explain that the hon. Member for the Ashford Division wrote to me requesting me to move this Clause. It does not ask a very great concession from the Government, but at the same time it will undoubtedly encourage a considerable number of agriculturists
  1212
  and tobacco-growers in various parts of the United Kingdom. I think we can make it perfectly clear to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that this tobacco, the growth of which we want to see encouraged by a lightening of the duties, is not the sort of tobacco that is used for smoking purposes. It has been proved by experiment that the class of tobacco suitable for smoking should possess but a small percentage of nicotine. The quality of tobacco which is affected by this Clause is such that it will have a high percentage of nicotine. It is a coarse sort of tobacco. It is unsuitable for smoking, but. at the same time, it is valuable for various purposes connected with agriculture. The price of nicotine has risen very high and it has been getting higher and higher. It is very efficient for agricultural purposes, especially for the killing of insects and it is also specially valuable as a wash for the benefit of fruit trees and hop plants. It is the only vegetable product from which this kind of wash can be obtained, and in the case of fruit, hops, and other things of that sort, it is most essential that the wash used as an insecticide should come from a vegetable as distinct from a mineral product. Therefore, anything which can be done by encouraging the cultivation of this cheap coarse tobacco towards cheapening the supply of nicotine will be in the direction of an encouragement to agriculturists generally, and fruit and hop growers. It would also give the farmers a better supply for the purposes of sheep dip. That is my case.
  I do not want to take up much time, realising as I do the enormous amount of discussion which will have to take place on the various Clauses to-night, but I would ask the Government to accept this Clause. It is not a very great concession, but it is one which will be very willingly and gratefully accepted by agriculturists and farmers. Experiments have been made in California in reference to the mineral washes, and it has been shown that where various trees have been treated with them the washes have the effect of poisoning the ground and killing the trees. In the case of a wash made from nicotine, however, this is not the case, nor does the foliage suffer, and it has the effect of improving the fruit of the tree as it kills the insects upon it. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, to accept this new Clause because I am certain that the loss of revenue to the Government would be very small, but on the other hand it would encourage the

  1213
  National Fruit Growers' Association and other kindred societies who are keen on improving our crops of fruit, and especially apples. On behalf of those who wish to see agriculture more prosperous than it is I beg to ask the Government to accept this Clause.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I should like to support this Amendment, being associated with a totally different part of the country to that from which the hon. Member who moved it comes. Living as I do in a fruit-growing district and representing perhaps the most famous sheep raising district in the whole of England, I should like to emphasize the increasing advantages which are shewn to accrue from the use of washes of this sort for spraying trees, and also with the object of preventing what is becoming an increasing curse to this country, namely, sheep scab. As regards fruit trees, it has been found very difficult in the past to discover an insecticide which can be used during the spring and summer months, and which will not have a burning effect upon the foliage mostly owing to these insecticides being of a mineral and a highly corrosive character. Nicotine and other products of tobacco have been found free from these defects, and do not injure the trees while nicotine cures sheep scab more effectively than anything else. The use of nicotine has enabled the New Zealand farmers to eradicate sheep scab from New Zealand. It is known from experiments which have been made in Ireland that it is perfectly easy to grow tobacco in certain parts of this country, particularly in those parts where fruit can most easily and productively be raised. This Amendment does not ask anything of a revolutionary character, because it is open to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to see definitely whether the sort of tobacco which is being grown is tobacco which can be of any other use than those for which we desire this exemption.
  As a matter of fact it is quite possible for the Commissioners or for the Treasury to select certain classes of tobacco which can be grown in Ireland, and presumably could be grown in this country which are wholly unfit for smoking altogether. In addition to that the nicotine which is required for the purposes I have mentioned is produced by a treatment of the leaf which does not involve anything in the nature of curing or fermentation. Therefore it is perfectly easy for the Commissioners to see whether there is any risk to
  1214
  the Excise under the Excise Laws in the use of tobacco for these purposes. I may mention that there is a steadily increasing demand for these purposes for nicotine as compared with other dressings previously used, and for such purposes the scientists are almost unanimous in advocating nicotine as a dressing for fruit trees for the prevention of insect pests. The same thing is the case with regard to the suppression of the insect or organism which brings about sheep scab. For these reasons I do earnestly appeal to the Treasury to make this small concession, especially as it is perfectly easy to discriminate between tobacco used for smoking and that required for these purposes. Owing to the impossibility of growing tobacco in this country because the industry is not permitted under our Excise laws, and owing to the increased demand, the price of nicotine has been going up very much in the last twelve months, during which it has become much more popular. Whereas twelve months ago it cost 12s. a pound, it is now already up to 15s. a pound, and there is evidence that it will go still further in consequence of the advocacy of this particular product by scientific fruit growers in this country. I desire, therefore, to support this Amendment with a strong request to the Secretary to the Treasury to make this small concession.
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: I desire to say something in support of this Clause on behalf of the fruit-growers of this country. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may think that this proposal is one put down for purposes of obstruction, and they may think it is not very important, but I can assure them that it is of very great importance to a very great number of people in this country. There are about 250,000 acres of land in this country under orchards mainly growing apples, 80,000 under small fruit, and 33,000 under hops, and they are very much subject to destruction by the attacks of insects. The only way to fight these insect pests is to spray with various kinds of insecticides. The winter spray I need not go into, but the summer spray embraces the whole subject of nicotine. The summer spray is of two kinds, one directed to the destruction of the actual insects by contact. This is directed to the pyslla, the aphis, and the red spider. The other kind of spray derives its virtue from its toxic Qualities, and that is used against biting insects, such as the caterpillar and the weevil. Unquestionably it is the fact,

  1215
  and if you ask any fruit grower you will find it is so, that nicotine insecticide is the best for this purpose, because it is the only one which kills both by its contact and by its toxic properties. Consequently you may spray the trees with a wash made from it when they are in full bloom, because it kills the insects without sterilising the pod. I think we are going to have a great boom in English apples, because, after a great number of experiments, the growers have decided the best kind of apples to grow. The chief enemy of apples is the Psylla, and it has been estimated that spraying kills 90 per cent. of them.
  If we could get rid of the insect pests which prey upon apples we should it is estimated double the crop in this country. There is an enormous increase in production and when we consider that the large number of a quarter of a million acres is given over to apples there is here a possible source of great profit to the agricultural community. Expense is the only reason why the growers do not use nicotine and the reason for that expense is growth of demand over supply. Nicotine is manufactured out of the refuse of tobacco, and the only material the manufacturers get are the stalks and midribs of the leaf. The price has risen very considerably in the last twelve months, and I am told that that is due to the action of the 1909 Budget, the extra duty on tobacco having forced manufacturers of tobacco to use more of the refuse for the manufacture of the cheaper forms than they did before, and so leaving less refuse for the manufacturers of nicotine. The result is that the growers are using less to spray their crops with in this country, and to the small man the price is absolutely prohibitive. This means that the crop suffers and there is less production. Very often the small man was able to pay his rent if he had a successful crop from even a few apple trees, and, therefore, this question is important. I have been working out the results of experiments at Wye and by Colonel Everard and by myself in the Vale of Evesham, and I think we could produce nicotine at about 3s. per liquid pound instead of 11s., not allowing for cost of extraction. That would be a great benefit to the whole of the fruit-growing industry. I have tried to make out a good case for the real need of the cheap supply of nicotine. It will benefit thousands of men, it will give a great impetus to the whole fruit industry, and particularly to the apple industry, and it would be easy for the Government
  1216
  to devise a system of allowing us to grow this tobacco Excise free, whereby they would not lose a farthing in revenue, and if they did this they would be granting a very real boon to a most worthy industry.
  Dr. HILLIER: I think there is every reason to believe that this Clause if adopted by the Government, instead of diminishing the revenue will actually increase it. The stimulus which it would give to the industry of raising this crude form of tobacco would be so substantial that in a very short time the actual revenue would be greater than it is now. It would, moreover, be the means of giving employment to a large number of men engaged in cultivating the land, and it would materially benefit another important industry. On these grounds I urge the right hon. Gentleman to accept this moderate proposal.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Eyres-Monsell) said something about this Clause being regarded as an obstructive Clause. No such thought crossed my mind, nor, as far as I know, the mind of anyone on this side of the House, and I am perfectly certain that his speech was a model of brevity and conciseness, on which I congratulate him. The object of the Clause, as I understand it, is that home-grown tobacco, if used for agricultural or horticultural purposes, should only pay one half the duty which is charged upon foreign-grown tobacco in respect of Customs. The hon. Member went on to say that if he and his friends were only allowed to grow tobacco free there would be an immense reduction in the cost of certain nicotine preparations which are essential to horticultural purposes. I understand the present position to be this. The nicotine manufacturers use, largely, foreign-grown tobacco, and in respect of that tobacco they are allowed a drawback which in practice comes to something like 4s. a pound. The nicotine is made from offal, which in itself comes from the stalk. The stalk, being the heaviest part of the tobacco, pays on an average a rather larger proportion of duty than the ordinary leaf, which comes in at the Customs rate of 3s. 8d. The manufacturer, getting a drawback of about 4s. in the pound upon his offal, practically uses foreign-grown tobacco free of Customs duty. That is the net result of rather a complicated set of transactions. If, therefore, he charges an excessive price to the person who consumes the nicotine portion, he does so, not in respect of any duty upon his raw material, but either because he has

  1217
  a limited competition or because he has a very large market in which he can sell his products, and the action of the Customs Department in no way affects the price at which he retails his commodities to the public.
  Mr. WHELER: Nicotine is now manufactured in bond, and they do not pay any duty on the tobacco that goes into the nicotine. They only make it out of the midribs and the stalks, and it is a very limited quantity. I want it to be grown in this country in order that it may be made out of the leaf.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The proposal of the hon. Members (Mr. Eyres-Monsell and Mr. Wheler) is that they shall be allowed to use home-grown tobacco for the same purpose as foreign-grown tobacco is now used for, only paying one-half of the Customs duty. Under the Tobacco Manufacturing Act of 1863, which I am told is one of the most difficult Acts in the world to construe, and the Amendments to which have rendered it more complicated and almost more unintelligible than any other Act of Parliament, there is nothing in the regulations which prevents the growers of home tobacco from denaturing it in approved premises under Excise restrictions, the tobacco being then issued to the manufacturer duty free. There is nothing to prevent that being done, except that there is no tobacco grown in this country which can be so treated. There is a certain amount of tobacco grown in Ireland and there are one or two experiments being conducted, I believe, in Scotland on a very limited scale, and in this country there is no home-grown tobacco. That is the first difficulty in the way of realising what the hon. Gentleman wishes to do. He has, therefore, first of all to stimulate the growth of tobacco in this country.
  Mr. WHELER: Within a few miles of where I live a friend of mine grew a very considerable amount. It was all destroyed after a certain time, but the experiment shows that tobacco could be easily grown.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Perhaps the hon. Member has forgotten that under the Finance Act of last year and also under the Act for which the hon. Member (Mr. William Redmond) was responsible, tobacco may now be cultivated in this country and sold with the ordinary Excise restrictions, so that the difficulty which existed several years ago no longer exists. What the hon. Member has to do is to persuade his friend to repeat his experi-
  1218
  ments. If he brings his crop to maturity and can cure it, he can take it to approved premises, and it will be there denatured. There is nothing at present to prevent it. The tobacco can then be issued to the manufacturers duty free, and the result will be that if there is any lack of material for these nicotine preparations the difficulty will be with the agriculturists, and I have no doubt if it promises to be a profitable experiment there will be plenty of people who will be prepared to undertake it. But, as a matter of fact, this Clause, as it stands, would impose upon them a penalty which need not exist at the present moment. It would charge them half rates, whereas under the existing regulations there is nothing to prevent them getting their commodity without any payment at all. Therefore, from the point of view of hon. Gentlemen opposite, they had better not try to bring the Clause into operation, because they will defeat the purpose they have in view.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: We should be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman if he will give a little more consideration to the subject in consultation with the Excise authorities to see whether they cannot facilitate the object which is desired by everyone who has considered the matter at all. No doubt, subject to various rather difficult arrangements, the tobacco used for the production of nicotine may escape duty. I think where the nicotine is made out of the refuse of tobacco imported in the ordinary way for smoking purposes into large factories and bonded warehouses, and then issuing from those factories where people have to be in close touch with the Excise authorities, it is very simple to comply with the regulations. I think it is much less easy for the individual farmer who does not know anything of the Excise, and does not want to if he can avoid it, and I think it is one of the cases where the Government ought always to lend a ready ear to anyone who complains that their regulations are unnecessarily strict. I only desire to press on the Government, and through them, on the Excise authorities, the necessity for saving the grower and producer from trouble, even if it is going to cost them something. As long as we regarded tobacco as a thing which cannot be grown in this country, of course we had no consideration for the producer. That very restriction itself killed the trade which was in existence at the time, and it was put on purely in the interests of the revenue. I think the revenue has a great deal to

  1219
  make up to the tobacco trade, and they must be more than usually conciliatory in this matter. I agree with the Government that whilst we have had a very useful discussion on this Clause, the Clause would not produce the results that we desire to have produced. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying it would in fact tax this home-grown tobacco used for making nicotine, even where it now escapes, and that is certainly not the result that we wish. Everyone in this House wishes that that tobacco should escape in all cases, and that it should be made as easy for it to escape as possible without endangering the revenue. I do not believe that is difficult if the Government will really turn their attention to the matter.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: Might I suggest that the best thing to do, seeing that all that is desired can be done under the law, when the tobacco is used for curing purposes, is that the right hon. Gentleman will promise if he receives representations from those interested as to any practical alteration of the existing regulation, to give his earnest consideration to the suggestions of the amendment to the regulations, which will allow the industry to be carried on with greater facilities than at present.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Certainly. Persons interested in a particular trade have access to Government Departments, and if the hon. Gentleman or any of his Friends interested in the matter care to make representations to me, I shall be very glad to consider what they have to say, and to see what can be done to meet their wishes.
  Mr. WHELER: I wish it could be made plainer to agriculturists what position they are in now. I certainly do not understand what they can do, and, if it can be made plain by regulations issued from the Treasury to many agriculturists who want this solely for the purpose of insecticide, it would be a great benefit to agriculturists as a whole.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take some opportunity of communicating with me, and I will look into the matter.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Assessment of Increment Value Duty on Agricultural Land.)
  For purposes of ascertaining Increment Value Duty on agricultural land that has come into the category of building land, no increased agricultural value, due to the
  1220
  efforts or expenditure of the cultivator, shall be taken into account when levying increment value.
  Mr. EYRES MONSELL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The Clause is proposed in the interest of market gardeners, who, I think, will not receive fair or just treatment under Clause 7 of the principal Act passed in 1910. I do not pretend to be an expert in land valuation, but I think I may be allowed to speak for market gardeners, because in Worcestershire I represent by far the largest centre of market gardeners in the country. We have in the Vale of Evesham nearly 30,000 acres of land devoted to market gardening. I have been anxious since the Budget was introduced to put in a plea for market gardeners, but I have been afraid that they would be treated by hon. Members opposite as people whose hard case was brought forward in the same way as the case of widows and orphans is sometimes referred to. I can assure hon. Gentlemen that that is not so. When the subject of market gardening is raised in this House it is generally dismissed by an airy allusion to cabbage patches. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is one of the offenders, and I am very sorry the right hon. Gentleman is not in the House, because I think he would sympathise with my Clause. It puts in words what he has often said he is in favour of, but what the Bill entirely fails to give effect to. I think the Committee will understand that the important industry of market gardening cannot be dismissed with references to cabbage patches. It is the highest state of cultivation. The money put into it, and the energy put forth by those engaged in it result in the highest development of the land, and it pays more money than any other branch of agricultural industry. Under Clause 7 of the 1910 Act, I think it is a fact that market gardeners may be taxed on value which they themselves have created. On 20th April last year the Leader of the Opposition put the case in a nutshell, and it was not contradicted then. I will restate the case very briefly. Land used for market gardening is valued as regards site value at £50, as at the end of April, 1909. It is worked up in value by the market gardener to a purely agricultural value of £80. That increase is due to his work on the land, and it is also very much due to the manure he has put into the land. There is a point where that land enters the category of building land, and it may

  1221
  be sold for £100. He is charged Increment value, and that is assessed, not on the final agricultural value, but on the original site value of £50. It is assessed in respect of £30, which is due entirely to his own efforts on the land. That was not contradicted last year, and I do not think it can be contradicted at the present moment. I think the Committee will agree that it is very unfair that a man should be taxed in this way on his own improvements and expenditure.
  Mr. BOOTH: Or have his rent raised.
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: The "Westminster Gazette," I think, said that this vas a fair case, but that it was a very exceptional one. Market gardening is not exceptional. It is very common. This rise in purely agricultural value is the natural outcome of intensive cultivation, of the work put into the land, and particularly of the manuring of the land. The purely agricultural value of the land is raised to a very large extent by those means, and I could show many examples of it in my own Constituency. Last April the Chancellor of the Exchequer tried to steer clear of this case of manuring. He said he would rather take the example of draining the land. Naturally he would, because the amount of money spent in draining agricultural land is allowed for in assessing increment value. I say that the value put into the land in manure should be included. Clause 25, paragraph (b) provides for the deduction to be allowed for improvements on the land for the purpose of business, trade, or industry other than agriculture. All the Amendments previously put down to Clause 7 have been objected to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, on the plea that we are trying to drive a coach and four through the Act. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not trying to do anything of that sort at all. I am trying to remove an undoubted hardship which presses on a very deserving class. I appeal to the Committee to accept this Clause on the ground that it will remove an obvious injustice upon a large and deserving class of the agricultural community, namely, the market gardeners—men who give the best example of the "back to the land" movement which hon. Gentlemen opposite very often talk about, and to which by supporting this Clause they will give practical effect.
  Mr. BOOTH: I hope the Government will not make any concession in the way
  1222
  desired by the hon. Member (Mr. Eyres-Monsell). It is one thing to talk about sympathy with market gardeners or any other class of people, and it is quite another thing to ask that they should be specially exempted from taxation. There are many deserving people in the country, I have no doubt, who are market gardeners, but there are also many little shop keepers who do not live under the salubrious conditions of the protégés of the hon. Member, and who are making their living without special exemptions from taxation. The Revenue Bill seeks to get revenue for the country, and if exemptions are to be given, and a less amount raised, it means that hon. Members opposite should not be so anxious to press on the Government increased expenditure in the various services. If we could give to all men in the country exemption from Income Tax, or other taxes they would have a little more money to devote to their business, and we would naturally benefit very deserving classes. To that kind of argument there is no end, and, without wishing to differ from the hon. Member in his zeal towards market gardeners, and while wishing that they should succeed, I cannot see that he has made out the slightest case why they should be exempted from taxation. In the part of the country I come from I am a rural guardian and a rural district councillor. I know something of the incidence of rates and taxes on the agricultural class, but I assure hon. Members that there is a little bit of healthy self-reliance in the North of England. [Cheers.] I am very glad that the Noble Lord the Member for the Thirsk Division (Viscount Helmsley) gives me that ringing cheer. We are not always coming from that part of the country cap in hand to the Exchequer, and we are not always coming for concessions and special consideration. If we are at all in difficulties there we prefer to stand with our backs to the wall.
  I have listened very patiently to hon. Members from the agricultural parts of England, and I have never yet heard from them a note of confidence, a note of determination, or a note of self-reliance, like that to which we are accustomed in the North of England. There was only one part of the hon. Member's speech with which I thoroughly agreed. He laid down that a man who by his own industry improved the land through manure, and by diligent attention to the cultivation of the soil should get the benefit of his industry. He pointed out that occasionally when all

  1223
  that had been done a man suffers some injustice under the Budget Acts because he paid a little more in taxation. The part that a man of that kind pays in taxation is a mere flea-bite to what he pays in increased rent, but the hon. Member will not go to his constituency and appeal to ground landlords who let land to market gardeners in the same strain as he appeals to the Government in this House. I have noticed a most curious difference in the way in which hon. Members speak when they are dealing with private interests and when they are dealing with public money. When it is the case of the private landlords you must respect vested interests, but when it is the case of taxation, and when the money is to be got to build "Dreadnoughts" to keep the Germans away, then hon. Members want to pay as little as possible. Then they are up in arms against the State and they bring all their energy to bear against taxation. That is surprising to us, because that energy is never shown when they are dealing with rack-renting landlords. I sympathise with the hon. Member opposite in the difficulty he has when he goes back to the landlords in his constituency in Worcestershire. I am glad that he tries to protect the market gardener against undue extortion and exaction.
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: By the Government.
  Mr. BOOTH: That is exactly my point. The hon. Member is on the qui vive there. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer is proposing taxation the hon. Member is in his place, but when there is some chance for something being done for the small holder who is being evicted or pressed for his rent, the hon. Member adorns the bench on which he sits with that silence of which the Leader of the Opposition spoke yesterday. Any point in the argument of the hon. Member's speech which applies simply and solely to the taxation of the market gardener ought to apply with regard to the rent he pays. The market gardeners who have to pay a little increased taxation to the State ought to be glad to pay it. Whenever the Budget imposes taxes upon them for money which is to be spent in the manner I have hinted at, they ought not to complain. It ought to be a joy to them. The more wealthy and successful a man is in business, the more willing he should be to pay. I do not know as much of market gardening as of the cotton industry, but the more prosperous
  1224
  a man is the more ready he ought to be to perform his duties as a citizen.
  8.0 P.M.
  But there are times when a man puts his own industry and care into the soil and he finds an absentee landlord paying one of his occasional visits to the place and noticing the vast improvement and insisting upon an increase of rent, and those are cases to which the hon. Member, I have no doubt, will in future give his very humane and most admirable sympathy.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: In the speech which the hon. Member (Mr. Booth) has contributed to our discussion there were two observations with which I agree. He said that he knew no more about cotton than he did about market gardening. I can well believe that, because he could not know less.
  Mr. BOOTH: I wish to make an explanation.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must resume his seat unless he rises to a point of order.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member did not give way to my hon. Friend (Mr. Eyres-Monsell). My hon. Friend several times asked the hon. Member to give way and the hon. Member refused.
  Mr. WATT: On a point of Order Is it not the rule that a Member can rise to give a personal explanation?
  The CHAIRMAN: It is not the rule that the hon. Member who is in possession of the House must give way to him.
  Mr. BOOTH: I quite admit that if it were true that I refused to give way I would fully justify the view of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain). I never heard a single word of the hon. Member. If I had I would have sat down on the moment. I did see him move, but I thought he was speaking to the hon. Member in front of him. If I had the slightest idea that he wished to give an explanation I would have given way.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: After that explanation I will give way to the hon. Member if he wishes to say something to me.
  Mr. BOOTH: I only wished to make that explanation.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation. It was so clear to us here that my hon.

  1225
  Friend desired to make an explanation that it did not cross my mind that the hon. Member did not know it. I can only say that I am now willing to give way to the hon. Member if he wishes to give an explanation. In consequence of what he has said I will try to couch my observations now in a more conciliatory form than in the circumstances I felt inclined. I was saying that I really thought that the hon. Member knew very little of the character of market gardening or the market gardeners in the Vale of Evesham. He appeared to consider that they were a weak, whining set of people, not to be compared with the stalwart men he was accustomed to deal with in the north. If he will take the trouble to go down to Evesham and move among these men he will find that a more sturdy, independent, hard-working class of men he could not meet anywhere in the country. They have established a land system of their own down there which has in my recollection of the House led to an Amendment of the Law to protect them. They have very considerable protection, and I think if they require more protection against the landlords they will be more likely to get it in those cases where they are renting the land, and are not freeholders. But that is not the point here, and it has nothing to do with the Amendment which my hon. Friend has moved. I only rise not to repeat the argument, but to state in the briefest possible language I can what is the point, because I believe if the House realises what it is it will see that it is not only we on these benches, but it is the Members on all the benches who desire the Government to deal with cases of this kind.
  My hon. Friend proposes exemption in certain cases from Increment Value Duties. The theory of Increment Value Duties is that a man has got a windfall in the shape of the increased value of his land which he has done nothing to earn, that the increased value is created by the growth of prosperity of the community, and has come to him without any exertion on his part. That is the theory, but in this particular case it is not the practice. You are taxing a man on the value which he has created. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] You have land originally valued at £50, but the owner of the land makes improvements, especially by the use of manure and brings its value up to £80 for agricultural purposes. That is pure agricultural value. If he sells at that point, when the land is at
  1226
  £80, which is its full agricultural value, he pays no Increment Duty on the increase from £50 to £80, which is due to his own work. But if he waits until the land is worth £1 more for building purposes than it is for agricultural, and then sells, he will pay duty, not only on the added value which it is worth for building purposes, and which would be due to the growth of the community, but also on the £30 which has already been added to it as agricultural value by his own exertions. That is incompatible with what you claim as the basis of the Increment Duty. You tax a man, not on a windfall, but on that which is the result of the sweat of his brow. You are taking away from him, not a share of money which he is only too lucky to get because he has done nothing to earn it, but a share of something which he earns if anything in this world is earned. That is the whole point of this Amendment. Are you going to insist, as you do now, on charging a man Increment Duty on the value he has added to his land for agricultural purposes if that land happens to become more valuable still for building purposes. Charge on the difference between the value that he created and the value for building purposes, and not on the difference between the original agricultural value and its value for building purposes. That is all that the Amendment asks.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman): Following the example of the right hon. Gentleman, I hope I may be able to give an answer in a conciliatory form in a Debate which his speech has rendered very reminiscent of the Debates we held two years ago. Up to now the Amendments which have been proposed have been mainly new Clauses dealing with new points arising since the Act came into force; and here, I think, the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me when I say that we are re-fighting a battle which was fought at great length night after night when he put his point of view eloquently and forcibly, and we did our best to put our point of view. Nothing material has arisen to contribute to the discussion since the time when the Budget Bill of 1909 passed the House of Commons, and I think though I do not in the least complain of it, that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman rather enlarged on the narrow line which I think was taken up, and, if I may say so, rightly taken up, by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Evesham (Mr. Eyres-Monsell). In connection with one of his remarks, I would like utterly to

  1227
  repudiate in the name of the Government and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer any idea or desire to be neglectful of the interests of market gardeners when we were advocating the passing of the Budget in 1909, or that we considered that market gardeners were a negligible class who grew a few turnips and cabbages in the neighbourhood of towns. Quite a number of Amendments were introduced into the Bill when it was passing through Committee definitely remedying definite grievances which might be felt by the market garden community. There were none more important than the Amendment which gave exemption to small workers of the land, those who work the land in small pieces who are also owners of the land, who obtained complete exemption from the Increment Tax under fifty acres and an average value of less than £75 an acre.
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: All our market garden land does not come within that.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I agree. That was an exemption given to market gardeners, and pressed for on their behalf, especially near small provincial towns, and it is a refutation of the statement that we denied the claims of those who represent market gardeners. We also gave exemption from Undeveloped Land Duty to the full amount of the agricultural value of the market garden, and we also gave complete exemption from Undeveloped Land Duty to holdings of less than £500 in value. All those are very material concessions to those who are developing market gardening in the neighbourhood of towns. But when the hon. Gentleman advocates, as he above all other Members of this House has the right to do, the interests of market gardeners, representing as he does the Vale of Evesham, and when he advocates certain exemptions from the Increment Tax, I do not see in his speech any full announcement of whether he is advocating exemption from the point of view of the landlord or the point of view of the tenant. The market gardener may be an owner of his land. In the great majority of cases he is not the owner. In the great majority of cases, in the neighbourhood of towns, he is a yearly tenant, and he is liable quite apart from the question of our Budget to be turned out on a year's or even six months' notice when the land is desired for building land.
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: He gets compensation for his market garden.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: No. If he did get compensation there would be more body in the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, for, as nobody knows better than Lord Helmsley, a market gardener does not get full compensation in the neighbourhood of towns. There was a considerable revolt on this side of the House, in which I confess I took part, then being in an unofficial capacity, in favour of the market gardener receiving full compensation under Schedule 2 of the Act which he only gets to a limited extent under Schedule 1. If the hon. Member had limited the Amendment to providing that the landlord should get something like the compensation which he gives to the tenant then it would be a more tenable Amendment than that which is brought before us, but I am informed by the Board of Agriculture, from which I obtained special information, that although we already know that there is a special need of compensation in such districts as the Vale of Evesham, with its Evesham cup custom, that is very remote from the practice of the great majority of this land in the neighbourhood of towns in this country, and, as a matter of fact, we should be giving, if we accepted this Amendment, to a very large extent exemption from Increment Duty to the landlords on all Improvements for which the tenant has paid, and to which the landlord contributed nothing. That alone seems to make it impossible to accept this Amendment. As to the general contention which was advanced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), I think, if I may say so, he did not sufficiently mark the fundamental distinction, which after many months, was made in the Budget, and accepted by a large majority of agricultural Members at that time—the distinction we made between land which had a building value and land which had not a building value, so long as it does not pass into the category of building land. I think he will be the first to acknowledge that no agricultural improvements can ever be effective for Increment Duty where the land increases in value because of those improvements. Where agricultural land or market gardens increase in value owing to a recovery of prices, where the advance in prices of the produce of the land increases its value, never will that agricultural land, so long as it is purely agricultural, be liable to a farthing of Increment Duty. I think it is worth while that this should be re-stated in the new House of Commons, as it. was

  1229
  re-stated time and again in the old House of Commons.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes; so long as the land has not a building value. But a great deal of land has a building value which cannot be utilised immediately for building, and which it is only possible to use for agriculture. The question is whether you ought to tax that agricultural land as building land?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Nearly nine-tenths of the land of the country has no other value than that of agricultural land, and it will pay no Increment Duty, however much the market gardener or the agriculturist increases the value of his land. The right hon. Gentleman knows the definition to which finally the Chancellor of the Exchequer came, which was accepted by the House of Commons and embodied in the Budget, and which now the right hon. Gentleman proposes we should go behind, namely, the definition for which a precedent was found in the Death Duties, whereby a line was drawn between land which had a purely agricultural value and land which had also a building value. The drawing of any such line, of course, necessarily means hardship on the border line. That you have to recognise. It meant hardships under the Death Duties, where there was a limitation on the one hand for 25 years' purchase, and on the other of a larger sum.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Surely the position of the Death Duties is that land, whether it has a building value or whether it has not, under the Act of 1894, pays primarily on its income on the principle of twenty-five years' purchase of the income. If the land has a building value in addition to the agricultural value, the sum charged is in respect of that building value only. That is exactly what this Amendment asks us to do in regard to agricultural land.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not want to emphasise that point. It is really irrelevant to go through the whole of the Debate of 1909. I am trying to trace out to the hon. Gentleman that a line is drawn between building land and agricultural land which to a certain extent is an artificial line on the borders of which line there may be cases of hardship. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) took a case where the increase for building land was a pound more. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) knows that it is the practice of the Inland Revenue, in respect of those estates, not only to draw
  1230
  the line, but to colour red the land which comes within the twenty-five years limit, and blue for land outside that limit. If you make a distinction of that sort, you must have a certain amount of hardship in every case which is near the line. But, as a matter of fact land which is in the neighbourhood of towns, and comes under the category of building land, does not increase in value by £1 above its agricultural value, but by £50, £200, and £500.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The question is not what it goes to, but whether you are taxing value that a man has created, whether it is £81, or £100. The point is the gap between the original agricultural value, the created value which you are going to tax the man upon, and the building value. That is my point.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I was coming to that point, and perhaps I was too greatly labouring the method by which we created the division. Let me take the clearest example I can. Supposing that agricultural land had a value of £50, supposing that by the work and labour of the tenant the agricultural value is increased to £100, and supposing it is sold at £200 for the purpose of immediately building upon it cottages, then our position is that it is not an additional value, but an alternative value, and that is where the real controversy arises in connection with the Budget of 1909. The building value is destructive of the agricultural value. The land cannot both be used for the growing of asparagus and also for the building of cottages. The fact that the land being used for building destroys the agricultural value is an element in the price for which it is sold. If land could both be used for building and for growing asparagus and garden produce, it would sell for a good deal more from the fact that the agricultural value is to be destroyed if it is to be used for building. If the building value under those circumstances does destroy the agricultural value, why should we allow the increased agricultural value that has been made and destroyed to be exempted from Increment Tax?
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is not.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: It is at the time of death the duty is charged.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I was taking another point altogether—I was taking the sale of land for immediate building purposes. The occupation of that land

  1231
  for building purposes is of no more value to the builder, who buys it because it has been subjected to intensive cultivation, than if it were ordinary meadow land.
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: When this land comes into the category of building land, if money has been expended upon it for drains, that expenditure is exempted. But why not exempt expenditure on manure which has improved the value of the land? You are taxing a man on his own improvements and his own expenditure.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: If the work which has been done on the land has increased its value as building land, then, by Clause 25, Subsection (4), the full value is given for those improvements, and rightly given, because that is an increase of the value of the land that is due to the work of those who are selling it as building land; but if money spent on drainage or fruit trees or whatever is not increasing the value of it as building land, then that value has been destroyed when the land is sold for building, and, in consequence, that destruction is taken into account in the price, and therefore ought not to be exempted. I do not think there really can be any doubt about that simple proposition. I do not think that that point is really disputed.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: indicated dissent.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I thought the dispute referred to another and a more difficult point. The only difficulty I can see is in the case when you are dealing with land which is not immediately sold for building land, but which has a building value. There you are in a more difficult position. The building value of the land is given arbitrarily by some valuer, and you discount at present the future prices which will be received for it for building in five or ten or fifteen years. All that you are doing there by the system established by the Budget is that you are making that building land pay Increment Duty which would be paid ultimately when it is actually built upon. You are taking that duty in instalments, and the only question is whether you are to take it at the end, when the last seller would pay it, or whether you are justified in taking it in instalments. We think you are justified in taking it in instalments, because of the system established by the Budget of franking the land when it is sold up to the whole value on which Increment Duty
  1232
  has been paid. In that case, a buyer buying that land fully franked will be prepared to give more for it.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Does not the hon. Gentleman see that by his last sentence he is proving that the only result is to put up the price of the land?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Perhaps the Noble Lord will expound that at more length when he speaks later in the Debate, as I have no doubt he will. The sole result is that we take the Increment Duty on a series of occasions, instead of on the last occasion. But the more transactions of this kind that take place the less Increment Duty will the State receive because 10 per cent. of the original site value, or new value, is taken off, so that if the land goes through a series of transactions before it is finally cleared of asparagus beds those who own the land pay less increment than if increment was paid by the last person.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: What about the exemption given to the Friendly Societies?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am dealing with the Increment Tax, especially as it affects market gardeners. I have no knowledge of how Friendly Societies are mixed up with market gardeners nor knowledge of the exemption given to Friendly Societies. I am giving the actual facts in connection with any case of land in which that 10 per cent. off the original site or new value is allowed on every transaction. Therefore, if the land, instead of being sold immediately for building, passes through a series of transactions while it is gradually increasing in building value, the amount paid on that land will be less than if it is all done in one transaction. I need not remind the House of the very large concession which we also made in connection with this Increment Duty, that is to give the full value up to the present agricultural value of the land. That was a concession which broke through the principles on which the Act was founded. It would have been perfectly legitimate on our part when the land was turned into land for the building of cottages to go back not to the present value of the land, but to the prairie value of the land. The principle of the Act is to take the building increment, and the building increment must inevitably ultimately destroy the agricultural interest. If they were compatible uses of the land, then the position of the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment would be unassail-

  1233
  able but as they are mutually destructive uses of the land, and as we are only taking instalments of the building increment, I think it is clear we cannot accept the Amendment.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: I hope the hon. Member has convinced those on his own side, but I think he has given no answer at all to the arguments put forward by the Member for Evesham (Mr. Eyres-Monsell) and my right hon. Friend Mr. Austen Chamberlain. In the first place the right hon. Gentleman tried to make out that if he did grant the concession the only result would be to give something to the landlord which had really been earned by the tenant. I think he was under some misapprehension on that point, because, so far as I know, in all cases of market gardening, the market gardener receives full compensation on leaving the land for improvements he has made as a market gardener, except in the case where the tenant has been carrying out market gardening operations without obtaining the consent of his landlord. That is a very great difference. We objected to a tenant receiving full compensation when carrying out certain kinds of agricultural pursuits to which his landlord objected, and for which he had not received sanction. We agreed that if a man carries out certain operations which tend to the improvement of the soil and the holding, having got permission to carry them out, then that man is justified in receiving compensation for them. He does receive full compensation under the Market Gardeners Act. The hon. Gentleman tried to shield himself by saying that after all this will not affect many market gardeners, and that nearly all of them come under the fifty-acre Clause, and that if they do not they are tenants of their holdings. I think the hon. Gentleman must be aware that there is a very large number of market gardeners in this country who do own and cultivate themselves holdings over fifty acres. Therefore, my hon. Friend the Member for Evesham was speaking for a very considerable number of people whom everybody admits are a very hard working and deserving portion of the community.
  We submit that those persons are very unjustly taxed under this Increment Duty as compared with other classes. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to talk about small shop-keepers, cotton-millers, and people of that kind, but they have got nothing in the world to do with this Increment
  1234
  Duty at all. The point has been ably put forward that a man is under this Act taxed on his own improvements, whereas the whole principle of the Increment Duty is that a man should be taxed on what the Chancellor of the Exchequer described as "windfalls." The hon. Gentleman has not answered this point, that if land has a value of £50 per acre, and if the tenant of that land by his own intensive cultivation improves its value up to £80 for purely agricultural purposes, that that man for the prospective building value is not taxed on the difference between £80 and the prospective building value, but on the difference between the prospective building value and the £50 valuation. The hon. Gentleman tried to answer that by saying that when building value appears it destroys the agricultural value, and that, therefore, no account must be taken of the enhanced agricultural value which is due to the cultivator's own handiwork. I would ask the hon. Gentleman what is the position in the case of Death Duties. Do the Government admit that building value destroys the agricultural value entirely, or do they take the value which happens to be most convenient to them for the purposes of the Treasury? I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that if a death had occurred before that land had been valued as building land, it would have been valued by the estate branch of the Inland Revenue at its full agricultural value of £80, and the State would take good care that it was valued at death for the particular purposes of Estate Duty. It seems to me very hard that as soon as they get the Increment Value Duty they should drop that value altogether, and say that they must now go back to the old original site value, of which they would have taken no notice at all for Estate Duty alone. Hon. Members opposite have stoutly denied on every platform throughout the country that they are taxing agricultural land for Increment Value Duty, but I think it has been unmistakably proved to-night that under the Budget of 1909 they do tax purely agricultural land, even when used for purely agricultural purposes. In doing that they are inflicting a great hardship and injustice on a most deserving body of men. If hon. Members opposite really want to encourage people to go back to the land, they are attempting to do it in a very remarkable way when they go into the Lobby in support of the Government who still adhere to this very unfair method of taxing a man on his improvements.
  Mr. W. F. ROCH: I gathered from the speech of the Under-Secretary for the Home Department that his objection to this new Clause was based on the view that in the case of increased agricultural value the landlord got the whole benefit of the work and expenditure of the tenant. If that were literally so there would be force in the argument. I would point out, however, that these agricultural improvements, such as draining and manuring, are frequently paid for by the landlord as well as by the tenant. The cost is frequently shared, so that in many cases the increased agricultural value, so far from being solely the creation of the tenant, is due to capital expenditure towards which the landlord has contributed. Moreover, in nearly every case under the Agricultural Holdings Act, particularly for heavy manuring and drainage, the tenant has a substantial claim for compensation, which the landlord is compelled to pay. So that, even with the Clause as it stands, it is far from true to say that the landlord gets the whole benefit of the work and expenditure of the tenant.
  The Under-Secretary said in his speech that if we were satisfied that any of this value went to the tenant he would favourably consider the matter. Supposing, after the Clause has been read a second time, an Amendment were suggested to add after "Increment value" these words: "Provided that such value consist of money actually paid to any tenant for compensation for improvements." That would be a direct incentive to a landlord, if he wanted, not to pay Increment Value Duty upon money which he had expended, to treat his tenant generously. Not only would the landlord gain to some extent, but the tenant would be a great gainer as well. In the case where the landlord had actually paid money direct to the tenant it would not be a measure of justice to charge the landlord Increment Value Duty on purely agricultural grounds, and the hon. Gentleman himself has admitted that his great objection to this new Clause was based on the fact that the added agricultural value was given by the work of the tenant and not of the landlord. In this case the landlord would be gaining no advantage at all except in so far as he had actually paid the money to the tenant. In the interests of agriculturalists who take great interest in the working of this particular Clause, I hope the hon. Member will give some consideration to this aspect of the case.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I think the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member opposite would have a great deal of force in the case of a sale for building, but I do not think it would operate well in the case of death or on any other occasion where Increment Value Duty is leviable, except that of a sale for building. It seems to me that the Under-Secretary's argument is not sound in reference to alternative values for agriculture and building. Take three sets of figures—£50, £60, and £80. Say that a piece of land has to start with for agricultural purposes the value of £50. It is improved by the cultivator so that the value goes up to £60. Similarly its building value goes up £60. There is an increment on the building value which the hon. Member says is an alternative value; but, as a matter of fact, there is no increment to the cultivator.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Will the Noble Lord agree that when the land is sold for houses to be built upon it there is a destruction of the agricultural value, and consequently of any increment in the agricultural value?
  Viscount HELMSLEY: That is not quite the point. As far as that £10 increased value is concerned, although there is an increment in the building value, there is no actual increment to the owner of the land, because he has put money into it up to that amount. Therefore it does not matter if the building value destroys the other, because presumably he will not sell that land for less than the £60, which is the agricultural value. He will make sure when he does sell the land that the extra cultivation which he has put into it is recouped in the price that he gets for it as building land. If that is clear in reference to the increment from £50 to £60, it equally follows when the increment is from £50 to 80. All we suggest is that that part of the increased value for which he gets no actual return other than that which he has himself earned should be exempted from this taxation, and that instead of paying Increment Value Duty on the whole increase from £50 to £80 he should pay only on the difference between £60 and £80. There would be no increment if the agricultural value and the building value increased pari passu all through. The Government have admitted that, and there is no increment under the Bill in that case. Therefore, following on their own admission, we claim that there should be this extra exemption of the agricultural value which is due to the cultivator himself.

  1237
  I do not think myself that the principle of the thing is at all affected. It may apply a little, but, at any rate, if it is right in one case it is right in the other. I quite sympathise with hon. Members who desire to make these things more applicable to the owners than the tenants. I want to see the tenants exempt. But when you are dealing with this tax you are not dealing with the tenants, except indirectly. You are dealing with the owners of land. I do think it is a pertinent point to put to hon. Members opposite that they cannot go on putting taxes on land and expecting always that they are going to be paid by the person on whom they fall in the first instance.
  They agree with that doctrine very much when other forms of taxation are under discussion. I must say I was rather interested in what the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Home Department said, if I understood him aright. He said that if land was franked by the payment of Increment Duty the buyer would be prepared to give more for it. I wonder if he has considered what he means by that? Does he not mean that the seller would be able to get more for the land because of the Increment Duty being paid? Does it not mean, therefore, that the seller will be able to transfer to the buyer part of the Increment Duty? Does it not strike the hon. Gentleman that that will more particularly take place in those very places where there are more would-be buyers of land than sellers? Therefore I have always maintained that in those places where land is difficult to get, by it being "held up," the only result of your taxation will be to put a further power into the hands of the owner to exact a larger price than hitherto. Of course, in places where there are more people wishing to sell land than people willing to buy it, then the seller naturally will have to pay the duty, and he will get a less price in consequence of the duty. I really think the argument of the Under-Secretary points to the fact, as we on this side have often said in this House, that in those very cases where you want to facilitate the sale of land—which is the object of these taxes—those very cases where the land is difficult to get—you will be doing the exact opposite to what you desire.
  Mr. MASTERMANmade an observation which was inaudible to the Official Reporter.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: No, I do not think that will make so very much differ-
  1238
  ence. A great deal of this land, subject to the Increment Duty, will not be subject to the Undeveloped Land Duty, and certainly in regard to the sort of land that I am contemplating; I think the effect would be such as I have stated. I would be out of order in developing that further, because we are dealing with agricultural exemption. I hope I have made it clear that, as a matter of fact, the Government, if they do not accept some such Amendment as this, are taxing agricultural values in land, although they do not mean to. At any rate, it is not in any way accurate to say, as they have said so often both here and in the country, that agricultural land is entirely exempt from taxation.
  Mr. GRETTON: The whole difficulty which the Government is in on the question of this Amendment and in other cases arises from the fancy values attached to land. They do not deal with real but with fancy value. Take the case where you have agricultural land undeveloped, worth £60 as agricultural land, and worth £60 as building land. What do the Government propose to do? This land is coming into the market, and the question arises whether it shall be sold either as building or agricultural land. The Government say, if sold as building land, they will send their valuer down and reduce that land to some fancy value, which they call site value, and tax the difference between the £60 and what they declare to be the site value. If, on the other hand, they find it is to remain agricultural, as at present, it will be subject to no tax at all. The position of the Government on this question appears to me to be an absolutely untenable one. The owner of the land, say, always intends to improve the land to some considerable extent for agricultural purposes. That land is sold to a builder, and the seller of the land is to be taxed on the improvement which has been made, either by himself or by the tenant. It is equally certain that under various Agricultural Acts he may have to compensate his tenant for disturbance. He is to be taxed upon the money which he actually pays for disturbance to his tenant in order to clear the land for building purposes—which is apparently the purpose of this tax. In the way the Government propose to administer their Act, they are actually going to discourage the bringing of land under cultivation into the market for building purposes, because the owner of that land will obviously be able to sell it to much better advantage as agricultural than he will be able to sell

  1239
  it as building land. As the Noble Lord has just said, I do not believe the Government want to tax agricultural land, but it is their incurable way at looking at these taxes, and the fancy values which they have created as a figment of their brain that have involved them in all these difficulties. If they will only deal with the real values as they exist in the market for real purposes, they will be able to see their way through these difficulties and the whole mass and mist will disappear, and they will be able to administer their own Act with justice.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: I wish to echo what the last speaker has said that the Government do not wish to tax agricultural land. They have said it in the House and on the platform so often that they are perfectly convinced that it is true. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman who has just gone out of the House (Mr. Masterman) was a very ingenious one when he said that the building values destroyed——
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The right hon. Gentleman has left the House because he is not feeling well.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I do not in the least wish to complain of the absence of the hon. Member. I am only saying he gave us a very clear and a very ingenious argument which I am sure we all enjoyed. His argument was that the building value +would eventually destroy the agricultural value, and need not be considered. But here we are dealing with the case of a value which may change hands either by sale or transfer many times before the actual building value accrues, and in that case the Government are putting a tax upon a man's improvements and upon the money he has spent. I do not think in that case they can deny that a certain proportion of agricultural value is being taxed. The Noble Lord (Viscount Helmsley) said very convincingly the mere fact that the Government admit that where the values are equal the agricultural value does away with and nullifies the building value, is an element that ought to be considered, and even when the building value rises higher, it ought to be exempt from taxation. This case is very much more convincingly dealt with in the matter of undeveloped land in which no one will deny there is a very large element of doubt as to whether agricultural land is not taxed. When it is considered that this duty has to be paid by many people before the building value
  1240
  develops and the full benefit of it is derived, it will be found that many persons may have to pay upon their improvements in a way not anticipated or desired by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I think the Government have not fully considered the real meaning and effect of this matter.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The speech made by the Under-Secretary for the Home Office shows how difficult it is to find a logical argument for an illogical tax. His main argument was that agricultural value was destroyed by building value. My hon. Friend behind me has pointed out that that is pure theory, and although it may be possible to argue on theory in this House you cannot expect practical people outside to consider that the agricultural value is eaten up by the building value when the land is still used for agricultural purposes and is still growing agricultural crops and will continue to do so for another half-century. Here you have a tax levied upon land which is used to-day for agricultural purposes when that land has acquired a potential building value, and that tax is to be levied either on the death of the owner of the land when it still remains agricultural, and when there is no question or probability that it is going to be built upon. It is also to be levied when the land is sold, not as the Under-Secretary is good enough to assume, for building purposes, but whenever it is sold for merely agricultural purposes. Take a piece of land used for purely agricultural purposes which has a potential building value. That land is sold for purely agricultural purposes, and passes from hand to hand and because it is held to have a potential building value it is to be taxed. The Government carry their imagination to very distant points, but I cannot suppose that they really believe that the agricultural owner of that land, the agricultural seller or buyer, the first of whom has used it and the second of whom intends to use it, for purely agricultural purposes, can swallow the absurd theoretical argument that such land has a building value which has destroyed the agricultural value. Do the Government deny that they are levying this tax upon the sale of land used for purely agricultural purposes and to be again used for purely agricultural purposes. It is a fact that, in these circumstances, the tax is levied, yet they have the face to tell the House and the country that in such circumstances the building value has destroyed, not that it

  1241
  will destroy, but has destroyed, the agricultural value, and that is their justification of the tax. That may be good enough for the House of Commons, or, rather, the Government may think it good enough for the House of Commons, but it is not good enough for practical farmers and agriculturists in the country.
  It does not seem to be thought necessary by the Government to make out a case. All they think it necessary to do is to say somethnig which will justify their supporters in following them them into the Lobby, be the argument good or bad, but people ouside this House who look for some justification for taxation will not believe it, and cannot believe it. I challenge any practical man who knows anything about agricultural land to deny that this is not a tax upon agricultural land. The other argument was that this was a tax upon the landlord and not upon the tenant. That is equally thin, because that would apply to taxes levied upon all agricultural values. If that argument has any value at all it simply means you may place any taxation upon the owner of agricultural land and defend it by saying it does not affect the tenant, but only the landlord. If that argument is good, why confine your taxation to this particular form of agricultural land? Why not levy it upon all agricultural land? We do not know exactly what area this tax is going to cover, but we had a very significant speech from the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood), who told us that in his opinion—and he is one of the great instigators of this tax—land nearing roads within five miles of a town or half a mile of a railway station, would be liable to this tax. That was his statement to the House yesterday, and obviously that covers half the agricultural land of the country.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: No.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not want to speak at random, but I will say that it covers a very large proportion of the agricultural land of the country. It is equally clear that whatever may be the prospects of future building developments, it can only be an infinitesimal proportion which can possibly be covered with buildings during the next half century. Therefore the whole of the remainder not covered may change ownership, and it will be liable to this imposition. This involves not only expense in the payment of duty in those cases where the duty is leviable, but it involves going through the whole
  1242
  machinery of levying the tax and of the transfer of the land which is potentially liable whether the tax is payable or not. That will cover an immense area of agricultural land. I doubt whether there will be any transfer of land under this costly machinery, and the transactions of the sale of the land or the grant of probate on the passing of the land at death, where the transaction will not have to go through the mill of the Increment Value Duty. There is another point upon which I interrupted the hon. Member. The Under-Secretary to the Home Office used an argument for which we are extremely grateful. He pointed out that when Increment Duty is paid periodically by instalments the aggregate duty paid is less than when paid in one lump at the time when the land is finally sold for building purposes. The hon. Member made his case good, and that we accept. What I call attention to is that the Government have claimed great credit throughout the country for having given an exemption to Friendly Societies by enacting that Increment Value Duty shall not be collected on any periodical occasion, but it shall be paid in one lump. We are now glad to have it from the hon. Member that agriculture is benefited by paying periodically instead of by paying in one lump. I think that was the argument.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not know what Friendly Societies have to do with the argument.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I say that the exact opposite is claimed by the Government in Clause 37, because they say they are benefitting the friendly societies by giving the very doubtful privilege that they are to pay in the lump instead of paying their duty by instalments. That so-called exemption is really one that increases the duty to friendly societies, and it does not exempt them at all. I wish to emphasise and make it perfectly clear that under the Principal Act if this Amendment is not accepted agricultural land which is now being used in the ordinary sense as agricultural land for agricultural purposes, and will for many years be so used—which is being bought and sold solely for agricultural purposes—is being taxed. How in face of that fact hon. Members opposite can go to their constituents and say they are not taxing agricultural land passes my comprehension. I hope and trust this Debate will clear that issue, and whether it be right or wrong, or defended on logical or illogical general grounds of taxa-

  1243
  tion, to say it is not taxing agricultural land is clearly false and cannot be substantiated to any practical assembly.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: I have listened to the whole of this Debate, and heard the proposition put forward and the cases stated much in this direction: The supposition is that you take a piece of land which I assume to be near a town, because I think it is urban sites we are dealing with, and I will assume that the present value of this piece of land is £50. The supposition is that entirely by virtue of the work of the tenant who is described by the hon. Gentleman opposite for the purposes of this argument as a market gardener, this piece of land is improved to £60 for purely agricultural purposes. Then we go on by some magical process and in a few years time it is discovered that this piece of land has a building value of £80. The assumption is that you should not deal or tax or levy the Increment Duty upon the land from £50 to £60, because that is purely the agricultural value, and because of that it is urged that we are taxing agricultural land.
  I think the case ought to be stated slightly differently, and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me, I will put what I consider and what I think the man in the street would consider the proper way of looking at this business. The agricultural value may be £50. Is it not right to assume that if it ever is likely to become land with a building value, it will be near a town, and that parallel with its advance in agricultural value, its building value will also go forward, and at the time when it is really worth £60 for agricultural purposes it would be equally worth £60 for building purposes? Is it not right, also, to assume that the mere fact that it has a greater value for agricultural or market garden purposes is also due to the fact that there is an increase of population in the locality, that better market facilities are being given, that there is a better means of selling the produce and a greater demand for it, and it must not always be taken that although the agricultural value has gone from £50 to £60 that it is absolutely and entirely due to the work of the cultivator. May it not be assumed that there are social factors at work which make the land, ten years later, worth £10 more per acre as agricultural land, but which are not purely agricultural reasons? May we not assume, therefore, that though the building value is now equal with the value of the land for agricultural purposes,
  1244
  yet the owner, knowing the population is increasing, that the demand for land is increasing enormously, and that there must be an end to its purely agricultural value, is keeping it for agricultural purposes so that he may get rid of it later on at the full building value? The hon. and gallant Gentleman built up a picture in order to try and prove that the Government and those who support them are really taxing agricultural land, but may we not equally, logically, and fairly argue that we are not taxing agricultural values at all, but the increment due to the social efforts of the people in the locality.
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: Will the hon. Gentleman read the Clause we are discussing?
  Mr. JOHN WARD: There is not the slightest doubt that when I am out of Order the Chairman will call me to order. I am only answering the hon. Member for the Barkston Division (Mr. Lane-Fox), who used the figures £50, £60, and then £80 for building purposes, and the remark that it was out of order and was not in the Clause should have been made when the hon. Member was giving those figures.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: My hon. Friend did not suggest that the hon. Member was out of Order. He suggested that he was talking about something not in the Amendment.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: I am assuming that the increase may be due to causes other than the work of the cultivator himself. It is a moral certainty that if the land is purely agricultural and there is no encroachment by the population on the site there never will be any building value attached to it and no Increment Value Duty will be payable. If the land is in the middle of a waste where there is no possibility of the pressure of population, it can never have a building value. The hon. Member for the Barkston Division suggested that we could not, in face of his statement, still adhere to the contention that there was no tax on agricultural land. I venture to suggest my illustration shows that we are justified in saying that when land is used for purely agricultural purposes we do not impose any tax upon it. It is only when it has a building value, which means that there is a pressure of population upon it, and that there is an increment due to that pressure of population, that we say it should be taxed. We are therefore perfectly justified in maintaining that the Budget Land Taxes do not press upon agriculture.
  Mr. ROYDS: The hon. Member who has just sat down said he did not desire to tax land unless it had a building value, and he was quite sure nothing was taxed unless it was building land. I should like the hon. Member to point to any Clause of the Budget which refers to building land. There is no mention of building land in the Finance Act. All the Act says with regard to land and the taxation of it is that if it has any value for any purposes other than agriculture then it shall be taxed. It need not necessarily have a building value at all. The hon. Member is referring to cases of land near towns, but last night the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) said the persons they wished to single out for taxation were the owners of land in and around country villages. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), referring to some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, said that half the land of the country would be taxed. Exception was taken to his statement, but I think, when I draw the attention of the learned Attorney-General to the fact that the actual statement of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme was that the object was to tax all land in and around every village in England he will see that the statement of my hon. Friend was correct, and that no one can deny that agricultural land throughout the length and breadth of the country is taxed under this Budget.
  The new Clause moved by my hon. Friend is too modest. He only proposes to exclude from the Increment Value Duty any portion of the value of agricultural land which is attributable to improvements. I think the Clause should go a great deal further, and should exclude from any charge for Increment Value Duty the whole of the value of the agricultural interest in the land. I would remind the Committee what the position under the Act is with regard to the imposition of the Increment Duty. Under the provisions of Section 2 Increment Value Duty is chargeable on the difference between the original site value and the new site value of the land. The agricultural value of the land is not considered at all. The original site value of an ordinary farm differs very largely from its agricultural value. I think the best way for me to make the matter clear is to give a simple illustration.
  Take a farm of 100 acres worth £30 per acre, or a total value of £3,000. The original site value was £2,000, and the value of
  1246
  the buildings and improvements £1,000. The farm is subsequently sold for, say, a sugar beet factory for £3,500. The claim for Increment Value Duty arises. The claim is not on the difference between the agricultural value of £3,000 and the amount obtained for the farm for use as a sugar beet factory, but it is on the difference between the original site value of £2,000 and £3,500. Thus the owner of agricultural land is not only charged on his improvements, which my hon. Friend wishes to exempt by this proposal, but he is charged upon agricultural property of the value of £1,000 which he actually possessed at the time of the passing of this Act. That is the point I wish to make clear to this House. I have heard some discussion on this matter, but I do not think that this point has ever been made sufficiently clear. I remember a year ago, on one of my first attendances in this House, there was a discussion on Clause 7 of the Finance Act, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was urged very strongly to exempt from Increment Duty agricultural improvements which had been made since the passing of the Act. The House did not seem to realise that under this Act the owner of land is not only charged on his improvements created since the passing of the Act, but he is actually charged on the agricultural value of the land and on the buildings and agricultural improvements which existed at the time of the passing of the Act. For that reason I think the new Clause moved by my hon. Friend is much too modest. I have put down another later on, but, as I am afraid we shall have no chance of reaching it, I must accept the lesser advantage, and will, therefore, support the Clause.
  Mr. SPEAR: I cordially support the proposed new Clause, because otherwise this provision will act as a deterrent to the expenditure of capital in developing agricultural land under the idea that possibly it may be required for building purposes. That, to my mind, would be disastrous from two points of view. It would mean a lessening of employment on the land for its improvement, and it would mean reducing the possible capital output of our native food supply. It seems to me, therefore, that this Clause is absolutely necessary, to prevent any deterrent of the development of this class of land, simply on the ground that, at some future time—perhaps half a century ahead—it may be required for building purposes. In reply to what was said by the hon. Member

  1247
  for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. John Ward), I venture to suggest it will be quite as accurate to say that all agricultural land that has a site value above its agricultural value is subject under the Budget to the Increment Tax. Consequently I do not think it is fair to say that agricultural land is not taxed. Another reason why I think it most important that this Clause should be passed is that it will make the class of land around towns and villages, now used with great advantage for dairy and market gardening purposes, dearer, and it will consequently tend to a reduction of the milk supply for the adjacent towns and to a limitation of the capability of the land in producing vegetables for the people.
  I hold it is most desirable that we should encourage dwellers in towns to have their allotments not only from a financial point of view, in the way of providing vegetables for their families, but also because it is most healthy that these men should have a little plot of land to cultivate. The infliction of this charge under the Budget will, however, make it less possible for them to obtain land for the purposes I have mentioned. I believe, unless this
  Clause is passed, it will act as a deterrent to the expenditure of capital in the development of agricultural land, simply because there is a possibility of that land in the future being required for building purposes. By thus preventing development you will deprive the adjoining community of the amount of labour which the carrying out of improvements would entail, and you will also impoverish the district by a reduction of the food supply from that class of land. I cordially support the Clause. I believe it is a simple measure of justice. I support it in the interests of those who live in towns, who want the milk supply that comes from adjacent land—a supply which it will be more difficult to obtain under the infliction of this increased burden. I want also to see dwellers in towns having every facility offered them to have their allotments and, if need be, their small holdings adjoining to the town, which would be hindered if this increased burden were insisted upon.
  Question put, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 118; Noes, 246.

  Division No. 89.]

  AYES.

  [9.35 p.m.

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

  Goldman, C. S.

  Perkins, Walter F.

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Baird, J. L.

  Grant, J. A.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gretton, John

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Barnston, Harry

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rawlinson, J. F. P.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Benn, Ion H (Greenwich)

  Hills, J. W.

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

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

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hohler, G. Fitzroy

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Horner, A. L.

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Boyton, J.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Spear, John Ward

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stanier, Beville

  Campion, W. R.

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cave, George

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Swift, Rigby

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

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

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

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Cripps, Sir C. A.

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

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

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

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

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Dixon, C. H.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Worthinpton-Evans, L.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Fell, Arthur

  Newman, John R. P.

  Younger, George

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Eyres-Monsell and Mr. Royds.

  Forster, Henry William

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Gibson, Sir James P.

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Hardic, J. Keir

  Ogden, Fred

  Adamson, William

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

  Addison, Dr. C.

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

  O'Malley, William

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

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

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

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Harwood, George

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  O'Shee, James John

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Anderson, A

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Armitage, R.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Baker, Joseph A, (Finsbury, E.)

  Hayward, Evan

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Barnes, G. N.

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Hinds, John

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Barton, W.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

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

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Bentham, G. J.

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Radford, G. H.

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hudson, Walter

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Boland, John Plus

  Hughes, S. L.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Reddy, Michael

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Brigg, Sir John

  Johnson, W.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Robinson, Sydney

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Keating, M.

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  St. Maur, Harold

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

  Clynes, John R.

  Lansbury, George

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

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

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Logan, John William

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

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Sheehy, David

  Crooks, William

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lundon, T.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Snowden, P.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

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

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Summers, James Woolley

  Dawes, J. A.

  MacGhee, Richard

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Delany, William

  Maclean, Donald

  Sutton, John E.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dillon, John

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

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Donelan, Captain A.

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

  Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Manfield, Harry

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Verney, Sir Henry

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Wadsworth, J.

  Elverston, H.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Wardle, George J.

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Meagher, Michael

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Falconer, J.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Farrell, James Patrick

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

  Webb, H.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Millar, James Duncan

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Molteno, Percy Alport

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

  Field, William

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  France, G. A.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Furness, Stephen W.

  Morgan, George Hay

  Wiles, Thomas

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Morrell, Philip

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Gill, A. H.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Williams, Llewellyn (Carmarthen)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Muldoon, John

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Munro, R.

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Neilson, Francis

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

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

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

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Wilson, J W. (Worcestershire, N.)

  Gulland, John William

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Winfrey, Richard

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Hackett, J.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Dudley Ward.

  Hancock, J. G

  O'Doherty, Philip

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption of market gardens from Undeveloped Land Duty.)
  Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged in respect of any land which is used or occupied for the purpose of market gardens.—[Mr. Eyres-Monsell.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: In submitting this second Clause which stands in my name, although it is tempting to speak on a subject which I have been trying to since January of last year, I do not propose to say anything in support of it. I do so because I think I have occupied an undue share of the disgracefully short time allowed us by the Government, and also to show hon. Gentlemen that obstruction is the very last thing that we do want. I am, therefore, not going to further detain the Committee.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I did not mean to intrude on this House so soon after my joining it, and should not do so were it not for the fact that this Clause very vitally affects my Constituency. It is not only a part of England where market gardens are, but market gardening is one of its chief industries; and, although I fear from the smile on the face of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the Government are not going to assent to the Clause, I do make one appeal to them in regard to the difficulty which the Undeveloped Land Duty must place, not only upon the owners, but on the tenants of market gardens. I want to go back to Section 16 of the old Budget, which established these duties. I find that land is deemed to be developed by the erection of dwelling-houses or even the erection of glass-houses. The Government might extend their definition of the development of land one stage further. If I as a market gardener take a tract of land and erect glass-houses on it under the old Act of 1909, that is deemed to be developed land. I wish to put it that the planting of fruit trees may equally be some development of the land, and for this purpose I cannot help thinking that the development of land has assumed too artificial an aspect. Development of land does not mean really development of land by building. I can assume many cases in which land might be well developed in the interests of the community without actually being built upon. I suggest that the development of a large amount of land in the neighbourhood of London for intensive culture, the planting
  1252
  of fruit trees and the planting of all those varieties of vegetables which constitute the highest intensive culture of land, is really development. I take it that the object of the Government in forcing land by these taxes into development is not merely to bring land into the market for the erection of houses, but to bring it to its best use from an economic standpoint. I submit that the planting of land near our large towns for intensive culture, for fruit trees and so forth, is really, temporarily, at least, a very high development, and there is a large amount of land to-day, notably in Brentford, which while it has undoubtedly a potential building value, while it may have an actual building value, while it may be worth, as I believe it is-worth, £200 or £300 an acre for building purposes, is still not all needed for building development, and may be very well in the next ten or twenty years be utilised profitably to the people and to the State for development as fruit gardens.
  The point I want to make is really not merely on behalf of the landlord—I suppose it would be impossible at this hour to get much sympathy from the benches opposite on behalf of the landlord—but on behalf of the tenant, because, however much you may pass laws to prevent the landlord making a contract with the tenant to pay these duties, whenever a fresh tenant comes along there is bound to be an increase in the rent practically by the amount of the duty. To take one slight illustration. There is a vast amount of land on the confines of London let to market gardeners at a rent of £4 or £5 an acre at least. That would be worth £100 an acre in market value. A great deal of that land is worth considerably more for building purposes—£300, £400, £500 an acre. Under the last Budget, as it now stands, the owner of the land will have to pay a halfpenny in the £1 annually on the building value. Is it possible to believe that after the owner has paid 300 or 400 halfpennies per acre every year when a new tenant comes along he is not going to say to him, while I let it to my last tenant at £4 an acre, I very much regret I must ask you £5"? It is only human nature. However you may try by Parliamentary devices to put it on the landlord in these particular cases, sooner or later the tax is bound to fall upon the tenant. I do not know of any other exception which is so burning as this exception of market gardeners in and near our large towns, because the Government sooner or later will get the increased value of the

  1253
  land which the population is giving them. On land worth £100 an acre when market gardening began, which has gradually risen year by year to £300, £400, or £500 as building land, when it comes to be developed into building land you will get your Increment Taxes. Landlords will grant a lease of it at a building rate, and the Government will get their one-fifth of the Increment Value, so that the whole of the time it is being used for market gardens the State is still earning its Increment Value as it rises in value. The Government might well meet my hon. Friend and grant this one boon to the market gardeners of London and large towns, giving them an exception from Undeveloped Land Duty, while all the time the landlords, whom I believe to be the real object of the tax, will have to pay increment duty when the land comes to be developed for building purposes.
  Captain WEIGALL: I feel strongly on this subject simply and solely as an average agriculturist, representing an agricultural constituency, first from the point of view that during the whole of my life I have been concerned with the management of agricultural estates in this country; and, secondly, from the point that I have only recently concluded an unenviable experience of five months' continuous electioneering in agricultural constituencies. During that period hon. Gentlemen opposite have hurled all their eloquence against me in endeavouring to persuade agricultural electors that the whole of the agricultural land of this country was absolutely exempt from Undeveloped Land Duty and Increment Duty. It seems to me that this Amendment opens up a very wide vista, far wider than that affecting merely the market gardens of the country. It means that unless you are going clearly to point out, both to owners and occupiers of agricultural land, that they are exempt from this taxation you are going to close the door to a large amount of expenditure which is neither luxurious nor absolutely necessary.
  All those who have either owned, managed, or farmed large acreages of land know that an enormous amount of expenditure goes through what is known as the clerk of the works staff on large estates. It is neither luxurious nor absolutely necessary, but it goes to make the tenant farmer's holding more accommodating and more attractive to him, and the labourer's cottage more comfortable, and the labourer himself, therefore, more contented. Unless you are going clearly to
  1254
  show the owner of agricultural land that he is to be exempt from Undeveloped Land Duty, you are going to close the door to that expenditure, and therefore to hit both the agricultural tenant and the agricultural labourer. There is not the slightest doubt that there is an immense amount of land in this country bordering on centres of industry let at a rent of £3 or £4 an acre. Capitalise that at twenty-five years' purchase, and you get the capital value of £100 an acre. I have had acres and acres of land in my charge that is being put to its best economic use for purely agricultural purposes. It is let at £4 an acre if I offer it; and there is land I have offered for the last ten years, and have been willing to sell at its purely agricultural value, and I have not had a buyer, simply because the centre of industry has been over-built and local taxation has arrived at a figure when those who live in the locality do not desire to build. Therefore, the whole of that land is being put to agricultural use, and that agricultural use represents the best economic use to which the land at the present moment can be put.
  The men who are living in these conditions under an individual landowner are living in very much better conditions than they can possibly hope to do under any State-aided scheme, for the simple reason that they have elasticity of arrangement in paying their rent, and the average landowner in this country certainly cannot be said to have imposed unfair conditions on those occupying under him. If you get tenants and labourers under these conditions while the land is being put to its best economic use—I am speaking for the agricultural community alone—I say that, unless you can clearly show that you are sincere in your protestation that agricultural land is to be exempt, then this Amendment which clearly shows that agricultural land, so long as it is purely agricultural land, is going to be exempt from Undeveloped Land Duty, should be accepted. You would then show that you are sincere in your protestations. I emphatically deny that under the Finance Act agricultural land of the kind I have endeavoured to describe is exempt. All I wish to point out is that it is open now to the Government to make it absolutely clear to the agricultural community that they are sincere in their protestations that agricultural land shall in future be exempt. I am perfectly sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that there is, rightly or wrongly, existing

  1255
  now among those who own agricultural land a feeling of instability and insecurity. The effect is that, so long as that feeling of instability and insecurity exists, you must be striking a blow at the whole of the agricultural prosperity of the country, because if you are going to close down the doors of ordinary expenditure which the average landowner has been making, you are going to impose an unfair burden on those who have to get their living out of agricultural land. On these grounds I hope most sincerely that the Government will accept this Amendment.
  10.0 P.M.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The Government cannot possibly accept this Amendment, and I think it will require very little consideration on the part of hon. Members to realise that, if, as I strongly believe, it was not already realised before the Clause was moved. The Debate we had on the last Clause with respect to the taxation of agricultural values travelled over a great deal of the ground that has been covered during the discussion on this Clause. If the Government were to accept this Amendment, the result of it would be that there would be very few cases in which you would get Undeveloped Land Duty at all. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] I am much obliged to the hon. Member for the candour with which he has expressed his agreement with me as to the way in which the Revenue would lose. It is quite plain, of course, that the object of the Amendment is to get rid of the Undeveloped Land Duty. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, I will say that the object is to get rid of the Undeveloped Land Duty in so far as hon. Members opposite have any hope of getting rid of it at all. If this Amendment were accepted you might get rid of Undeveloped Land Duty wherever you liked, provided that you turned the land into a market garden. There is nothing to get in that case. If the land is cultivated as a market garden then you are not liable to Undeveloped Land Duty under the Amendment. Let me point out further that market gardens are, in case of any doubt, included in agricultural land under the definition Clause, Section 41, of the principal Act. The agricultural value of this land does not bear any duty at all. It is made as plain as it possibly can be by the section of the principal Act. If hon. Members will only refer to Sections 16 and 17 they will see quite plainly that there is no Undeveloped Land Duty
  1256
  charged upon agricultural value. It is only when the building value exceeds the agricultural value that Undeveloped Land Duty becomes payable, and it is only payable in respect of the amount by which the site value exceeds the agricultural value. It is perfectly plain from the sections of the principal Act that we have in this matter provided for the way in which the tax is to be levied. Undeveloped Land Duty stands in a category by itself. That duty is payable under the principal Act by the owner. It is expressly made payable by the owner under the Act, and not by the tenant. The result is that a market gardener who is a tenant will not have to pay the duty at all. It is the owner who in the end——[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] There is no use saying "No," for the Act says it is to be paid by the owner. I do not intend to say anything more with regard to that.
  I would point out once more to hon. Members who may have forgotten some of the Clauses in the Act, or who may not have the Clauses present in their minds at the moment, that by Section 18 of the principal Act we have exempted from Undeveloped Land Duty persons occupying small holdings where the total value of the land does not exceed £500. Under that Clause the market gardener, for whom a good deal of sympathy is asked, is provided for already, and, whatever happens, so far as he is concerned, he gets out of paying Undeveloped Land Duty on his holding, even if the building value exceeds the agricultural value. In all the circumstances the only claim that could be made for the Duty would be in respect of the amount of building value in excess of the agricultural value, and no more. I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment, which, if accepted, would destroy the effect of the Undeveloped Land Duty.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and learned Gentleman's defence of this Bill is singularly instructive, because the Committee will observe that already in respect of this matter as regards the particular distinction which we have been seeking to get the Government to introduce in reference to Increment Duty, and which the Government have for the last two hours vehemently resisted, the hon. and learned Gentleman for the purpose of making his defence points out, that in this case it is provided by the principal Act that Undeveloped Duty would be charged only on the excess of the building value over the agricultural value, and the object of this last Amendment, which for the last

  1257
  two hours the Government have been resisting, was to secure that Increment Value Duty also should be charged only upon the excess of the building value above the agricultural value.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The one was Increment Duty and the other was Undeveloped Land Duty.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is perfectly true: Just as I might say that yesterday was Monday and to-day is Tuesday. But if the principle is sound that you should tax only upon the difference between building value and agricultural value, and in order to defeat this Amendment the Attorney-General founds himself upon the fact that that is done, with regard to Undeveloped Land Duty; then the case is even stronger in regard to Increment Duty, where the assumption was that the landowner had got additional value to which he had not contributed, than in the case of the Undeveloped Land Duty where there is no such assumption, but where there is found to be in the possession of the owner a certain value which you choose for taxation. What is the result of the policy which the Government are pursuing in this matter? The theory, as I understand it, is that wherever ground has a building value in excess of its value for other purposes it ought to be built upon; that whoever, being the owner, and having control of it, uses it for other purposes than building uses it unprofitably, and that if enlightened self-interest does not lead him to get the highest price he could for building on it at once you must fine him by taxation. The theory of the Government is that a vast amount of land is being held up for building, although the owner could get greater prices by using it, and although it is required for building, and although it is to the interest of the community and the owner alike that it should be built on. I join issue on that point. In regard to the kind of land referred to by my hon. Friend it is not the interest of the community to force that land into building lots. In the first place, I think that you cannot force it all into building lots, and for many years to come the only use you can put it to is an agricultural use and the best use you can put it to for the community is an intensive agricultural use or a market garden use.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: The best economically?
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, the best economically and the best for
  1258
  the community. In the Budget of 1909 it is taxed, but it will not be taxed if it has not a value in excess of its agricultural value.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Then what does the right hon. Gentleman mean by the best economic use?
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If he will allow me to finish the answer to his question and will attend to it, he will see that there is an answer, and he will see that he is wrong. But that depends on his having patience to listen and being willing to give his intelligence to the subject. If the land has no higher value for any other purpose than for agricultural purposes it will not be taxed, but there is a vast amount of land which has a higher value given by its prospective use for building, but not by its present use for building, and all that land will be taxed. Take land which to-day is worth £3 an acre for agricultural purposes, representing a capital value of £100, and say that that land is in the neighbourhood of a town and will in the course of a dozen years be required for the town's development. Will the value of that land in the market to-day be only the £100 which represents its present agricultural value? It will be its future building value, discounted by the number of years that have to run before that value can be realised. If so many years hence that land can be sold for building purposes at £1,000, its value to-day may be £200, £300, £400, or £500, rising up to that figure according to the number of years which have to run before it can be used for building purposes. During all those years it will be taxed, if used as a market garden, and yet to use it as a market garden is, in the narrowest sense of the word, the sense in which the hon. Member (Mr. Leif Jones) used it—the best economic use to which the land can be put. That is to say, it is the way in which you can get the greatest amount of money out of the land during the time.
  But I am going a little further than those dry economics. I must beg the House to consider for a moment whether it is really in the interests of a great town that you should drive every acre of land within the limits of the town into the builder's hands? Do you want, when once a town, as it were, gets its grip on a district that every atom of ground that is capable of being covered by bricks and mortar should be covered? Do you not realise that the bigger a town gets the more important it becomes that yon should

  1259
  have open spaces? When corporations or private donors, very often landowners, go to great expense to buy open spaces, not merely as playgrounds in which people can absolutely run about, but as lungs to give breathing spaces to the town itself, I say then that in the interests of these great communities it is not desirable that all this land should be built over as soon as possible. It is much more desirable that it should spread over a larger area and leave open spaces in the midst of the bricks and mortar. Many of those spaces are left for a very long time, when you have got a reasonable return under the old system out of the use of the land for market gardens, and such like, or allotments which are covered by an Amendment to this Clause, or similar purposes. But you are going to say that if the land continues to be used for that purpose, as land for breathing space, that it shall be subject to a special tax, and the moral ground-work of your tax is that the landowner is improperly exercising his rights and improperly withholding his land from the builder. You would therefore put the utmost pressure, both direct and indirect, moral and financial, upon the landlord of any such open spaces to cover them with buildings at the earliest possible time. The House has devoted a good deal of attention to town planning and open spaces, and such like subjects, and I urge Members not to strike a blow on the other side by doing something which, pro tanto, undoes the work that they are doing in town planning and in other directions as regards the interests of the community as a whole. But there is another interest concerned, that of the tenant of such land. The learned Attorney-General emphasised the fact of the agricultural value not being exceeded. But invert his proposition. If the landlord raises the agricultural rent until it represents a return upon the building value of the estate, he is exempt from the tax, but if he continues to charge the agricultural rent which he formerly charged, then he is taxed as an evil-doer. I have ventured to put my own personal case to the House before, a thing one always hesitates about doing. I am not a big landowner. I own a little land in the neighbourhood of Birmingham. It is let in four portions.
  There is a small holding occupied by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), there is a small holding occupied by a tenant farmer, a portion is devoted to allotments, and
  1260
  another portion is let to an horticultural society. I wish to draw attention to the land let for allotments. This land was bought a good many years ago for £200 an acre, because it was supposed to have a building value. There is plenty of land in the neighbourhood and certainly the land occupied in allotments is not, in my opinion, the first to be acquired for building purposes at the present time. These allotments are let at £3 an acre, which represents a capital value of £100. I am asked to renew the lease to the small holders. If I do so what is the position which confronts me? I am assuming that the land is worth no less and no more than when it was bought thirty years ago—£200 an acre. It is let for £3 an acre for agricultural purposes, and I therefore assume its value to be £100. The building value I assume to be £200—I do not think it is less, I do not think it is more. If I renew the lease what do I do? I make myself subject to the tax, I expose myself to the stigma, according to the Government theory, that I am withholding from building purposes land which ought to be built upon. That is the answer I have to make to the tenants, and thereupon they come to me and say, "If the district council offered you £6 per acre rent instead of £3 which they are paying then the agricultural value would be the same as the building value, and there would be no tax. There would then be no stigma, and instead of you being out of money you would get double the rent." That is perfectly true. That is the case I have got to deal with myself, and it is the case many another landlord will have to deal with. I quoted this in the House before, and I observed that the "Westminster Gazette" said, "What does Mr. Chamberlain complain of? He bought the land twenty or thirty years ago for £200, and when he bought the land it was because he thought it had a building value, and if it has a building value that is to be taxed." That is an entire misconception. I never would have ventured to bring before the House a personal grievance in that way. I did not raise the case, because I was going to be taxed but because here in a picturesque form was an argument which is presented to the landlord's mind, and suggested not by the landlord himself but by the tenants, who sooner than have that land turned into building land suggest that I should double the rent that I receive in order to escape the tax, and to escape the moral stigma that the Government put upon me.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Has the right hon. Gentleman the land let at half the agricultural value it might let for?
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think £3 per acre is the fair agricultural value, but if I can prove that for the whole of that land, something over twenty acres, I can find eighty to one hundred persons willing to offer me £6 per acre, I defy the Commissioners to say that that is not agricultural rent, if I get that offer from agricultural tenants for agricultural purposes. If you ask me whether I think that is a fair rent, no, I do not. The whole purpose of the tenants in offering the suggestion is not that that is its real agricultural value, but they offer that fancy price as an agricultural price; so that the reason for taxation disappears, the stigma disappears, and that I may leave it in their occupation.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the tenants are offering the higher rent as philanthropists?
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: A deputation from them suggested they would pay that because they want the land for agricultural purposes, and because they do not want their landlord to be forced to do that which the Government and the hon. Member are trying to make him do, namely, to turn his land away from agricultural use to building use, and to cover it with bricks and mortar at once.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: It seems to me that on his own showing the agricultural value of the land is higher than that at which the right hon. Gentleman has let it.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think it is, neither they nor I. I think £3 per acre is a fair rent. I am talking of the rent I receive of the gross acres, because, of course, they have to pay more to the district council since it is divided up. I think that is a fair price, but if you drive all the landlords in the neighbourhood to cover their land with bricks and mortar then I agree that the rent of agricultural land in that neighbourhood might be doubled. There will be famine prices paid for land. That is what is happening. From fear lest the land should be taken from them they are offering me a famine price. That is the result of your legislation. That is what you call exempting all agricultural land from the duty. You will never persuade my Con-
  1262
  stituents and the tenants under the district council who are tenants under me, that the provisions of your Act are fair, or in accordance with your own account, as long as they know the facts as they are presented to them at the present time. I suggest two pleas to the Government. The first is the general plea that it is not in the interest of the community to force landlords to build on all this open land, but that, on the contrary, it is much better that these lands should be left vacant as long as possible as open spaces, because in proportion as you force landlords to build you will force corporations to buy the land at enhanced prices from the landlord to save some part of it from the builder. Then there is the interest of the particular tenant, who will be met again and again by the landlord with the statement:—"If I continue to let the land to you for agricultural purposes I am held up to contempt by the Government as a wrongdoer; I am fined by the Government for misusing my land; therefore I must take it away from you unless you bring it again into the category of agricultural land by offering me a price which makes the agricultural equivalent to the building value."
  Mr. LEIF JONES: The right hon. Gentleman has not convinced me that we are taxing agricultural land. He has, however, made the very remarkable statement that we are raising the value of agricultural land to famine prices. We have nearly doubled the agricultural value of land which he himself possesses, and he is now in the position to get £6 an acre for land which he has let at £3. It is a curious commentary on the usual criticisms on the action of the Government.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Does it occur to the hon. Member what kind of speeches would be made by hon. Members opposite if I took advantage of this Act to double the rent?
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I am the last man to blame the right hon. Gentleman for getting the market value for his land.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is the whole case against the landlords of England.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I am not concerned in making a case against the landlords of England. In this matter not a word has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman to prove to me that one penny of the tax falls on the value of agricultural land.

  1263
  The right hon Gentleman spoke about dry economics. I think he did wisely to desert them during the greater portion of his speech. The Increment Value Duty, admittedly, does not fall on the agricultural value of land.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, it does.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I must withdraw the word "admittedly."
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Admittedly it does.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: As regards Increment Value Duty, it is a question of the standard that you take. The Government have taken a fixed standard at a given time. The complaint made by hon. Members opposite is that when levying Increment Duty the Government do not start from a higher agricultural value which may have been reached after 1909, but they start from the standard of 1909. It is only in that sense that they can possibly claim that these taxes fall upon agricultural land. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, I believe that to be so, and the right hon. Gentleman reminded me that I had sat through all the Debates, I had had the advantage of listening to all his speeches, and still that is the view I hold. My view has not changed by a year spent in studying the operations of the tax, Form IV., and the various other outgrowths of the Budget of 1909. When we come to the Undeveloped Land Tax again it has not fallen upon agricultural land, because the tax does not operate until the land has a higher value for building purposes than its agricultural value. That at least is not denied by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The right hon. Gentleman talked about some prospective value which land might have over and apart from its present value. I have always been at a loss to understand what this prospective value is of which hon. Members opposite speak. The prospective value, the right hon. Gentleman says, is discounted—[Interruption]—If the land has a higher value, I would submit to the Opposition that there is nothing unreasonable in putting a tax upon it.
  The right hon. Gentleman spoke once or twice of the stigma of being subject to the Undeveloped Land Duty, and of accounting himself a wrong-doer. I submit that is a very unreasonable way of treating that tax. If there is land that has this higher value produced in the neighbour-
  1264
  hood of towns, then it is a very reasonable subject for taxation. Certainly no social disadvantage has been shown to attach to it. I follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument that it is undesirable to force building forward. That is quite a reasonable argument which he holds very strongly, and for which there is a great deal to be said. But I do not think he is entitled to speak as if we were attaching a stigma to everyone who has to pay Undeveloped Land Duty, or that he is a wrong-doer because of this tax. The amount of the tax is an exceedingly small one. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of the £200 total value of the land referred to by the right hon. Gentleman £100 was for agricultural value, and the other £100 is subject to the tax—4s. 2d. a year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Per acre."] I am bound to say that neither in the tax itself nor in the amount has the right hon. Gentleman very much to complain of.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I make no complaint on my own account. I hesitated to mention the case, which I merely did by way of illustrating my point.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I think the tax is a small one. I deny that it falls upon agricultural land in any sense. Nothing the right hon. Gentleman said in his development of the case against this tax in 1909 has made any hon. Member of this House dislike it more. Further experience of these taxes has not led us to believe that the Government have not acted wisely in putting these taxes upon land values.
  Mr. ROYDS: This has been a very instructive Debate. It has shown that hon. Gentlemen, or at any rate a certain number of them on the other side who supported these Land Taxes through thick and thin did not understand the basis of the taxes at all. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said he studied the Act for some time and was satisfied that agricultural land was not taxed at all. He said Increment Value Duty was chargeable on the difference between the agricultural value of the land as it existed on April, 1909, and the present site value. The hon. Member is entirely mistaken. Increment is not chargeable upon that; it is chargeable on the difference between original site value and the new site value without regard to agricultural value at all. I want to put the hon. Member right, because I hope, after my explanation, to convert him into an opponent instead of a supporter of the tax. The hon. Member was not aware

  1265
  that Undeveloped Land Duty was chargeable when land was not built upon; he had to be told that Undeveloped Land Duty was chargeable, notwithstanding that the land had not been built upon. These are the two main taxes supported by hon. Gentlemen opposite, yet they do not understand the very foundation of them.
  Viscount HELMSLEY Viscount HELMSLEY 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. ESSEX: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire spoke about land being forced by the operations of these taxes into building land as being undesirable. I join issue with him in one way, though agreeing with him in the main. We who support these taxes support them not merely as revenue-producing agencies; we support them for the further reason that we believe they will bring more land into the market for building operations, and, instead of getting what we now get, miserable, squalid little square backyards in hundreds of thousands of our working-class houses, we should have larger portions of land attached and big gardens to add to the amenities of the dwellings of the poor. The hon. Member who has just spoken has an Amendment extending the operation of this tax by making it possible to call any little pieces of land upon which anything is grown agricultural land. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide."] I have only another word to say and I mean to say it.
  The CHAIRMAN: I really must ask hon. Members not to cry "Divide, divide." This conduct is really of a disorderly character.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Is it not within your recollection, Mr. Emmott, that we were once told from the Chair that when the House did not wish to hear an hon. Member speak the practice was to cry "Divide, divide."
  Mr. ESSEX: The "t's" are crossed and the "i's" are dotted in subsequent Amendments by which in short any owner of land who wants to defeat the operation of the Act has only to put twenty-five cabbages upon his land and call it allotment or market garden land and then the object we have in view of making our towns healthier and more beautiful is defeated. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) triumphantly remarked that this tax is laid upon agricultural land,
  1266
  and it was said by a colleague of his that within his own experience the agricultural value of his land would probably be raised 100 per cent. by the operation of this Bill.
  Mr. HENRY TERRELL Mr. HENRY TERRELL rose to continue the Debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide."]
  The CHAIRMAN: I really must appeal to hon. Members on my right to allow the hon. Member to address the Committee. There is only a quarter of an hour before this Debate must conclude, and it is not fair to take up all the time by these disorderly interruptions, whether they come from the one side or the other. I regret to say to-night they have come from both sides.
  Mr. HENRY TERRELL: The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Leif Jones) said my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) had not convinced him, but I do not suppose my right hon. Friend or anybody else would under any circumstances convince the hon. Member of the iniquity of the Undeveloped Land Duty. The reason why my right hon. Friend failed to convince him was made clear by the hon. Member himself when he told the House that he was at a loss to understand what was meant by the prospective building value of land. I should have thought anybody who had had the slightest experience of landed property in this country would perfectly well have understood what was meant by the prospective building value of land. Dees the hon. Member imagine for a moment when he talks of land having at one time an agricultural value of £100 an acre and some years afterwards having a building value of £1,000 an acre that value grows in a night, like a mushroom? The value grows gradually, as the neighbourhood increases and develops. If you have land with a purely agricultural value of £100 an acre it may in the next five years be worth £200 an acre, but at the end of that period it is not ripe for building. You have to hold it for some years before it becomes ripe, but, whilst it is becoming actual building land it has a prospective building value, and it is that prospective building value which is taxed by the Undeveloped Land Duty. Let us consider how that applies to agricultural land. Market gardens and allotments and land of that kind is called agricultural land within the meaning of these sections relating to the Undeveloped Land Duty. Just see how you are going to hit the small market gardener in that respect. Hon. Members below the Gangway opposite

  1267
  often speak of the value of encouraging intensive cultivation in the neighbourhood of towns. But here you are preventing it; you are imposing such duties on the only land capable of being used for that kind of agriculture that you prevent that kind of agriculture being followed at all. You cannot have that particular industry miles away from a town, you can only have it in the immediate neighbourhood of towns, and the land, by reason of its being in that immediate neighbourhood has a prospective building value. It is because it has that value that it is suited for this particular kind of agriculture. The tax has to be borne by the occupier: you may be quite sure that the owner of that land, which is a limited quantity, will pass the burden on to the occupier. If hon. Members will only look at this apart from the party aspect, they will see that by these duties they are doing their best to prevent this very land being used for market garden and allotment purposes. I venture earnestly to appeal to hon. Members who really desire to encourage this form of agriculture, which is essentially the form most suitable for the working classes of this country to support us on this occasion rather than to vote for a proposal which would simply hamper it.
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELL Mr. EYRES-MONSELL 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.
  Dr. ADDISON: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire spoke of the difficulty arising from the fact that the land had a prospective building value which could not be realised. By the operation of this tax we want to squeeze it into building land, and thus do
  away with the injustice arising from the fact that it is prospective. I should like for a moment to examine the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman's argument amounted to this. He said that this land has a prospective building value of £200 an acre, but in the meantime he let if for market gardening purposes for £3 an acre, but in consequence of the odium which this unjust tax would give rise to be would be invited to raise the rent to £6 an acre, and the object of this performance of his was to relieve him of a tax which amounted to 4s. 2d. That means that the tenants would press upon him an extra rent of £3 per annum in order that he may not incur the odium of paying 4s. 2d. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide."]
  The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps hon. Members do not understand that we must divide upon this Question at eleven o'clock?
  Dr. ADDISON: I was just pointing out, if the hon. Members opposite will allow me for a moment, that the right hon. Gentleman's argument was that this land existing in the neighbourhood of a large centre of population, in consequence of being squeezed by the operation of this Act and of this tax, a great community would have to pay a large price for their building land. Therefore this Act resulted in a larger price for land——
  And, it being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 27th March, proceeded to put forthwith the Question on the Motion already proposed from the Chair.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 182; Noes, 287.

  Division No. 90.]

  AYES.

  [11.0 p.m.

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

  Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich)

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

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bigland, Alfred

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Ashley, W. W

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Astor, Waldorf

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Baird, J. L.

  Boyton, J.

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bull, Sir William James

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

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

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Croft, H. P.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Butcher, J. G.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Campion, W R.

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

  Barnston, Harry

  Cassel, Felix

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Cator, John

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

  Cave, George

  Fell, Arthur

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

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

  Royds, Edmund

  Forster, Henry William

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

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

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Frewen, Moreton

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. A. S. Geo., Han. Sq.)

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Gibbs, G. A.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Goldman, Charles Sydney

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Macmaster, Donald

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Spear, John Ward

  Grant, J. A.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Stanier, Beville

  Greene, W. R.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Gretton, John

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Haddock, George Bahr

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

  Stewart, Gershom

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

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

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Mount, William Arthur

  Swift, Rigby

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Sykes, Alan John

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Newman, John R. P.

  Touche, George Alexander

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hills, John Waller

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

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Hohler, G. Fitzroy

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

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

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

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

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

  Horner, Alfred Long

  Perkins, Walter F.

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

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

  Pole-Carw, Sir R.

  Winterton, Earl

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Pretyman, E. G.

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

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

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

  Knight, Captain E. A.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Yate, Col. C E.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Younger, George

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

  Rice, Hon. W. F.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Rolleston, Sir John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Eyres-Monsell and Mr. Joynson-Hicks.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  France, G. A.

  Adamson, William

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Furness, Stephen W.

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Clynes, John R.

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Gill, A. H.

  Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Anderson, Andrew Macbeth)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Armitage, R.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Crooks, William

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

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

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

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

  Barnes, George N.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Gulland, John William

  Barren, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

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

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Hackett, J.

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Delany, William

  Hill, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Barton, W.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Hancock, John George

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Dillon, John

  Harmsworth, R. (Leicester)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

  Boland, John Pius

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

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

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Harwood, George

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Brigg, Sir J.

  Elverston, H.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Bryce, John Annan

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Falconer, J.

  Hayward, Evan

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

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

  Ferens, T. R.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Byles, William Pollard

  Ffrench, Peter

  Hinds, John

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Field, William

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  1270

  1271

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Muldoon, John

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Hudson, Walter

  Munro, R.

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

  Hughes, S. L.

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Hunter, Wm. (Lanark, Govan)

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Neilson, Francis

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Nolan, Joseph

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Johnson, W.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

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

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Sheehy, David

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

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

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Summers, James Woolley

  Keating, Matthew

  Ogden, Fred

  Sutherland, John E.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  O'Grady, James

  Sutton, John E.

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

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

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  O'Malley, William

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

  Tennant, Harold John

  Lansbury, George

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

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

  O'Shee, James John

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Palmer, Godfrey

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Verney, Sir Henry

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Wadsworth, John

  Lundon, T.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Pearson, Weetman H. M.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Lynch, A. A.

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

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Wardle, George J.

  MacGhee, Richard

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Waring, Walter

  Maclean, Donald

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Price, Sir Robert J (Norfolk, E.)

  Watt, Henry A.

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

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Webb, H.

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

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Radford, George Heynes

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Manfield, Harry

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

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

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Rainy, Adam Rolland

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Marks, George Croydon

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Reddy, Michael

  Wiles, Thomas

  Meagher, Michael

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

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

  Millar, James Duncan

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Molloy, Michael

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Robinson, Sydney

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. W. Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

  Morrell, Philip

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dis-

  SCHEDULE.

  ENACTMENTS REPEALED.

  Session and Chapter.

  Short Title.

  Extent of Repeal.

  10 Edw. 7, c. 8

  …

  …

  Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910

  …

  Section fourteen, Sub-section (3); Section forty-four, Sub-section (1); the words "and on licences for motor cars" in Sub-section (1) of Section eighty-eight; Sub-section (3) of Section eighty-eight; and Section ninety-one.

  pose of the Business to be concluded at Eleven of the clock this day.
  Question put, "That this be the Schedule of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 175.

  Division No. 91.]

  AYES.

  [11.10 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Adamson, William

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Addison, Dr. C.

  France, G. A.

  Meagher, Michael

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

  Furness, Stephen W.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

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

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Gibson, Sir James P.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Gill, A. H.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Molloy, M.

  Anderson, A. M.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Armitage, R.

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Mooney, J. J.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

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

  Morgan, George Hay

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

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

  Morrell, Philip

  Barnes, George N.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Muldoon, John

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

  Hackett, J.

  Munro, R.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Hancock, J. G.

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Barton, W.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Neilson, Francis

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Harmsworth, R L.

  Norman, Sir Henry

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

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Nugent, Sir Walter R.

  Bentham, G. J

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

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

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

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Harwood, George

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Boland, John Pius

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Ogden, Fred

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Grady, James

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Brigg, Sir John

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Malley, William

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Shee, James John

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hinds, John

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Palmer, Godfrey

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

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Hudson, Walte

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

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Hughes, S. L

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburghshire)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Johnson, W.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Clynes, John R.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Jowett, F. W.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Joyce, Michael

  Radford, G. H.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Keating, M.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Crooks, William

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Crumley, Patrick

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

  Lansbury, George

  Reddy, M.

  Dawes, J. A.

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

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Delany, William

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Dillon, John

  Lundon, T.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Robinson, Sydney

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  MacGhee, Richard

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Maclean, Donald

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Elverston, H.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Essex, Richard Walter

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Falconer, J.

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

  Rowlands, James

  Farrell, James Patrick

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

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

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Manfield, Harry

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Field, William

  Marks, G. Croydon

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

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

  Wadsworth, J.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Sheehy, David

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Walters, John Tudor

  Wiles, Thomas

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Wardle, George J.

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Summers, James Woolley

  Waring, Walter

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

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Sutton, John E.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Winfrey, Richard

  Tennant, Harold John

  Webb, H.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

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

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Verney, Sir Henry

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  NOES.

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

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Gibbs, G. A.

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

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Goldman, C. S.

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Ashley, W. W

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Astor, Waldorf

  Grant, J. A.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Baird, J. L.

  Greene, W. R.

  Pretyman, E. G.

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

  Gretton, John

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

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

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rice, Hon. W. F.

  Barnston, Harry

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Hills, J. W.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Royds, Edmund

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hohler, G. Fitzroy

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby

  Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich)

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Bigland, Alfred

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Boyton, J.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Spear, John Ward

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Starkey, John R.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Butcher, J. G.

  Knight, Captain E. A.

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

  Campion, W. R.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Switt, Rigby

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Larmor, Sir J

  Sykes, Alan John

  Cassel, Felix

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

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Touche, George Alexander

  Cator, John

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

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Cave, George

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Mackinder, H J.

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Macmaster, Donald

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Craig, Norman (Kent)

  Malcolm, Ian

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Croft, H. P.

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Winterton, Earl

  Dalrymple, Viscount

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

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

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

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

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Dixon, C. H.

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Newdegate, F. A.

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

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Newman, John R. P.

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Fell, Arthur

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Younger, George

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Forster, Henry William

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Dr. Hillier and Mr. Stanier.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Frewen, Moreton

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  Whereupon the Chairman, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 27th March,
  1276
  left the Chair to report the Bill to the House.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow (Wednesday).

BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Mr. ARTHUR STRAUSS: I beg to move as an Amendment to leave out the words, "read the third time," and at the end of the Question to add the words, "re-committed to the former Committee."
This Bill confers on the Corporation of Bristol further powers as to several matters, including further borrowing powers. I offer no objection to the Bill as a Bill; all I ask for is that there should be a full and efficient audit. The promoters of the Bill object to my proposal. I cannot conceive why, but, strange to say, in Committee they fought with all their might against what I considered a proper audit. Considering that the ratepayers of Bristol have invested no less than six millions of money in an undertaking which entails a loss year by year, and that last year that loss was £150,000, which represents 1s. 10d. in the £ on the rates; considering that it has been shown that many irregularities took place in the past, you cannot wonder that numerous ratepayers seek the protection of Parliament from further repetitions of similar irregularities. For instance, the Corporation had authority to spend £109,000 on a railway connected with the dock undertaking. They borrowed and spent that sum not on the railway but on quite different and unauthorised purposes. Again, they borrowed and spent £46,000 without any borrowing powers from Parliament at all. Indeed, as the Chairman of the Committee put it, they came to Parliament with this Bill to legalise the irregularities; in other words, to be white-washed. There was a claim of the contractors for extra works amounting to £150,000, which was not mentioned in the accounts, even as a contingent liability.
Under this Bill the Corporation of Bristol asks not only for borrowing powers for specific work, but for powers to borrow and spend £150,000 for general purposes, so that the ratepayers are justified in asking for real and efficient audit. The audit in the past has not been
1278
satisfactory, and one cannot wonder at the conclusion which has been come to on all sides that there must be a change. The manager of the docks stated in cross-examination that they did not permit the auditor to allocate as between capital and revenue. The Audit Clause in the Bill was inserted by the Committee, as they believed, as the result of a compromise, but subsequent discussion showed that either they were misinformed or there was some misunderstanding. Therefore, if the Bill goes back to the Committee it will be no reflection upon them to be asked to change this Clause. The Clause reads:—
"The accounts of the Corporation relating to the dock undertaking for the financial year ending 30th April, 1912, and for each subsequent financial year, shall be audited by a chartered accountant appointed by the Corporation and approved by the Board of Trade."
Why do the Corporation insist on appointing their own auditor, although the Committee pressed upon them that they should have an auditor appointed by the Government or the Board of Trade? The only answer they gave was that it would be more convenient to have an auditor residing in Bristol. We have no objection to that at all. The Board of Trade can easily appoint an auditor. Their second objection was—[Interruption]—an auditor with a certain amount of elasticity. A member of the Committee said on this: "I suppose what you mean is that you want an auditor with an elastic conscience, and that the Government does not provide such an auditor." The Clause as it stands is an absurdity. The chartered accountant auditor in this Clause has no rights nor duties whatsoever. He does not come within the meaning of the Municipal Corporations Act of 1882. This Clause is an entire innovation. It is a bad and vicious precedent. It is because of that that I am so strongly opposed to it.
You could not have a better Clause nor a clearer definition of what an auditor should be than you have in the Port of London Bill. It says, "The accounts shall be presented in such a form and containing such particulars as may for the time being be prescribed by the Board of Trade, and shall be audited by an auditor appointed by the Board of Trade: if the auditor reports to the Board of Trade that the Port Authority have declined or neglected to comply with any of his recommendations or requirements, the Board

1279
will make an Order directing the Port Authority to comply with such recommendations and requirements." I suggest that a similar provision as regards audit should be inserted in this Bristol Corporation Bill, though I recognise certainly that it would add to the responsibilities and burdens of the Board of Trade. Therefore, before pressing my Amendment to a Division, I should very much like to hear the views of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, which I hope will be satisfactory.
Mr. COURTHOPE: In seconding this Amendment a very few words from me will suffice, because I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will make an announcement on behalf of the Government which is likely to go a long way to meet the point that my hon. Friend and myself desire. The great objection which we had to this Bill as it was drafted was that it made no proper provision for the auditing of the Dock accounts. As the Bill was originally introduced there was no such provision whatever, but as the Bill came down from the Committee upstairs it contained a Clause which the Board of Trade admitted to be insufficient because it refers to an Act of Parliament which has no possible application to the case in point. One of the desires of the ratepayers, whose interests I am attempting to voice to-night, is that not only should the Board of Trade themselves control the appointment of the auditor, but that the Bill should contain a clear definition of the functions of the auditor of the dock accounts. I understand the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will make an announcement to the effect that the Board of Trade intend to make a report to the Lords Committee which is to consider this Bill, and to mention in that report, not only the method of appointment but a definition of the functions of the auditor. If the hon. Member is able to make that announcement on these lines I for one shall not push my opposition to the Third Reading any further, and I shall ask my hon. Friend to ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Sir EDWIN CORNWALL: Perhaps it is due to the House that I should say a few words as Chairman of the Select Committee in view of the observations of the hon. Member opposite in regard to this Clause. I should like to remind the House
1280
what the Bill was when it passed its Second Reading and came upstairs. It was an ordinary private Bill promoted by the Bristol Corporation, which had a Corporation Dock System, and this Bill, as far as an auditor is concerned, was in the same position as any Bill promoted by any corporation carrying on its municipal undertakings under the Municipal Corporations Act. The question of the auditor did not arise from any Motion in this House on Second Reading; it arose entirely by certain owners of property petitioning the Committee to consider the question of the appointment of an auditor. The Committee had to take into consideration the fact that the Bristol Corporation were bound down by the Municipal Corporations Act for the carrying on of its duties in the same way as other municipal corporations are. When the Committee considered the case with regard to the auditor, counsel on behalf of the petitioners said:—
"I have to say we need not trouble the Committee any more. It was rather suggested that when we persisted in asking for a Board of Trade auditor, that, is to say, an auditor appointed by the Board of Trade, it might be thought we desired to cast aspersions upon local auditors, but we do not wish to do anything of the sort, and in order to show our loyalty I am content, on behalf of my clients, to say that we are willing to accept an auditor approved by the Board of Trade."
That is the only way the question of the appointment of an auditor arose before the Committee. Counsel on behalf of the petitioners was quite prepared to accept an auditor appointed by the Board of Trade. There are many Members who think that municipal corporations ought to be subjected to much more severe audit than obtains under the Municipal Corporations Act. That, I submit, is an argument for the general alteration of the law. When a private Bill of this nature has passed the Second Reading and goes to a Committee upstairs, and when the petitioners are satisfied, I think that meets the case entirely. I understand that the Board of Trade since think that if they are to approve of the auditor they should appoint him.
So far as I am concerned, I should not object to the Board of Trade appointing the auditor, but it seemed to me that the owners of property were satisfied, and had got a security which they would not have had under the Municipal Corporations Act. I do not mind if the Board of Trade prefers to appoint the auditor instead of approving him, and if the Bristol Corporation do not object, I shall raise no objection. I object to the view put forward that in the Clause put in the Bill it should be set out in the same way as in

1281
the case of the Port of London Bill. That was an entirely different thing. It was setting up a body with new powers; it was an authority to purchase the docks of London at a cost of between £23,000,000 and £24,000,000, and it was absolutely necessary that Parliament should set clearly out in the Clause the appointment of the auditors and all the machinery for regulating the audits and the accounts. But when this House is dealing with a private Bill, promoted by a corporation, which is responsible under the Municipal Corporations Act, I think the Clause we put in, which was asked for by the petitioners, is not entitled to the reflection which the hon. Member for Paddington has put upon it. I hope the House will support the view of the Committee on this point.
Sir HOWELL DAVIES: I do not consider that the House is the proper place to make these very general observations. The Corporation of Bristol are perfectly satisfied with the auditor we have had in the past. The genesis of this opposition arises from the fact that there was a reduction in the number of the Committee at Bristol and one member who was left off the Committee to show his disapprobation of being left off moved a resolution that we should apply for a Local Government auditor. That resolution was not accepted by the corporation and only three out of 92 members of the corporation voted with that gentleman. That gentleman has followed his opposition to the Committee upstairs, and, as the Chairman of that Committee has stated to the House, an agreement was come to. We had no desire to change the auditor we have had for many years past, but to meet the opposers we were prepared to accept an auditor we might name who should be approved by the Board of Trade. Upon that proposal, whilst I was in the box giving evidence, the case was stopped, and the opposition said they were prepared to withdraw. It was a great surprise to me that, having made a bargain upstairs, they should attempt to induce hon. Members of this House to go behind it and block the Bill on the Third Beading. I am quite certain, after the statement of the Chairman of the Committee, the House will feel it ought to give the Bristol Corporation the Third Reading of this Bill. It is quite true the City of Bristol are contributing a considerable sum towards the support of the dock undertaking, but they who bear the burden are perfectly well satisfied, and
1282
do not want the sympathy of any hon. Gentleman of this House. We feel we have done quite the right thing in increasing our dock undertaking, and I am glad to inform the House that this year we shall ask for £14,000 less than we required last year, and there is every reason to believe that in a very short time the Bristol Dock undertaking will be an entirely successful undertaking. I hope the House will give the Bristol Corporation a Third Reading of this Bill.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. H. J. Tennant): I only rise in response to the appeal made by the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Courthope) that I should state what the Board of Trade are prepared to do in this matter. This is a large Bill, but the only point made by either of the hon. Gentlemen is in connection with the auditor. The Clause inserted in the Bill by the Committee was inserted without reference to the Board of Trade, and we had no cognisance of it. It asks the Board of Trade to approve the auditor appointed by the corporation. That is a position which we do not very much wish to occupy. We should prefer to appoint the auditor ourselves. I have had the advantage of having a conference with the opponents and with the promoters of the Bill, and we have come to the decision that while they should nominate, the Board of Trade should actually appoint the auditor. It is supposed, I do not know by what machinery, we should have a greater opportunity of rejecting candidates put forward. We think by this means we shall secure what the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Arthur Strauss), I think, desires, that the auditor will not be elastic, but will be independent. Our agreement upon this point is subject to the corporation inserting in the other House certain terms and conditions as to the functions of the auditor. The hon. Member for Rye appealed to me to say we would report to the Committee in the other House that they should insert definite conditions as to the functions of the auditor. I do not think it is possible for us to do that with great definiteness, but the Board of Trade have every hope that we shall be able to agree to a Clause. In the event of that Clause not being agreed to by the opponents and promoters we shall certainly present a report to the Committee in the other House asking them to lay down definite functions for the auditor which they consider are necessary and ad-

1283
visable. We believe by that means we shall secure an independent auditor, which is the main point, I understand, of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Publicity will be provided for, and all things, such as the fixing of the fees of the auditor and defining the conditions by which he shall be dismissed, if necessary, will be definitely laid down. That really will meet the point of the argument which has been laid before the House by the two hon. Members who wish to re-commit the Bill in respect of this Audit Clause. Under these circumstances I venture to hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not think it necessary to carry this matter to a Division and will be content to withdraw the motion.
Mr. ARTHUR STRAUSS: The explanation has been most satisfactory, and under the circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) ACT (1897) AMENDMENT BILL.
Read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.
And it being after half-past Eleven of the Clock on Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Three minutes before Twelve o'clock.

  Finance Act (Reversion Duty).
  Finance Act (Reversion Duty).
  Special Commissioners' Assessments.
  Special Commissioners' Assessments.
  Kerry County Council.
  Kerry County Council.
  Road Board (Road Improvement in Ireland).
  Road Board (Road Improvement in Ireland).
  Development Grants (Ireland).
  Development Grants (Ireland).
  Examination in Irish.
  Examination in Irish.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Intermediate Education Grants (Ireland).
  Intermediate Education Grants (Ireland).
  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Military Sashes.
  Military Sashes.
  Long Service Pension Application.
  Long Service Pension Application.
  Military Books of Instruction.
  Military Books of Instruction.
  Army Ordnance (Unskilled Workers).
  Army Ordnance (Unskilled Workers).
  Assistant Masters in Secondary Schools.
  Assistant Masters in Secondary Schools.
  Labour Conditions in Angola.
  Labour Conditions in Angola.
  Egyptian Press Warnings.
  Egyptian Press Warnings.
  Small-Pox (England and Wales).
  Small-Pox (England and Wales).
  Small-Pox (Hospital Accommodation, London).
  Small-Pox (Hospital Accommodation, London).
  Labour Exchanges (Appointments).
  Labour Exchanges (Appointments).
  Railway Collision (Newmarket, County Cork).
  Railway Collision (Newmarket, County Cork).
  Trade Statistics.
  Trade Statistics.
  Delivery of Letters (Blackburn).
  Delivery of Letters (Blackburn).
  Delivery of Telegrams (Three-Mile Limit).
  Delivery of Telegrams (Three-Mile Limit).
  Trunk Telephones (Ireland).
  Trunk Telephones (Ireland).
  Edgeworthstown (County Longford) Magistracy.
  Edgeworthstown (County Longford) Magistracy.
  Great Grimsby County Court.
  Great Grimsby County Court.
  Board of Agriculture Journal.
  Board of Agriculture Journal.

Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the petition for additional provision in the following Bill:
Aberdare Urban District Council. [H.L.]
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No.1) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; and referred to the Examiners.
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL, [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
ENFIELD GAS BILL. [H.L.]
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
BRIGHTON DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Proceedings of yesterday with respect to, ordered to be vacated, and Bill to be read 2a on Monday next.
ASHBORNE AND DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  SWINTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ELY RURAL DISTRICT WATER BILL. [H.L.]
LONDON, BRIGHTON AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY (STEAM VESSELS) BILL. [H.L.]
CHARLES SHEILS CHARITY BILL. [H.L.]
LONDON CEMETERY COMPANY BILL, [H.L.]
HASTINGS CORPORATION (WATER AND FINANCE) BILL, [H.L]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL
Reported, without amendment.
RHYMNEY RAILWAY BILL, [H.L.]
  LONDON, BRIGHTON AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments.

ABERDARE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL, [H.L.]
(Petition for Additional Provision.)
Examiners' Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.

CHESTER WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Greville be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Marquess of Camden; read, and agreed to.
THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Seaton be proposed to the House as a Member of the Joint Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Lytton; read, and agreed to: All Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.
SIDMOUTH GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
Leave given to the Select Committee to continue sitting in the absence of the Earl of Hardwicke.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 13) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 12) BILL.
  Leave given to the Select Committee to adjourn over To-morrow.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE,
Standing Order No. XXXIX considered (according to order), and suspended for this day's sitting.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL,
Read 1a:Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 2a (The Lord Herschell):Committee negatived: Bill read 3a, and passed.

THE PREROGATIVE OF THE CROWN,
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Viscount who leads the House whether he is able to give us any information as to the views of His Majesty's Government with regard to the date of the Easter holiday, and perhaps as to its duration.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN): My Lords, I am afraid I must answer the noble Marquess's question by asking him to be so kind as to give us information as to the date on which he thinks it likely he might be able to bring before the House the proposals for its reconstitution, of which he has given notice. As soon as he tells me that, I will tell him what we propose.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I do not think the question which the noble Viscount has asked me is an unreasonable one, and I will answer it. If I am to assume, what I think I am right in assuming after a conversation with the noble Viscount, that the Easter adjournment might begin on some day during next week, I am afraid I see no prospect of being able to introduce the Bill for the reconstitution of this House before the Easter holiday. It is a personal disappointment to me to make that announcement, but I hope that the postponement may not occasion too much inconvenience to your Lordships. But, my Lords, there is one preliminary step connected with the Bill in question which we should be glad to see taken before we adjourn. The
656
Bill, like any Bill dealing with the constitution of this House, necessarily touches the Royal Prerogative. The result of inquiries which I have made has been to satisfy me that any Bill of which that can be said ought not to be introduced into either House of Parliament without the previous sanction of the Crown. I will not at this moment attempt to discuss the precedents by which we have been led to this conclusion, but we are satisfied that it is in accordance with the practice of Parliament and with the respect which we owe to the Crown that that preliminary concurrence should be obtained. In these circumstances I should like on Thursday next to make the following Motion—
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying His Majesty that, with a view to the Reform of the present Constitution of the House of Lords, His Majesty would be graciously pleased to consent to a Bill being introduced limiting the Prerogative and Powers of the Crown in so far as they relate to the creation of Peerages and to the issue of Writs of Summons to Lords Spiritual and Temporal to attend and sit and vote in the House of Lords."
I suggested just now that I should move that Address on Thursday next. I have chosen that day for the reason that, acting upon advice of a professional rather than a political character, I shall be obliged to absent myself from this House next week. Thursday is, therefore, the last available day so far as I am concerned. But, my Lords, I readily admit that, considering the importance of the matter, the notice which I have given is brief If the noble Viscount thinks it too short I am in his hands, and the Motion will either be made by some one else in my place at a later date, or else postponed until after the Easter holiday.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: My Lords, I am sure we are all cordially sorry that professional reasons should actuate the noble Marquess in any step he has to take. No doubt we might have complained that the notice that he has now given is rather short, but I think I may say that I shall be prepared on Thursday, having examined the precedents in the meantime, to state what the view of His Majesty's Government as to the Motion of the noble Marquess is. Then with regard to the Easter recess, as the noble Marquess's Bill is not to be brought forward before Easter I think it would be convenient if we adjourned from April 6 until April 26. If the House approves, that will be our proposal.

REPERENCE TO THE PEOPLE BILL, [H.L.]
[SECOND READING]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGIT: My Lords, in rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill I am sure I shall carry all your Lordships with me when I say that we profoundly- regret the absence of the Leader of the Government, who took a prominent part in the discussion upon the First Reading of the Bill. I should like to add that in venturing to fix to-day for the Second Reading of the Bill, which I did nearly a month ago, I hoped that by this time we should have been able to have seen the proposals which affect the reconstitution of this House, and that, perhaps, it would have been easier to discuss the provisions in the Bill the Second Reading of which I am about to move if we had seen those proposals. But through circumstances of which we are aware, and which we all regret, it has not been possible for the noble Marquess who leads this side of the House to be with us during the whole of the last few weeks, and to have brought forward his Bill. I had to consider the question whether I would ask the leave of the House to postpone the Second Reading of my Bill or bring it on, and upon the whole I thought that probably, the date having been fixed for some time, it would be less inconvenient to your Lordships that the debate should take place to-day as arranged. So far as any future stages of the Bill are concerned, should your Lordships be good enough to give it a Second Reading, I shall take good care not to unduly press the matter to the inconvenience of any section of the House. I hope that on this stage of the Bill we may have a useful discussion of what, after all, as it seems to me, is one of the most important subjects on which this House could engage its attention.
I said so much on the First Reading of the Bill that I hope not to detain your Lordships for very long at the present time, and in what I do say I shall endeavour to confine my attention mainly to answering some of the objections which I have seen brought forward to the proposals contained in the Bill. In the first place, the Bill is said by some to amount to so great a change that in their opinion it is an even
658
greater revolution than that which is proposed by the Parliament Bill. I cannot share that opinion. I not only cannot share that opinion, but I cannot see any ground upon which it can be seriously put forward. Really, if I may venture to say so, the object which my Bill would effect is to restore the very idea of our Constitution, that the people should govern. Under the constitution of Parliament the assent of three different interests is required for the passage of any Bill—His Majesty the King, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the other House of Parliament. No two of them up to the present time have been able to act without the concurrence of the third. But the Government Bill, which I am not going to discuss—I merely state the fact—not only, as it seems to me, entirely takes away the concurrence of your Lordships' House from any legislation in the sense that it renders it un- necessary, but if I am right in stating that: the modern theory is that the Sovereign is to act upon the advice of the Ministry of the day, it would amount not only to the supersession of one branch of the Legislature, but would put actually supreme and the possibility of tyrannical power into the hands of one of the three constituent parts of Parliament. Surely if I am right in that, that is a much greater revolution than anything which is contained in the, comparatively speaking, humble Bill which I have put on your Lordships' Table.
The conditions under which my Bill proposes that the reference to the people should take effect are two-fold. They will be found in the first two clauses of the Bill. In the first clause there is a provision made for reference to the people in the case of difference of opinion between the Houses of Parliament, and that throughout my-Bill is described as the case of a rejected. Bill. In the second clause there is a certain provision for a reference to the people in the case of what is described as a carried Bill. In the first of these two clauses it is provided that the Bill which is to be referred to the people in the event of a difference of opinion between the Houses of Parliament is the Bill in its terms as it leaves the other House of Parliament. Some criticisms have been made upon that proposal, and it has been suggested that there should be alternatives in the schedule providing for a more or less complicated series of questions being, put to the electorate as to whether the

659
people would prefer the Bill in this form or that form, or with or without the Amendments agreed to by one or other of the Houses of Parliament. I deliberately chose to suggest to the House that it should be the Bill as it leaves the other House of Parliament, for two reasons. In the first place, that House is much more largely the House for the initiation of legislation, and therefore it seems to me more natural that if there is a difference of opinion it should be the Bill as it leaves the popular House which should be referred to the people.
But, my Lords, there is another reason. I believe that this provision would have a powerful effect, not only upon Governments, but upon some of their extreme partisans in another place to be careful as to the form in which they send a Bill up to this House. I do not know whether any of your Lordships will share my view, but I have sometimes thought that some of the differences of opinion which have emerged between the two Houses of Parliament have been made more acute, I hardly like to say purposely, by some desire to cultivate popularity with the extremer partisans in the other House of Parliament for the sake of the Government being able to say in the other House, "Oh, we have done what we can to meet your views," and then when the House of Lords rejects the Bill to take credit for having endeavoured to please their supporters and being prevented from carrying their wishes into effect by the House of Lords, which is thereupon the subject of condemnation. Now, if the Bill as referred to the people is the Bill as it leaves the House of Commons, that would obviously put a great premium upon moderation in the form of the proposals which are brought up here, because the more reasonable they are in most cases I venture to believe the greater success they would have should they be referred to the people.
Another criticism which has been made upon this clause, and by a personal friend of my own, is that it is unfair to this House that Bills which originate here should not be also made the subject of reference to the people. If your Lordships look at the drafting of the clause you will see that that is not possible under the clause as now drafted. To a certain extent there is a theoretical inequality in that provision. In theory, beyond all question the Houses
660
of Parliament, except on matters of finance, are co-ordinate in jurisdiction. There is no restriction as to Bills which may originate either in one House of Parliament or the other. As I have said, beyond all question a. very much greater number of Bills do originate in the other House, and I think your Lordships will see that, though it might be a counsel of perfection, it is impossible as a matter of practical politics that Bills which originate in this House during the spring months of the year, when we are at any rate not overburdened with work, should compulsorily, should they not be passed by the other House of Parliament, be made the subject of a reference to the people. As a matter of practical politics, and, as I venture to think, of sound consideration, I have thought it better to suggest that only Bills initiated in the other House of Parliament should be the subject of a reference to the people should disagreement between the Houses emerge in connection with them.
With regard to the second clause, the proposal is made that should both Houses carry a Bill it should be still possible for 200 Members of the House of Commons to ask for a reference to the people. In the first place I wish to say that the number of 200 is a purely arbitrary selection. Some suggestions have been made that it would be better to have a certain definite proportion of what is described as the regular Opposition, but under some circumstances—perhaps under present circumstances—it would be rather difficult to define what is the regular Opposition, and we would have, perhaps, to have statistics as to those gentlemen in the other House of Parliament who receive regularly the summonses to attend from one or other of the offices. I do not adhere to the idea of 200. It may be 150 or 250 for any matter of principle but I venture to select 200 as illustrating what I mean. At any rate the getting of 200 Members of the other House of Parliament to ask for a reference to the people would go far to show that there was a substantial desire to have the judgment of the electorate upon any proposal. I should have thought it was sufficiently obvious that the idea underlying this provision was an effort to be fair as between the two great political Parties, but by a curious perversity I have been charged in one quarter that I noticed with an extraordinarily cute design to

661
provide for such a case as this, that when this House had accepted a Bill proposed by a Liberal Government, even then the Conservative minority in the other House should suggest a reference to the people. I had no such deep design in my mind. It. was an honest effort to meet the common complaint—not, I ant bound to say, an unreasonable complaint—-made by members of the Party opposite, that when the Conservative Party are in power they have command in both Houses of Parliament and we live under what is called single-Chamber government. The sole idea that I had in proposing this second clause was to endeavour to be perfectly fair as between the two Parties, and to provide a means whereby, if a Radical or Liberal Opposition in the other House of Parliament desired to take the judgment of the people on a Bill which had been accepted by both Houses of Parliament, the machinery to do so should be open.
It is a commonplace. I think, although not always recognised, that if, as I hope, we are to have two Houses of Parliament, the Second House as it is called must always be more or less Conservative in character. None of us desire that it should be strong enough to be really obstructive, but what we do desire is that it should be independent enough to make sure that the people are not taken by surprise, and that they are really masters in their own house. In other words, if I may venture to say so, we agree to predominance, but we do not agree to supremacy which is uncontrolled even for a little time. It is sometimes said by other objectors to the Bill that this provision by which 200 Members of the other Rouse of Parliament can have a reference in the case of a carried Bill would lead to too many applications of the provision, so many, indeed, as to interfere seriously with the business of the country and be a nuisance to everybody concerned. It is difficult to be sure on any point of the kind. I may make the continent that that, at any rate, is prophesied. Even if the prophecy came true for a time. I believe the mere fact of its doing so would work its own cure, and that the unpopularity of the course would be so great that the 200 Members would hesitate to put it too often to the test.
What is the alternative to some proposal of this kind? The alternative must lie in the making of a schedule or a list of
662
classes of measures which are to be the subject of the reference. Sonic have suggested limiting Bills which are to be the subject of reference to those which propose some great Constitutional change, to those which interfere with Treaties of Union between the different component parts of the United Kingdom. Each of these suggestions has something to be said for it. It is a very taking idea that any Bill which proposes to interfere with the Treaties of Union should be the subject of reference, and not only of reference to the United Kingdom as a whole, but of reference separately to each of the country which have been bound together by Union. But when you come to look into it you find that the provisions, for example in the Treaty of Union between England and Scotland are so diverse in their range that it is not altogether easy to settle what is and what is not an essential or fundamental part of the Treaty of Union. The Treaty of Union between England and Scotland, while it takes care of the establishment of the Churches on both sides of the Tweed, also provides for such a relatively small matter as the number of a certain class of officials who are to be employed in the Court of Session. It is not very wise to say that any Bill which proposed to interfere with a matter comparatively trivial such as that should necessarily be made a subject of reference to the people, but unless you can find some distinct line on one side or the other on which all measures will lie you will have to set up some sort of tribunal to decide whether a Bill does or does not come within the category. I frankly say that this is a matter which I think is fraught with the greatest possible difficulty. There will be a suspicion, perhaps a not altogether unreasonable suspicion, of a purely legal tribunal in this respect—that it would, perhaps, impinge upon the supremacy of Parliament and any matter which is not to be decided upon pure principles of law will certainly come across lines of general policy, and no tribunal sufficiently impartial can, in my opinion, be devised.
I am hound to admit—I think it best frankly to do so—that if we reach the Committee stage there would have to be something put into one of the clauses of the Bill to prevent the reference of ordinary Finance Bills to the electorate. They would have, of course, to be defined, and

663
probably that would not be so difficult a task as separating between different classes of other kinds of legislation. I frankly admit that it would be absolutely impossible to conceive the idea of giving power to the minority in the other House of Parliament to refer the ordinary Aids of Supply Bills which come up each year. Another objection taken to this second clause is that the provision allowing 200 Members of the other House of Parliament to get a reference to the people would interrupt, as it was said, the strongest Government at its work. Just consider what this objection means. Either a Bill is in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the people or it is not. If the Bill referred to them is accepted by the people, I venture to say that the Government would gain greatly in dignity, and the Bill would get a great deal more support behind it than it would otherwise have and if the Bill is rejected, surely the idea that it would interrupt the Government in its work is rather an advantage than a disadvantage, because if the majority of the people do not want the Bill why should the Government and the dominant Party force it upon them?
My Lords, what is the object we all have in view—the object which at any rate we all of us profess, and I believe honestly, to have in view? It is that in matters of legislation the settled will of the people shall prevail. They are to be, in other words, the arbiters of their own destiny. That is the object and the justification of the whole of our representative system. But I ask your Lordships, Is there any one who can say that we do get that now, and that we are getting it with an increasing degree of certainty? My wish and my hope is that if any proposal upon the lines of this Bill is put into the Constitution it will make it more certain than it has ever been in the past that no legislation of a serious nature can be carried unless it has the support of the majority of the people behind it. We want to pass the legislation that the people desire and to reject that which they do not desire. I ask any of your Lordships how can we better ascertain where the dividing line between these two classes of Bills lies than by asking the people themselves the simple question, "Are you in favour or are you not in favour of this legislative proposal?"
664
Some people go so far as to make out that this Bill is an attack upon the representative system. I am afraid that I must endeavour to convict the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack of putting forward this objection. I wish to be perfectly fair to him, and as the quotation is not long I ask your Lordships to allow me to remind you of what the Lord Chancellor said on the occasion of the First Reading of this Bill. The noble and learned Lord said—
"The Referendum would also be fatal to representative government. The political genius of the English people was the first to discover, and after great difficulty to develop, the real basis of liberty and of self-government in this country—a system which has been copied all over the world. Every Referendum is an attack on the representative system."
Again, a few minutes later, the noble and learned Lord said—
"The people—should choose men who are honourable, whose judgment may be trusted and with whose opinions they are in harmony. They are sent to Parliament for the purpose of discussing these matters."
And the noble and learned Lord went on quite candidly to add—
"I do not say that the system at the present time is working altogether satisfactorily."
I am going to endeavour to show your Lordships that that is a very mild way of putting the difficulties which some of us feel. I ask your Lordships whether you do not agree with me that the necessary conditions for a good, true, and sound representative system are these. In the first place, there must be absolute freedom of choice on the part of those who have to select their representatives. Secondly, there must be no dictation by any central or outside authority, either at the time of the election or subsequently upon the representatives when they are meeting together to discuss the matters that come before them. In other words, after they are once installed in office, the representatives should owe duty only to those who have elected them and whose representatives they are. Let me ask you to consider whether those conditions, to which I am certain every sensible man will agree, are in any way carried out at the present time. Recently I came across an article which was published a year or so ago in a Blackburn paper, written by one of the Members of the other House of Parliament who stands very high for distinctness of opinion and absolute in-

665
dependence of judgment. I refer to Mr. Snowden. In that article—it was a written article not a hastily delivered speech Mr. Snowden says—
'The idea that the House of Commons represents the will of the people is a myth. The ordinary member is simply the servant of the Government, and has no control over the Government at all. The Government are the masters. The Government claim to be absolutely the infallible interpreters of the will of the people."
Then occur these remarkable passages—
"We have not a. democratic Constitution. The people do not rule. The House of Commons does not represent the will of the people. The Government is an autocracy, restrained, just like the Tsar of Russia, by considerations of preservation and their own interests."
Mr. Snowden goes on to say—
"It would be an instructive lesson to the electors, who imagined that they were voting for a man to represent their will in Parliament, if they could see that Member coming in from the terrace or the smoking room at the ringing of the Division boll, and at the entrance to the Lobbies having pointed out to him by the Party Whip the particular Lobby into which he must go to register Ins vote for a Motion of which, in nine cases out of ten, he has not the remotest idea lie has not heard a word of the discussion; he does not know even what the question under discussion is he votes as a `supporter of his Party, and if he understands the question and has opinions upon it, it makes no difference. He is there to support his Party, to follow his Leader, to do as be is told. This is expressing the will of the people!"
That is more distinct and more definite than I should have ventured of my own knowledge or in my own words to state. When you contrast that description with the very mild one of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that the present system does not work "altogether satisfactorily," I venture to say that there is a good deal between them which is worthy of your Lordships' consideration. It is, of course, long since the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was a private Member. He naturally, therefore, has not the same keen recollection of the conditions as they are said to exist.
Just consider for a moment the circumstances under which the last General Election was taken. Can any of us say, will the Government themselves be bold enough to say, that every one of the hundreds of thousands of voters who voted for candidates on their side, is really prepared to support everything which the Government now propose or which they have indicated they are likely to propose in the course of the present Parliament,
666
if those questions were put separately to them? It is commonly said that at any rate on the question of the Parliament Bill the decision was in favour of the policy of the Government. But my point is not met by that. My point can only be met if any one can allege that not only for the Parliament Bill, but for Home Rule, for the disestablishment of the Welsh Church, and for half-a-dozen other things these people would willingly have voted if they were put separately to them. It is said that the proposals in my Bill amount to a great change. I am not prepared to deny that they are a considerable change, but I do press upon your Lordships this consideration, that if this is a great change it is not nearly so great a change as that winch in all probability we may have to discuss in the course of a few weeks. Some things are obvious, but they are not certain always to be acknowledged and to be faced. It is commonly allowed, at any rate by lip-service, that there are to he two Houses of Parliament. I do not desire that the Second House of Parliament should be strong enough permanently to resist what is put before them, provided we can have any assurance that what is so put forward is in accordance with the wish of the people. But what I do say is that, strong or weak, the Second House should be strong enough to ensure appeal in some form or other to the people to make sure that the people are not being misjudged and their support taken for things which they do not desire.
My solution of the difficulties in which we are placed may not be perfect. I am very far indeed from being conceited enough to suggest that it cannot be improved in matters of detail or of drafting. At least I venture to say to your Lordships that the idea which underlies it is worth discussing seriously in a concrete form. No doubt with many of your Lordships the theoretical and technical difficulties will bulk largely, but I want you on the debate on the Second Reading on which we are now engaged to endeavour to look at the wide broad issues which are involved in the discussion in which we are engaged. On the other hand, as I have said, I know that some of the clauses in this Bill may seem difficult of acceptance. Some may hesitate, even though generally in favour of the proposals, to vote for the Second Reading for fear of being classed as agreeing with every jot or every tittle of what is

667
in the Bill. On that matter I am entirely in the hands of the House as to further procedure. But I do say from profound conviction, from such consideration as I have been able to rive to the whole of the circumstances in which we are placed, that in some form or another some such proposals as I venture to make to the House are unavoidable; and at any rate I honestly believe that in the last resort they may be found to afford at least a possible chance of reconciling some of the differences which divide us at the present time. My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: My Lords, we must all feel, and the state of the House shows that we do feel, that we are to-night opening the first page of one of the most momentous chapters in the Constitutional history of our country. I am sorry to find myself differing from the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill. I am afraid I do differ from him upon this Bill. I not only cannot vote for the Bill, but it seems to me so full of far-reaching evil that I am bound to vote against it. I recall with interest and gratification that remarkable speech which my noble friend made in November, 1909, when he used language to your Lordships some of which I will reproduce. Speaking on the noble Marquess's Motion in reference to the Finance Bill of that year, the noble Lord said—
"My Lords, if you win, the victory can at most be a temporary one. If you lose you have altered and prejudiced the position, the power, the prestige, the usefulness of this House which I believe every one of you honours and desires to serve as heartily and as thoroughly as I do myself. If you win you are but beginning a conflict."
My Lords, to-night we are beginning it. We are in a conflict which has been forced upon us, upon both Parties and upon the nation, by time and circumstances; but the decision to which this House has to come to-morrow night on the Bill of my noble friend opens, I repeat, the first page of a tremendous chapter.
What has happened within the eighteen months since the noble Lord made these observations? According to one of its most illustrious Members this House has ceased to exist. It has passed Resolutions to the effect that, as it was eighteen months
668
ago and as it is to-day, it ought to cease to exist. The Resolutions passed, on the motion partly of the noble Marquess opposite, are to the effect that this House as now constituted ought to cease to exist. The principle of the hereditary right to sit and vote in this House has vanished; and a few days ago and again to-night the Leader of the great majority of the House has told us that we shall soon have a Bill completely transforming the structure of this Assembly, and building, it is not too much to say, a new fabric upon the ruins of the present system. Two General Elections have taken place. All this great transformation has occurred in eighteen months. The picture is a startling one; and I declare that still more startling to me is the appearance of my noble friend's Bill. It is introduced by one of the most respected members of this House; it is likely here to receive the support, when the Division is taken, of noble Lords sitting on the Front Opposition Bench, and, perhaps, of the whole of those who sit behind them.
I prefer to-night, if the House will allow me, to dwell on the details of the Bill, which are open, I venture to think, to enormous criticism. The noble Lord attempted to make a case for the Bill in the circumstances of the other House. Of course he agrees that the other House must predominate, and therefore it is to the interest of every patriotic citizen of this country to see that the best is done for the advantage of that House that the wit of man can procure. I have had a good chance of knowing the House of Commons very well. I sat there for twenty-five years, and in the first twelve of those years I sat for what was, at all events then, the largest constituency in the country. I had seven contested elections in twelve years, and I sat in that House mostly in Opposition. I believe that the picture which my noble friend has drawn, and still more the picture, which he reproduced, by Mr. Snowden—a man whom I know, and of whom I always speak with respect—are completely overcharged. I see more than one noble Lord who sat in the House of Commons when I did. They know that language of the same sort was used when Mr. Gladstone was Prime Minister it was said that he was a dictator; that men were delegates, and were only whipped round the Lobbies, and so on. Parliamentary life and electioneering, say

669
what you like, are rough-and-tumble proceedings. You cannot avoid that. It is very well to draw ideal pictures of what a Member of Parliament ought to be, what an elector ought to be, and what Parliamentary life ought to be; but I do believe—and I consult with Members of Parliament constantly—that to say that independence has entirely disappeared is an exaggeration. And might I ask with all respect, as a comparative novice in this House, whether noble Lords do not very often follow their Leaders? I have not perceived once during the time I have been here any great sign of independence or dissent or of revolt on the part of noble Lords opposite.
One of the three points of the noble Lord was that there was to be no dictation from outside bodies. I have heard of the Tariff Reform League; I have certainly heard of the Free Trade League; and I have heard, as we all have, of various leagues. Of course when men want to make their opinions prevail they must organise themselves, and by all the active means they can pursue to bring other men to share their opinions. That appears to me to he the manly, common-sense view of English public life; and therefore venture to think deliberately that, as far as my judgment goes, neither the Parliament Bill nor the Bill to be brought in by the noble Marquess can possibly produce effects so deep and so far-reaching, not merely upon institutions, but upon the spirit, the power, and the habits of mind of the people of this country. Far more important than any change which can come from any mere adjustment, important as you like—I do not wish to belittle it—proposed by the Parliament Bill, and than whatever the reconstitution of this House may mean and whatever shape it may take—I do not believe that either of those two operations, important as they are, will produce anything comparable to the result which will follow from the principle which this Bill contains, and by voting for which your Lordships are sanctioning.
I say of the principle of this Bill that it weakens the House of Commons, it weakens the House of Lords, it does a great deal to abolish the representative system, it wholly transforms our Parliamentary system, and it affects, as I may show, our Cabinet system. I cannot conceive, therefore, a more revolutionary principle to accept and
670
to apply widely, as it is intended, I understand, to be by and by, over the whole field of our Parliamentary life. No doubt an appeal to the people makes a splendid platform cry. As an old platform hand I realise that; but I should like to repeat the words of a member of this House which will carry more weight with noble Lords opposite than any words of mine. This is what Lord Curzon said—
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: When?
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN:I think in 1888. He wrote it; it was not a casual utterance. He said—
"The counting of heals becomes an absurd and delusive method when the question at issue is one of great complexity, such as a Parliamentary Bill crammed with clauses and bristling with disputable propositions; and to proclaim that an appeal so, made and answered is irrefutable evidence of trust inn the people, and that a refusal to accept this test is proof of heresy to the democratic principle is, in my judgment, to show a very imperfect idea of the true meaning of popular government."
I am content to leave it in the language of the noble Lord. I have thought ever since these troubles began eighteen months; ago—and I am sure a great many people have agreed with me—that the proper way of solving the difficulties in which we found ourselves was a Convention formed as was that used in the constitution of the United States Government, and as now used when States alter their arrangements. The Conference was held, and the failure of the Conference convinced me, at any rate, that considering the men who composed it, considering the spirit in which, as I have always understood, its proceedings were conducted, considering the respectful attitude with which the country regarded it, if that Conference broke down, proceeding by way of Convention is impossible,. at all events in this country.
A great number of men—beginning with Sir William Anson, for example—men well informed, with well-trained minds, deeply versed in all these questions, are dealing with the Referendum. This discussion of a Bill is not the occasion for going into all those arguments. They deserve attention, and they are sure to receive it. To-night we are dealing with a Bill, and I should like to say at once, without arrogance, that I for one attach no importance whatever to the analogies from Oregon, from America, from Switzerland, or elsewhere. It is quite true, as we are told—though every part

671
of the assertion is more or less disputed by somebody—that the Referendum has worked well in those foreign places. Be it so. What reason is there for thinking that because it has worked well in Switzerland, with a gross population of 3,000,000 or 4,000,000, it will work well in a community numbering 44,000,000 or 50,000,000;that because it works well in a new and, without disrespect, may I say, in this respect a raw community like one of the American States named, therefore it could be transplanted to us, in whom the Parliamentary system is rooted by centuries of tradition in all of the habits of our mind, in the whole practice of our Parliamentary system, in the very marrow of our bones? It is idle to say that, because a given device and expedient works well somewhere else, therefore it may be expected very likely to work well in a community like ours. You cannot transplant devices and expedients without regard to all the changes involved—changes of sky, of climate, of political soil.
I now come to what I regard as a very vital part of the noble Lord's proposal. It turns on the question whether the resignation of a Ministry must follow the defeat of a Bill on the Referendum. Your Lordships will see in a moment that that is a vital point. It is easy to say, "We will think of that afterwards," but the question of resignation after the rejection of a Ministerial Bill is at the root of the whole matter. Just consider what would happen. Imagine the. Government have passed a Bill through the House of Commons and that it is rejected by your Lordships and is then rejected by a majority of the voters on a special appeal by way of the Referendum. Is the Government to resign? Take the case of 1886. There are only two members of this House who are survivors of that Government, and we can remember all about it. Suppose the Referendum had been in force in those days, and that after defeat Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues had said—well, could they have said in common decency, with common sense, and with common political honour, "We shall continue in office. We shall take no notice of the Referendum, but will continue to administer the government of Ireland by the alternative, or what is called the coercive, system, against which we have been spending for ever so many months all our force in argument and even passionate appeal"?
672
I will take a modern case that may appeal to many of your Lordships. Supposing that a Government of noble Lords opposite were to bring in a Tariff Reform scheme, and that it was rejected on the Referendum, is it to be supposed that Mr. Balfour would then bring in a Budget based on all the worn-out, exploded, musty Cobdenite principles It is absurd. Any noble Lord will see that it is ridiculous to assume for one moment that a Government which has been beaten on the Referendum could continue to govern. Now, why do I attach importance to that? I attach importance to it because you are giving to the Referendum the power not only of saying Aye or No to a given Bill, but of displacing a Government, and you are therefore giving the power of displacing a Government, for example, to this House. By one of the clauses of the Bill this House, by rejecting a Bill, can force a Referendum, so that the Referendum may be the means of displacing a Government. That is a new, or almost new pretension.
I should like to bring another set of facts or probabilities before your Lordships' House when you are discussing this Referendum. My noble friend is a Unionist Free Trader. Suppose that the Referendum had been passed before the election of December,1910. We are now in the Spring of 1911. They are, on my hypothesis, busy in another place with an Irish Government Bill, a Home Rule Bill. That Bill, we will suppose, is passed by the House of Commons and is rejected by your Lordships. Then we have in July a Referendum, an appeal to the serene, broad, cool, philosophic judgment of the electors on the tranquilising topic of Home Rule. Suppose the Referendum ends in the rejection of Home Rule and Ministers resign. Then there is a new Government. The Government could not, of course, meet such an adverse House of Commons as exists at present across the corridor. They would, say in October of this year, dissolve, and there would be another General Election and a new Parliament. I hope this calendar does not weary the House. It is well worth thinking about what the Referendum means. Then in 1912 the new Government would bring in their Budget founded on Tariff Reform, as they propose to do. The House of Commons would go on debating that Budget until July, and then

673
there would be a Referendum. On that Referendum they might be beaten. I am sure my noble friend would hope that they would be beaten. He is a Free Trader, and he must desire that his colleagues should be beaten. Then there is another General Election and another Ministry. My Lords, all that is within eighteen months; all these Referenda and General Elections, all this confusion and turmoil. That is what my noble friend will get if his Referendum is carried—I will not say this particular Referendum, but if the Referendum is accepted. Noble Lords may think there is an inaccuracy in that calendar. I believe not. I believe that that is what might happen, and although noble Lords are not going to be candidates, at least under our present system, this prospect of Referendum after Referendum would really—I was going to say, can folly go further? but I withdraw it.
Now, my Lords, let us look for a moment at what the operation of this Referendum is going to be. We all know perfectly well what elections are like, and the idea is—and my noble friend did not get much beyond it in his speech—and it gives a certain amount of fascination to the Referendum, that a reply postcard is to be forwarded to every elector and that you will get his reply by return of post.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH:I beg the noble Viscount's pardon, but I say nothing about post cards in my Bill.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: The noble Lord is far too practised a man of business to put it in his Bill, but that is the idea in the minds of people who know less about it than my noble friend does. I respectfully invite any noble Lord to take up this Bill and master its contents. I believe that if you do that you will agree with me that the Referendum will mean on all great questions that all Parties will wish—of course they will—to convert the electors. There will be meetings, there will be literature, there will be posters, there will be the tracing of removals, and I believe the conveyance of voters to the poll is not prohibited. Those are Committee points, perhaps, but I do want your Lordships on the Second Reading of the Bill to realise as practical men what it means. Are there to be any limits to the expenditure? It
674
is said in one of the clauses that the Corrupt Practices Act and other Acts are to apply. Yes, but under the Corrupt Practices Act it is assumed that there is a candidate and an agent, and if mischief is proved the candidate is unseated and the agent may be sent to prison. No such punishment for misdeeds is possible under the Referendum. I do not say that ingenious lawyers cannot make contrivances, but as the Bill stands to talk of the Corrupt Practices Act is really farcical.
I do not want to go into Committee points, but there is one clause in the Bill that both fascinates and astonishes me. I refer to Clause 12, which says that nobody shall vote more than once on that day. After all the arguments we have heard of the advantage of having little owners of property and all the rest of it, these poor men are to be confined to one vote, and you are introducing in this Bill the very principle that you have contumeliously rejected on former occasions. I applaud your Lordships' late repentance. Now let us look a little further on. Let us assume that the writ arrives in seven days and that there is all the turmoil of an election. What is the voter doing? He is to have an opportunity of inspecting at the office of the Chief Returning Officer the Bill on which he is to pronounce Aye or No, perhaps a Bill of 100 or 120 clauses. I am not sure that noble Lords in this House have so keen an appetite for any Bill of 100 or 120 clauses, but there is to be this little queue or crowd of earnest voters waiting outside the Returning Officer's office to get an inspection of this Bill. When they get that inspection what will happen? A Bill is a very difficult and technical subject; we all know that draughtsman's English is not the English of Bunyan, Defoe, or Swift; and I have always had suspicions—I do not know if noble Lords opposite are exempt from them—that even Cabinet Ministers do not always show an eagerness to study a Bill even when it is circulated in the Cabinet by their most valued colleagues.
What would the voter do? Let us take by way of illustration the Irish Church Bill of 1869. As everybody knows, the Parliamentary storm and stress of that Bill mainly turned on Disendowment, and it was only passed after enormous difficulty by means of a number of equit-

675
able qualifications and nice adjustments which Mr. Gladstone' introduced into the Bill and persuaded the Party opposite to accept. Can any one suppose for one instant that, even if he had nothing else to do, an elector would in those clays have spent five minutes over reading the Disendowment Bill? No. We all know, to be perfectly frank, what the elector would have said then, and what the elector would say now. He would say that Mr. Gladstone, or Mr. Disraeli, if you like, knows a great deal more than I do about these things, and I will vote for Gladstone, or I will vote for Disraeli. That is what the magnified will of the people really comes to.
May I say that I conceive that to set up as the great cardinal and organic standard of Parliamentary life the standard of always consulting and being guided by and thinking of nothing else but what the people desire is to my mind a thoroughly wrong standard. I am quite prepared to defend that proposition. What Ministers or legislative Houses ought to be considering is what they believe, after the best search, inquiry, and deliberation, is for the good government of the country, and I am always sorry when I hear people using that expression in the sense that Ministers and Members of Parliament or Members of this House are not to have minds of their own, but are always to be wondering what somebody else is desiring or thinking.
Let us still keep our eye on the voter. The voter is to say Aye or No, according to my noble friend's Bill, to a whole Bill. If he hates Clause 5, lie will vote "No." If somebody else hates Clause 9, he also will vote "No." So a Referendum is very apt to mean this. It accumulates in negatives all who happen to dissent from this or that single detail. That is an absurdity. I said in the beginning something about the effect of the Referendum upon the minds of Cabinets and Ministers. Must not the incidental effect upon the mind of the Minister framing a Bill be this? He will inevitably, he cannot help it, before framing each clause, however well he thinks of it, ask himself, if the Referendum policy is unfortunately accepted by Parliament and the country, whether this or that wording of a clause would be likely to tempt and provoke a Referendum, and how much surface that clause would expose to the mind of the
676
elector when he came to vote. I throw that out as a hint, and those who are aware of these things may know the value of it. I quite understood all the points my noble friend made as to the reason why he had put into this Bill the plain abrupt proposition that a Bill, not an abstract Resolution, not a fine declaration of abstract doctrine, must be referred to the electorate. He also told us that under the Bill 200 gentlemen in the House of Commons are, if they like, to compel the reference of a Bill.
I was enormously interested the other day in a remarkable project which was half fathered by the noble Earl opposite, Lord Selborne. He enumerated a long list of possible suggestions for a working Referendum, but this was the one which most struck my imagination. He said that at the beginning of every Parliament there should be a small Joint Committee of the two Houses appointed in strict proportion to the number of the parties in it. That Committee would really contain the best men of both Houses. It would be presided over by the Speaker, and in that Committee the minority of either House might appeal to the majority to invoke a Referendum. If they got, as the noble Earl thought they would, a Committee filled with a very high sense of its Constitutional responsibility, it would take care that frivolous proposals for invoking the Referendum were not allowed, and on the other hand, it would feel it to be its duty to see that on any really grave issue of national importance the electors had the opportunity of registering their decision.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE:I said that was one of the proposals that had been made.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: The noble Earl, it is true, did say it was one of the proposals that had been made, and he also added that there was a good deal to be said for it.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: I was going to promise him that if he would, to-night or any other night, say all that good deal that is to be said for that remarkable proposal he would have at least one very eager listener. Does the

677
House realise what that proposal means? We have had a great election we will suppose, and all the paraphernalia, turmoil, confusion, and effort of an election. There is a great majority, or a small majority, as the result; a coalition majority of our sort, or a coalition majority of your sort. There are more coalitions than one. Parliament is installed, and the first business, according to the noble Earl, under the proposal for which he is going to say a good deal, is to choose half a dozen or half a score of the best men, excluding, I take it, the two Front Benches. Are the two Front Benches to be on?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE:I am not going to give any opinion.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: If you include them, you will find yourself in considerable difficulty. If you exclude them, you will find yourself in still worse difficulty. What arc these half-dozen men, with the Speaker at their head, to do By the way, I should not be very easy about the position of the Speaker under that proposal, but I pass from that. What are they to do? They are to decide as they please, and when they please, whether on any given question they are to give the minority the right of appealing to the electors to think it all over again and once inure try to turn a minority into a majority. This body, though small, is to be really omnipotent. I am not, at all exaggerating what follows from that. It can overrule the Cabinet, which is content with its majority. It can overrule the majority of the men elected, and it can overrule the majority of electors who chose them. It can, in effect, force what is tantamount to a new election. You talk of parties and groups as being the great evil of Parliamentary life, but the noble Earl's plan would invent a new group which is to swallow up, on any critical or decisive occasion, all other parties and groups wholesale. My Lords, I will only say generally, because I should be sorry to weary the House by examining some of the Committee points—
Loan BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The proposals the noble Viscount has been discussing are not in my Bill.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: Most assuredly they arc not. They are not in anybody's Bill and I do not believe
678
they ever will be. But they are one of the swarm of random and fantastic ideas that are floating through people's irresponsible minds, and I for one am thoroughly grateful to the noble Lord, because I think he spoke well when he said to-night that he thought it desirable that there should be a concrete plan before the country, and when that set of proposals is put before the country I shall be delighted to see it. That is not the only random set of ideas. The air is thick with fantastic notions, and that is one of the reasons why I am glad we have now got a Bill.
I regret to understand that what noble Lords are going to do to-morrow night is to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill. I am perfectly certain that from the moment I sit clown until the moment the Division is taken we shall hear from noble Lords opposite, "Well, we think there is something in what you say, hut we are only voting for the principle of the Bill." I hope when we are told this that we shall hear what is the principle of the Bill. It is not an automatic Referendum. It is not a compulsory or an obligatory Referendum. It does not touch the tremendously important question whether the electors should have an initiative outside of Parliament, and you may depend upon it, if you once adopt the policy of the Referendum it will inevitably lead to the policy of initiative outside. I do not believe that anybody who knows the electors of this country, or who works out in his own mind the course of argument that would be likely to follow, would doubt that the right of initiation would be sure to come. I think I have seen some important public men advocate that, 'but, however that may be, I think it is sure to come. The Bill does not sanction the putting on one side of any proposal; that is, no doubt, a good thing; but they have to say Yes or No to a Bill, even though the electors giving their votes would have preferred a different Bill, or would have preferred one of the drafts or prints they had seen or heard of. That is one difficulty which is worth considering.
I am going to quote the noble Lord opposite, Lord Curzon, again, because he put this point exactly as I would try to put it myself. He said the Referendum is to be applied whenever there is any irreconcilable difference between the Lords and the Commons. That is clear under

679
the Bill. That gives the Lords the power of forcing an instant appeal from the majority in the House of Commons, though that majority has just been elected, whenever they choose to be irreconcilable, and an appeal, let us mark, not only on the view of the electorate on a given Bill, but an appeal that would mean the displacement of a Government that had the confidence and support of the House of Commons. The noble Lord also said this, on the same date I think—
"Is not a Referendum in the hands of the Lords equivalent to the prerogative of forcing a Dissolution whenever they please? "
That was the view that commended itself then to the noble Lord's mind, and it is undoubtedly the true interpretation of the meaning and working of the Referendum. It is the assertion of a proposition which I am assured you will never persuade the constituencies of this country to accept, that this House, however reformed or reconstituted, should have the right to force a Dissolution.
My Lords, I will not detain you further. The situation brings to my mind a passage from Burke, which I would like to read. In doing so, I shall not be suspected, I hope, of referring to any individual person. He said—
"An ignorant man who is not fool enough to meddle with his clock, is, however, sufficiently confident to think he can safely take to pieces, and put together at his pleasure, a moral machine of another guise, importance, and complexity, composed of far other wheels and springs and balances, and counteracting and co-operating powers."
That, my Lords, is the kind of undertaking we are now almost forced to contemplate. What makes me feel anxious to-night is that not only are you embarking, by proposing the Referendum, on a policy and a set of expedients that break up the Parliamentary system and the representative system, but the free use of the Referendum tends to shake the stability of mind of the electors. This ideal is to displace altogether in the imagination and minds of those who resort to it so freely and with such gaiety of heart the old ideal of a Parliament which should last four, five, or six years, and of Ministers who begin their work confident that they will have the support of the constituencies for most of that time. There you have an instrument and a system of infinite stability. What shocks me is that this House, the defenders of Conservative
680
ideals and principles, are going in the first fight of this great Constitutional engagement which confronts us to do the best that lies in their power to shake that stability which is the glory and has been the safety of this country. My Lords, I am not very fond of talking of the civilised world, but the civilised world is looking on rather eagerly and wondering whether the political wisdom of this country is really impaired. May I say this, and this only—If you get the reputation of a nation whose governors have lost the faculty of political wisdom you lose an asset more valuable and powerful than many Dreadnoughts.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh will not have allowed himself for a moment to believe that my absence from this House the other evening when he introduced his Bill was due to any indifference on my part, or to any want of respect towards himself. I ant glad this evening to congratulate him upon the reception of his Bill, and to acknowledge the service which he has rendered to the House by bringing us to close quarters with the discussion of this most important subject. I am, as my noble friend well knows, a believer in the Referendum. I am not sure that I can travel to the length of my noble friend, because there are some points in which his Bill certainly carries us further than I am myself disposed to go. But I believe in the principle of the Referendum, and I am particularly glad that my noble friend should have been the man to take up the question in this House.
My noble friend occupies a somewhat exceptional position amongst the members of your Lordships' House. I will say nothing of the address and business-like ability with which he takes part in our affairs from time to time, but he has held very high office, and outside Parliament he has been either president or a member of, I should think, more important public inquiries, Committees, and Royal Commissions than any other member of this House. The last two Royal Commissions over which he presided were the Commission on Food Supply in Time of War, appointed by the late Government, and the Commission dealing with the trade relations of Canada and the West Indies, appointed by the Government represented on the Benches opposite. Then

681
the noble Lord has riot for the first time given this House invaluable assistance by coming to our rescue at a time when serious illness had laid low the Chairman of our Committees. My Lords, I dwell upon these things because I do think that when such a man with such a reputation for common sense and ability makes himself sponsor for this Bill, we have about reached the time when the Referendum can no longer be described as a mere crotchet or fad. It is absurd to suppose that after such a career as I have ventured to describe, my noble friend has suddenly taken leave of his senses, and has made himself responsible for an absurd and fantastic proposal, which noble Lords opposite are fond of describing as an absurd invention designated by a doglatin name and occasionally mistaken for some variety of turnip or potato. I think the part which my noble friend has taken justifies us at any rate in hoping that criticisms of that kind will be no more heard of in connection with this subject.
Now my Lords, in our view there is not only room for the Referendum in our Constitutional machinery, but we believe that its introduction into that machinery has become positively indispensable. We affirmed that view in a Resolution which we passed in this House last year. May I briefly say why it seems to me that the Referendum, for some purposes, at all events, has become an inevitable addition to our Parliamentary machinery? I do not think I shall be contradicted when if say that up to the present time both the great Parties of the State have proceeded upon the understanding, that no great and fundamental changes should be introduced by legislation unless the people of this country have had a sufficient and full opportunity of pronouncing judgment upon them. It was the special function of this House to see to it that such an opportunity should be given, and it is only now, under the new policy of His Majesty's Government, that we have it deliberately announced that for the future the people of this country are to be denied the opportunity which they have hitherto enjoyed of pronouncing upon these great and grave issues. The new policy is a policy of setting up an infallible and supreme House of Commons. We ask whether you can seriously believe that any settlement based on that assumption is likely to be permanently accepted by this country.
682
We ask whether you can point to any other country that is governed upon that principle. We point out, further, that you yourselves by your present action are doing a great deal to render your own position untenable. You are deeply pledged as a Party to House of Lords reform. Some of your supporters may be insincere; I think they are; but as a Government, ever since you put into the mouth of his late Majesty King Edward VII the last Speech which he delivered from the Throne, you, as a Government, have pledged yourselves to deal not only with the relations of the two Houses but with the reform of this House, I will not say simultaneously, but upon parallel lines, as two parts of a policy founded not upon one of those proposals, but founded upon both. If, however, you are, indeed, going to reconstitute this House, is it not perfectly evident that the more authority you give it, and the better balanced its composition, the less likely will the people of this country be to allow the decisions of such a House to be set on one side and ignored '? The closer the reformed House of Lords is in touch with the people of the country, the less will you be able to treat it as a mere appanage of the other House of Parliament. There will be differences under the new system as there have been under the old, and in our belief the adoption of the Referendum in one shape or another affords the only means of extricating Parliament from the difficulty and restoring the proper balance of the Constitution.
My Lords, for my part, I am persuaded that the movement of public opinion in this country is declaring itself decidedly in favour of the adoption of the Referendum. I do not believe that many of the members of the Party opposite are prepared to go the length of saying that in no circumstances is the Referendum possible. That is not the view of the Prime Minister, for he said not long ago that he would not rule out the Referendum as a possible practicable expedient for dealing with some exceptional cases. That is a very important admission.
The noble Earl who leads the House (the Earl of Crewe), and whose absence we all deeply regret, said the other day that he would admit the Referendum for Constitutional changes where you have a

683
written Constitution. Yes, but are you not going to give us, if you have your own way, an instalment of a written Constitution in the shape of the Parliament Bill? Then there is the practice of other countries and of some of our great Colonies, which, as we know, have adopted the Referendum. I admit the justice of the noble Viscount's remark that it would not be wise to press foreign or Colonial analogies too far, and I shall not do so, for it is obvious that there is a wide difference between the circumstances which prevail in the countries where the Referendum is used and in this country; but surely the fact that it has been adopted in other countries and that where it has been adopted it has never been done away with subsequently, together with the fact that you yourselves have given the Referendum deliberately to a great British Dominion across the sea, is enough to justify us in asking that you shall not leave the Referendum out of court and treat it as a fantastic or revolutionary proposal.
Let me for a moment glance at one or two of the objections taken by the noble Viscount to the Bill. He said my noble friend's was a. revolutionary policy. He objected to the Bill on that rather remarkable ground. I think he gave us a quotation from Burke with reference to an ignorant man who had the imprudence to pull a clock to pieces. I did not exactly gather the words.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: He said that a man who is not such a fool as to meddle with his clock is supposed to feel quite ready to go and meddle with the Constitution of his country with all its springs and balances.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Let us accept the analogy. Are noble Lords opposite not meddling with the clock? My noble friend dealt very well, I thought, with the revolutionary argument, but he might have gone further. He might have asked the noble Viscount what right he and his friends had to talk about revolutionary expedients. Was there ever a more revolutionary expedient than the Parliament Bill, which exposes this country to single-Chamber government by virtually depriving this House of the whole of its opportunities of revising or reserving legislation? Has the noble Viscount never heard of another proposal, not perhaps
684
very often paraded by Ministers, but constantly mentioned by their supporters in the country—the proposal that in the event of this House not being complaisant in the matter of the Parliament Bill that Bill is to be passed into law by an expedient which has been described by the highest constitutional authorities as an unconstitutional and revolutionary expedient?
Now, my Lords, I want to say one word on the main argument which ran throughout the whole of the speech of the noble Viscount and which always occupies the most prominent position in the arguments of noble Lords opposite. We are told that the advocacy of the Referendum shows a distrust of the representative system and a desire to overthrow that system. That is a very erroneous and misleading way of describing our position. What we desire to do is not to upset the representative system but to find a means of correcting some of its most flagrant and palpable defects, defects which become more flagrant and more palpable with every year of our Parliamentary history. My Lords, what is your reading of the representative system which we now enjoy? It is based upon two assumptions. The assumption of noble Lords opposite is first that a House of Commons majority, no matter how composed or how small, is the unerring interpreter of the will of the constituencies, even when that majority is a composite one, or, as I think Mr. Asquith once described it, a scratch majority, and even if it is a matter of common notoriety that it is a majority composed of sections which support the Government, not because they are really in harmony with the Government's proposals, but in order to keep the Government in power until an ulterior object has been achieved. We had a case the other day in the House of Commons when a leading Irish Member objected to the Naval Estimates but voted for them because he had no idea of turning the Government out.
Then it is assumed that the infallibility of the House of Commons majority lasts from one General Election until the next General Election, whatever has happened in the meantime. I should rather like to examine that claim for a moment. At a General Election the electors hear a candidate's speeches, read his address—they may or may not understand the

685
subjects referred to—and then they send him to Parliament, according to noble Lords opposite, with plenipotentiary powers to represent them on all occasions and in regard to all possible subjects. The Lord Chancellor has given us a quite engaging picture of the manner in which the system works. He says the poor electors are far too busy to occupy themselves with matters of detail, and they therefore choose honourable men whose judgment they can trust. My noble friend Lord Balfour described with great effect what happens with regard to the honourable men when they get to the House of Commons. They are shepherded by the Whips, and apparently one of them, at least, Mr. Snowden, greatly resents the process, and his evidence is of a kind which noble Lords opposite will find it a little difficult to dispose of.
While we have had some account from Mr. Snowden of the way in which the private Member regards the manipulations of the Party Whips, we had last year in this House from an ex-Whip, Lord Marchamley, some account of the way in which the Whip regards the operations of the private Member. I have quoted the words before, but they are so appropriate to the present occasion that I will quote them again. The noble Lord told us that a Chief Whip worth his salt has no political conscience whatever. When he is told that he must whip for any self-evident proposal, such as that black is white, he does so with the same alacrity and eagerness as if he believed it; so that these honourable men who have come down to the House of Commons entrusted with plenary powers by their constituents to represent them have to say, "This looks black, but we are told it is white; let us make it white and vote for it." The noble Viscount let fall one observation somewhat in the nature of a to quoque. He said that if in the House of Commons people voted not quite in accordance with their convictions, but according to the pressure of the Party wirepullers, such things happened in this House also. The noble Viscount, I honestly believe, like many noble Lords opposite, greatly overrates the power of Lord Waldegrave and those who assist him in applying anything like what might be called coercion. I would, however, point out to the noble Viscount that there is really a little difference. Supposing noble Lords on the Back Benches receive a Whip and disregard it when they come here and
686
drift into the wrong Lobby, or do not come here at all, it would be quite impossible for us to visit their sins upon them in an effectual manner. In the House of Commons things happen very differently, for a man who gets into the, black books of the Whips will find when a General Election comes round that there is another candidate and no seat is provided for him elsewhere. There is, therefore, very little application to the state of affairs in this House in the noble Viscount's argument. I say, then, with regard to this particular point, that when the noble Viscount sets up as a kind of idol the so-called representative system, and bids us to fall down and grovel at its feet, we have to take into account what kind of an idol it is and what material it is made of, and I am afraid we shall be obliged to admit that there is a considerable amount of clay in its composition.
The noble Viscount dealt at great length with the unfairness of puzzling and distracting the electors by asking them to vote on a particular Bill which might be extremely intricate and complex, and he drew a humorous picture of the villagers drawn out in a lengthy queue outside the office where a copy of the Bill was on view. I admit quite freely to the noble Viscount that there must be many eases where the issues involved in a great measure are of an extremely complicated kind, or perhaps of a kind which a great many of the humbler voters are not able thoroughly to understand or appreciate, but in most cases nevertheless I am under the impression that in a rough and ready kind of way electors are quite shrewd and intelligent enough to know whether they want a Bill passed or do not. At all events our proposal has this merit, that it gives the electors a single Bill for their opinion, and focuses attention upon that one Bill, whereas now you give to the same men, not one Bill, but a bundle of Bills, and sometimes no Bill at all, on the subjects upon which their opinions are invited. You at this moment I believe claim to have a mandate in favour of the Parliament Bill. The Parliament Bill, if I remember right, was produced at the last moment at our instance in this House. But for that, I do not think it would have been produced at all; yet it is contended that the Parliament Bill and all its details could have been mastered by the voters, together with the details of a non-existent

687
Home Rule Bill, which was also dangled before them.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN:I hope the noble Marquess will forgive me for interrupting him, but the Parliament Bill was read a first time in the House of Commons in May last.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Yes, but it was never discussed. At any rate the poor puzzled distracted elector for whom the noble Viscount has such sympathy will have a better chance of understanding the issues when a Bill has been discussed in both Houses, and will be better able to say whether he wishes to have the Bill passed or not when the subject has been thoroughly thrashed out. At the present time the distracted elector is asked to make up his mind on these subjects in the midst of all the turmoil and excitement of a General Election, when the fate of a Government is trembling in the balance, when the fates of Members of Parliament are trembling in the balance; and surely if electors are intelligent enough to come to a conclusion to select the right man and give their mandate in such circumstances, they have sufficient intelligence to form an opinion on a concrete measure presented to them by itself and upon its own merits.
All I wish to say as to these complaints of the intricacy of subjects submitted to Referendum, the confusing nature of the appeal, and its disturbing effect on the country, is that all these complaints seem to arise from what I cannot help thinking is a mistaken apprehension of what is likely to happen under any Referendum proposals which we are likely to accept. The noble Viscount seemed to think we should live in an atmosphere of constant reference, that not only every session, but possibly every month might bring about a reference to the people. That is not my anticipation; nor will I consent to any Bill likely to have that effect. If my noble friend Lord Balfour will forgive me, I will make this criticism on his Bill, that I think it does lend itself too much to the objection that it might lead to the submission of Bills to the people more frequently than we desire or than would be desirable in the public interest. My noble friend divides his Bills into two classes. There is, in the first place, the class of Bills which have been passed by
688
one House of Parliament and rejected by the other. He calls those "rejected" Bills. Now these rejected Bills are, under my noble friend's proposal, to be invariably sent to a Referendum.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I beg the noble Marquess's pardon. Only on the demand of one House.
THE MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: Yes, I assume that, but it may be any Bill and it may be on the first rejection of the Bill, I think within thirty days.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH1: No, there is no limit of time.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My noble friend's other proposal is with regard to what he calls "carried" Bills—Bills passed by both Houses of Parliament, but which may be sent to a Referendum if 200 Members of the House of Commons demand it but he said very fairly that his figure of 200 was a figure which was liable to consideration. Well, my Lords, both of those proposals seem to me to go rather farther than it would be desirable for us to go at the present moment; both of them, I think, are calculated to create the anticipation that appeals to the people are likely to be more frequent, and consequently more costly and more disturbing than we believe they will be and should be.
If I may state in half-a-dozen sentences the kind of proposal which would commend itself to me as an alternative to that of my noble friend, I would say that in my view we should look to the Referendum primarily and mainly as a quite exceptional measure for the purpose of putting an end to a persistent difference of opinion between the two Houses and a persistent difference of opinion with regard to important subjects. I am sure the noble Viscount remembers the words of the Resolution which was carried in this House last year. It was then our view that the Referendum should be resorted to for the purpose of adjusting differences between the two Houses in relation to matters of great gravity not adequately submitted to the judgment of the people. We also proposed that the Referendum should be resorted to as a last resort when other expedients had been exhausted. By other expedients I mean, of course, Conferences between the two Houses of Parliament, which I believe are regarded with general favour,

689
and which I hope in time will take a more conspicuous place in our proceedings than they have hitherto; and, in the next place, possibly Joint Sittings, supposing that Joint Sittings should be introduced as part of our Constitutional machinery. We also contemplated that the Referendum should not be used until after there had been two rejections of a Bill by this House, and these other expedients had been resorted to and had failed. It seems to me obvious—I say it in passing—that if we have, as I hope we may eventually, a better composed House, a House in which the representation of the two Parties will be better balanced than at present, there will be much greater opportunities of adjusting differences, either by means of Conferences or by means of Joint Sittings, than is likely in the House as we now know it, in which the Party to which I belong constitutes a quite overwhelming numerical majority.
Then we are told that a proposal such as we indicated last year has this necessary consequence, that you must have a definition specifying those subjects which are worthy of being treated as grave subjects; and it is added that the further consequence follows that you must have a tribunal to decide whether a given subject does or does not fall within the definition. I do not know that I should be greatly deterred even if it were the case that this proposal carried with it the necessity of a definition and of a tribunal. I can conceive a definition, and I think I can conceive a tribunal that might answer the purpose. You have a tribunal somewhat of the kind, I think, in your Parliament Bill. I do not press that matter now. But what I do wish to say is this, that even if you have no definition and no tribunal, it seems to me quite possible that the common sense of Parliament will be sufficient to enable it to decide upon broad common-sense grounds whether a particular issue is one which ought to go to a Referendum or not. I cannot conceive a body of Members of Parliament wanting to send to a Referendum a Bill dealing with the inspection of gipsy caravans, or with juvenile smoking, or anything of that kind, and I should myself be very well content to look forward to the settlement of these questions, as I said just now, by the broad common sense of Parliament. But to come back to my point. To my mind the obvious and the main use of the Referendum must be for
690
the purpose of getting over persistent differences between the two Houses when those differences relate to a matter of-serious importance.
I must say one word, and one word only, with regard to my noble friend's other proposal—namely, that the Referendum should be used in cases where the two Houses are not in disagreement but have agreed to pass a certain Bill. I am aware that a great deal can be said for the view that in such cases also the Referendum may be usefully invoked for the purpose of protecting a minority against rash and ill-considered legislation notably when such rash and ill-considered legislation involves any tampering with the Constitution of the country. I think there is a great deal to be said for that view. But I would certainly at this point also restrict the use of the Referendum much more closely than my noble friend Lord Balfour. I am of raid that a general feeling of resentment and impatience would be created if, when the two Houses of Parliament had laboriously carried a Bill to a successful issue, it then could be taken away from Parliament on the motion, let us say of one-third of the members of the House of Commons, and the question reopened before a poll of the people. I am afraid the effect of a proposal of that kind would be to increase and not diminish the suspicion with which the Referendum is regarded in many quarters.
I venture, however, to suggest that is a point which we are really not in a position to decide this evening, and I will say why I think so. In a case such as I am endeavouring to discuss the Referendum would be used for the purpose of protecting the country and the minority in Parliament against rash and ill-conceived legislation. Is it not true to say that if you are introducing a. safeguard of this kind in order to guard against a risk, you must have before you construct your safeguard some idea at any rate of the kind of risk against which you have got to guard? But the risk which I have in my mind would vary very greatly according to the constitution and attributes of your reformed House of Lords. If you have an independent House of Lords so composed that it commands a. large measure of public confidence, then the chances of the kind of ill-considered and hasty legislation which we seek to guard against are very greatly diminished, and the need of the-safeguard is diminished also. On the other hand, if you have a weak and helpless House

691
of Lords, liable to be completely overruled by the other House of Parliament, then obviously there can be no check upon rash and ill-considered legislation, and the need of the safeguard becomes much greater and your care in constructing it will have to be much greater also. My Lords, I do venture to say that that is a point upon which it would be premature for us at this stage to express any decided opinion, and therefore, while I am very far from desiring to exclude the use of the Referendum in cases where the two Houses are in agreement, I submit that it is better that we should reserve judgment on that point until we know more of the lines upon which the question of House of Lords reform is likely to be settled.
My Lords, there is one other use of the Referendum as to which I should like to say a word. There is the case where the two Houses are in agreement and have passed a Bill, but where it might be desired, perhaps by the Government of the day itself, to make sure that it had the opinion of the country at its back before the Bill became law. I am sure noble Lords opposite will not be slow to perceive that I am referring to such a use of the Referendum as was suggested by Mr. Balfour in his memorable announcement at the Albert Hall last year. That pledge, of course, will be fulfilled whenever we have an opportunity of fulfilling it. I might be asked in what manner, under any scheme of Referendum which we might be prepared to accept, that could be done. You could without difficulty, I have no doubt, add to the Referendum Bill a clause giving power to the Government of the clay to call for a Referendum in circumstances such as I have described. I am, however, not at all sure that it would be necessary to do so, because if you have a Referendum Act in existence containing the whole machinery of the Referendum in the body of the Act, it seems quite obvious that any Government could thereafter attach to any Bill a clause laying it down that the Bill in question should go to ad hoc Referendum of the electors.
The noble Viscount opposite dwelt with some earnestness on the effect which an unsuccessful Referendum of this kind might have upon the Ministry of the day, and said it would inevitably mean that the Ministry would have to resign. Would it not be fair to reply that the political effect of the Referendum would depend entirely upon the
692
circumstances in which it was taken and the magnitude of the matter re erred? I am entirely unable to see that if a Government were beaten on a Referendum it would necessarily involve their going out of office. That by no means follows. But if the question referred was one of reall vital moment and one which deeply stirres the people of this country and the Government were beaten on it, then I think it very likely the Government would have to reign It would be quite right that the Government should resign, because it would have been brought home to them that they had lost the confidence of the body of the electors of the country. And that result, which might be a desirable result, would be achieved by a much more specific and distinct process than could be the case under the resent circumstances, when all these old cores are held over until the next General Election, and when the electors have to vote for against a Government, not on one issue, but upon a great number of conflicting issues
Now, my Lords, it only retains for me to state what action I propose to take with reference to this Bill. In the first place, I say that nothing will indu e me to vote against the Bill of my noble friend. I think he has done good service in bringing this question forward. I am with him in principle in holding that the Referendum sooner or later will have to be admitted into our Parliamentary system. But I am bound to add that there are some points which I have indicated in my noble friend's Bill which go so much further than I am prepared to go that I really should be reluctant as at present advise to go into the Lobby with him, because if I do so I shall be told that I am in favour of the use of the Referendum to an extent which I do not at all contemplate, and I should my myself open to some of the animadversions of the noble Viscount opposite. Therefore I hope my noble friend will forgive me or making the suggestion that the best thing which could happen for the cause of the Referendum, in which he and I are both alike interested would be that we should take a full and, I hope, a prolonged oiscussion upon the Bill, but that, for the present at any rate, he should avoid asking us to say "Aye" or "No" the Second Reading of the Bill as it stands. I cannot help feeling that to him and all of us a few weeks' delay may not be with out advantage. The next few weeks will certainly be instructive to us, because after they have passed

693
we shall know a little more than we do at present of the Government's views as to House of Lords reform. When the Bill which I shall introduce comes up for consideration we shall make it our business to endeavour to probe their minds and to draw from them something a little more precise in regard to that part of the question than they have yet vouchsafed to the public. But that is not all we shall gain. The discussion on the Parliament Bill is about to proceed in the House of Commons, and my noble friend is no doubt aware that some of those who usually act with us intend to move Amendments with the object of grafting the Referendum at a particular point upon the provisions of that Bill. After a delay such as I have suggested we shall at any rate have more precise information derived from those two sources—what will happen in this House on the one hand and what will happen in the other House of Parliament on the other hand—and we shall be better able to judge than we are at present what is the best course to pursue with regard to the Bill of my noble friend. Meanwhile he has done a great service, for which we ought to be sincerely grateful to him, in bringing about a full discussion—and I trust it will be a very full and complete discussion—of this most important question.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON):My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, in his lightning tour in the provinces, made one remark which may, perhaps, have escaped the attention of some of your Lordships. He said that his great object was to try and bring this important subject before the notice of the man in the street. Well, in the few words in which T shall attempt to answer the speech of the noble Marquess—and I promise the House to be brief—I shall try, as well as I can, to lay before your Lordships the views of the man in the street who holds Liberal and Radical opinions, so far as I am able to understand him. If he had had an opportunity of attending the debate this evening, the first thing the Man in the street would say would be, "What an extraordinary impasse the House of Lords has got into on the present occasion" He would remember that it was about seven years ago that four distinguished members of this House separated themselves from their Party—Lord Gosehen, the Duke of Devonshire,
694
Lord Ritchie, and Lord Balfour of Burleigh. Three of those noble Lords, unfortunately, have passed away, but it is no small tribute to the courage of the survivor, Lord Balfour, when we see, not only that he has taken a leaf out of the book of Jean Jacques Rousseau, but also of my friend Mr. Philip Snowden, as well as my noble friend and relative, Lord Weardale. We see the noble Lord to-day actually at id practically leading the serried masses of the Opposition on the Second Reading of a Bill on the main principles of which, we are informed, on the highest authority, the great Conservative Party mean to concentrate, and, if possible, to fight as well. I might quote the words of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, who on the First Reading of the Bill said—
"We take that [the Referendum] deliberately and finally as part of our plan and as our choice—the Referendum to the electorate rather than the House of Commons and Ns temporary majority. it is our permanent contribution, and from it we shall not, recede."
Until the noble Marquess opposite sat down, we on this side of the House were under the impression that noble Lords opposite meant to divide—to assert the principle of the Bill. But we have had, as usual, if I may say so without offence, a sudden change, and we now find the noble Marquess somewhat in agreement with one of the great organs of the Conservative Party, the Morning Post, which stated last week that Lord Selborne would not be able to get Englishmen to fight on the Referendum.
The objects of this Bill have been explained to us, and I will not waste the time of your Lordships by recapitulating them. But I should like to call attention to a clause to which the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition seemed to take most serious and not unnatural objection. I refer to Clause 2. When a Bill is passed by both Houses of Parliament the man in the street supposes that, if His Majesty is graciously pleased to give the Royal Assent, that Bill becomes law at once. But, according to Clause 2 of this Bill, if 200 or even 150 Members of the House of Commons petitioned against a Bill which had passed through both Houses, that Bill could be submitted to the Parliamentary electors, and if there were a majority of two per cent. against it it could not he submitted for the Royal Assent. Until five minutes ago this we understood to be the Conservative faith, in which the Party hoped to find salvation, and with which at the next

695
General Election they hoped to sweep the country from one end to the other. But even on this point, up to this morning there did not seem to be absolute and entire agreement. May I again quote? It is from the Morning Post—
"The argument in favour of it [the Referendum] drawn from the limited experience of its working is of very little valve indeed."
But we must not forget that, I think without exception, all the great pro-Consuls who have won fame in different parts of the Empire have declared themselves in favour of this policy. May I without offence respectfully suggest that some sort of arrangement had better be come to, for—and I speak with all submission—it would be as well if noble Lords opposite spoke to a certain extent with one voice.
A NOBLE LORD: Why?
EARL CARRINGTON: Some of the great pro-Consuls opposite have highly approved of this policy, and on the First Reading of this Bill attention was called to the fact that the Referendum had worked extremely well in Natal. I am not going to trouble the House by referring to the various places where the Referendum is said to be a success; but I may mention, in passing, that the population of Natal is exactly the same as that of the Scottish county of Inverness. We were told that in Natal there were not more than 7,000 voters, and I should like to contrast that with one of the metropolitan boroughs, that of Walthamstow, where three elections were contested last year at very considerable cost. Thirty thousand voters recorded their votes, and the majority in favour of the Liberal Government was very nearly 4,000 strong. But still, as a former Colonial Governor, I am not going altogether to say that the Referendum in some countries does not work extremely well. Norfolk Island, a dependency of New South Wales, of which I had the honour of being Governor twenty years ago, is a paradise on earth, if there is one. It is au emerald green island, with beautiful trees, in the middle of a lapis lazuli sea. The population are descendants of British sailors who have married beautiful Tahitian women. There seems to be a sort of primitive beauty about that place which I have never seen elsewhere, except in the first act of a play called "The Arcadians."
The men in Norfolk Island are great believers in the sanctity of the marriage state; but otherwise they hold everything
696
in common. It is a land of barter and exchange. The consequence is that there is no crime, for the simple reason that they have no money and no drink. I am far from saying that that is a state of things that would suit everybody; it might be styled rather a Rousseau's dream than a Scotsman's paradise. The Referendum works most admirably in that primitive community where every male over eighteen years of age not only has a vote but is a Member of Parliament. I will refer to one meeting of that Parliament. There is much grass in the place, and after luncheon we sat down. One of the elders introduced a Land Bill. It provided that instead of giving thirty acres to the islanders as a marriage gift twelve and a-half acres should be given. It was found necessary to propose this as the population was increasing, and, of course, the land was not. That measure' passed through all its stages, and being in favour of small holdings I at once put on my hat and gave the Royal Assent to that Bill. Up to the year 1896 that was the law of the land. But I do say that he would be a bold man who would argue that because the Referendum is a success in Norfolk Island, or in the Swiss Cantons, it would ipso facto be a success in England. The noble Marquess himself expressed great doubt on that subject. And although the noble Lord opposite, in his admirable speech in introducing the Bill, said, quoting a Swiss writer, M. Curti, that absolute peace and majestic calm prevailed over the whole of Switzerland during a Referendum, I have the doubt which was expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Crewe, on the First Reading of this Bill, whether peace would be so absolute or the calm so majestic were a Referendum on Home Rule announced in Belfast or Portadawn.
I should like the House to consider one question. Why should there be from the Conservative side this desperate attack on our representative system? The reason has been given this evening. The noble Lord opposite said that it was on account of our Parliament Bill. We have been told over and over again until people are beginning to believe it—and it has been repeated to-day—that the Parliament Bill means single-Chamber government. I am not going to say a wont about our Bill. We shall be perfectly ready and able to defend it when the time comes. But may I say, in passing, that if we wanted single-Chamber government we should have asked for it. What

697
we ask for is fair play. We ask for equality of treatment; that we should be treated exactly in the same way as noble Lords treat a Conservative majority. There are two reasons—two very good reasons—why we did not ask for single-Chamber government. The first is, and it is well known, that without exception every single member of the present Government is a bi-cameral man, is in favour of two Chambers. The second reason, and it is unanswerable, is that, even if we wished for a single Chamber, the country was absolutely tired to death of twenty years of single-Chamber government under the great Conservative Party; and if we had tried to bring in a Bill that really meant a single Chamber, we should have been washed by the wave of public opinion high and dry on to the seats of the scornful opposite, and the noble Marquess would have had for the next ten years a Government of all the talents in this House and in the Commons House of Parliament.
The real reason for these extraordinary proposals of noble Lords opposite is that we are now suffering from the inevitable reaction caused by your former too highhanded action towards the Liberal Party, and the strain which you have put on your great and almost omnipotent powers. You tied the broom to the masthead in 1906, 1907, and 1908, and attempted to sweep us from the sea and blow us out of the water. You succeeded in that. But in 1909 you went too far. You rejected our Budget, and discovered when it was too late that not only had von come into conflict with the Liberal Party as a party, but with the country, and for the first time the words were heard, Peers versus People. In 1909 you declared war upon us in the most proper and correct way, and the House of Lords sailed into action to demolish the Liberal Party like a very fine fleet of stately war vessels, but unfortunately you were armed with old-fashioned guns and culverins which had not been discharged for over 200 years. What was the result? On the very first broadside a great many of those guns exploded at the muzzle and in the breech and did more damage on board than against the enemy. You fought, as you always do, gallantly and well, but after a fortnight's fight you were defeated and had to sail away discomfited and disappear in the offing—whatever or wherever that may be—to refit and to take counsel for the future. Then after a sad inte lude, to
698
which I need not refer, with a truce of God between the Parties, the Tory fleet reappeared ready and eager for the fight, which Mr. Balfour himself said could not be too long delayed. But it seems to me that you were fighting then under even worse circumstances. Acting on the advice of an ex-Liberal Admiralissimo, you took most of the heart out of your followers by telling them that if it came off as you wished this would be the very last time that they, as the present House of Lords, would go into action as a fighting unit, because the proposal was that two-thirds of their number had been supposed to be, though I do not for one moment, believe it, unable to perform their hereditary duties. Therefore, these fighting men—and you have got some splendid fighting material on your side of the House—were told that if they won the battle two-thirds of them would walk the plank and be thrown overboard. Well, that seems enough to take the heart out of any body of fighting men.
But you went further. On the eve of the battle Mr. Balfour announced at the Albert Hall his policy of the Referendum, of which a great leader of the Conservative Party—I won't mention his name because it sometimes makes bad blood—has said that if it was introduced as a buttress to the House of Lords it would end by destroying the House of Commons. Well, perhaps that is the object of some Conservatives. I have no idea whether it is true or not. Of course, I do not know anything about that. Mr. Balfour announced to his best fighting legions—the people who represented to him what the Swiss Guards were to Marie Antoinette—he announced to the men who were fighting for Tariff Reform and for Imperial Preference, which, of course, included the taxation of food—he announced to his best troops that their proposals would not be adopted until submitted to the Referendum. I was not present at the Albert Hall meeting, but a friend of mine who is a member of the House of Commons and who was returned by an enormous majority told me that when this unexpected announcement was made the huge audience sat absolutely silent and almost stupified, until some fuglemen, who had been cleverly placed in different parts of the hall, screamed out, "This has won the election." Well, that broke the spell. The vast audience then caught their wind; they cheered, again and again; and, as I believe the Tory Party always do when they are in a tight

699
place, they all joined hands and sang "Rule Britannia" over and over again. Next day the Tory papers were not all enthusiastic as to the wisdom of this great announcement, but said that after all it was the best thing that had ever been done, and that it was a master stroke and a counter stroke of genius on the part of the noble Marquess opposite and of Mr. Arthur Balfour.
But I would very respectfully submit that the body politic, like the human frame, can only bear a certain number of strokes, for at last you come to the end of the power of resistance; and in this instance that turned out to be true, because the last stroke was fatal. You were beaten again for the third time, and for the third time the Liberal Party came into office, and, what is much more important, into power as well. Is there really any reason for this gnashing of Tory teeth and vexation of Unionist spirit? We have been in opposition for twenty long years. We know the sorrows of it, but it is a thing that has to be faced, and, of course, every single one of my colleagues on this side makes all allowance for the grievous disappointment at the non-fulfilment of the most honourable and not unnatural hope of holding office during the Coronation year, and being able to take direction of the Imperial Conference. But the inevitable must be faced. The country has spoken with no uncertain voice and knows what it wants and why it wants it. The country is determined to restore the balance of the Constitution and to see fair play between the two Parties in the State. It is perfectly true, and we recognise it in the Preamble of the Parliament Bill, that the country is not absolutely satisfied with the state of the House of Lords as it at present exists, but there is not the smallest doubt that it has no intention at this stage to re-constitute your Lordships' House. What it intends to do is to put a limit on the absolute, omnipotent, irresponsible, and uncontrolled powers of your Lordships' House, which, I regret to say, have, perhaps not so very long ago, been strained beyond their utmost limits. In spite of all that has been said or may be said to the contrary the country knows that the State is safe and solvent in the hands of the Liberal Government, that we want to take no unfair advantage of the Party opposite because the sun happens to be at the present moment shining on our side of the hedge; and our brethren from the Britains beyond
700
the Seas who are hurrying home now to take part in the great commemoration of the Coronation of His Majesty King George V know that there is no fear of any dangerous Constitutional interference with the integrity of the. Empire or the welfare of the old Mother Country to which we all belong and which we love so well.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: My Lords, I came down to the House this afternoon with the idea of hearing a discussion on the Bill of Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and I am sure the noble Earl who has just spoken will not consider it an impertinence on my part if I do not follow his speech, which has ranged in such a diverting manner over so many subjects. I was one of those who supported the Referendum at the General Election, but since I have had time to study the proposal I am not quite so sure that. I am as much in love with it as I was. [Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.] Wait a moment, my Lords. I say I am not so much in love with it as I was a month or two ago. We have been attacked in a variety of ways for having introduced what is, perhaps, a new idea into the British Constitution. It has been described as a Tory dodge, and it has been said that we are really the disciples of Rousseau. I should like to remind those noble Lords who were so ready to cheer just now, that our patronage of Jean Jacques Rousseau synchronises with their own adoption for the first time of the principles of Bolingbroke and Beaconsfield. I do not know that I have enjoyed anything so much as listening to the speech of the noble Viscount opposite, a speech full of the noblest and finest Tory sentiments, and in itself a splendid vindication of that very Constitution that he and his friends are about to destroy as soon as they get a reasonable opportunity.
I welcome the introduction of this Bill because it will give us an opportunity of discussing the question of the Referendum, and I am very much obliged to the noble Marquess who leads this side of the House for expressing the hope that there will be a full discussion, and that we shall not come to any conclusion in the hurried spirit which was rather displayed on the hustings. No doubt the idea of the Referendum is exceedingly fascinating. Lord Balfour of Burleigh says that the object of government is that the will of the people should prevail.

701
All you have to do is to appeal to the people in their millions; you get the vote of the majority, and, having done a simple sum in addition, you have then solved the problem. I am never quite sure what people mean when they talk of the "will of the people." It can, at best, only mean the will of the majority of the people, and I will frankly confess that I belong to a Party which in the past has always asserted—I believe noble Lords and the people themselves would agree—that the true object of government is the social welfare of the people, and that the means of obtaining that social welfare are not necessarily always expressed by a bare majority of the people at the moment.
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Curzon, said in one of those splendid speeches which he made I think in 1909, that the best work in most States had been the work of aristocracy. In saying that we do not mean, and I am sure the noble Lord did not mean, aristocracy of Party, but aristocracy of brains, of talent, and of patriotism. And I think Sir. Erskine May reminds us with great force, with regard to Constitutional government, that all the best work has been the work of minorities, and that half the introductions into the State of new ideas based upon the health and the welfare of the people would probably have been defeated had they been left to the will of the majority for the time being. As Lord Balfour said just now, there is no doubt whatever that the idea of the Referendum is an exceedingly easy one to defend on the platform. A Scottish Member of Parliament put it to me not very long ago that he supported the Referendum on the platform because he believed it was the only way in which a Scottish Radical could be got to vote for the Tory Party. He was not very successful, however, in that at the last General Election.
I do not propose to weary your Lordships with a lecture or a long speech on the Referendum. I have endeavoured to study it to the best of my ability, and I find there are four kinds of Referendum. There is the Referendum for ascertaining the views of the electorate generally about any abstract proposition which has not yet been put into legislative form; the Referendum to defeat or to sanction Bills already passed by both Houses of Parliament; the Referendum to solve deadlocks
702
between the two Houses; and the Referendum by initiative. Under this Bill Lord Balfour of Burleigh proposes to adopt the Referendum for the solving of deadlocks and in the case of Bills on which both branches of the Legislature have already agreed. It is a considerable step to try and graft two Referenda straight away on to the Constitution. We have been told, not so much in this House this evening but in speeches in the country, that, after all, we need not be frightened, because the Referendum works well in other countries. I was glad to hear the noble Marquess support the opinion that analogies drawn from foreign countries are, to a considerable extent, fallacious in considering the Referendum in this country. In other countries where there is this principle of the Referendum there is a written Constitution which enables distinction between Constitutional and other questions. That applies in those countries where there is no Party system, as in Switzerland, where they revel in the luxury of having a permanent Radical majority in both Houses of Parliament, where the Referendum is of very ancient growth, and where direct legislation by the people is part and parcel of their system. Time does not permit me to say anything about the working of the Referendum in Australia or in America, except to refer, for the benefit of those who desire to favour the Referendum because of what it has done in America, to a rather remarkable sentence in Mr. Bryce's appreciation of the Referendum. He says—
"It is very much to be doubted whether the experience of practical working in America has yet been long enough to enable full and final judgment to be passed on its utility."
As we have heard and read so much about Switzerland, I hope I shall not be wearying your Lordships if I say a word about the way in which the Referendum works there, and the manner in which people either support or oppose a particular measure at the Referendum, because I imagine that human nature is in some respects pretty much the same there as it would be in any other country. I am told that in Switzerland under the Referendum they have a very good system which has generally resulted in the passing of good laws. I do not doubt that for a moment. It would be a great insult to the Swiss Legislature to say they have done otherwise. Many of those who advocate the Referendum tell you that the Referendum is all

703
right because in Switzerland, where they have the Referendum, Conservative measures have generally been passed and violent and extreme measures have been rejected. That is a great recommendation, and there is no doubt that in Switzerland extreme Radicals, Freethinkers, Socialists, and those who indulge too much in an illegitimate manner both in the sale and consumption of schnapps and absinthe, have been defeated by the common sense of the Swiss people. But at the same time the ideas of the Swiss people with regard to the Referendum have not been nearly so Conservative as a great many people imagine, because in the Canton of Vaud an enterprising Radical started and carried, I think by the initiative Referendum, a system for the progressive taxation of capital of a very extreme kind, with the result that a great deal of capital was frightened out of the country and the Canton suffered accordingly. This particular instance is always quoted in Socialistic newspapers in this country, some of which are rather nibbling at the Referendum, as to what might happen at some future time if you once got the Referendum thoroughly grafted into the legislative system of this country.
There is another curious thing about the Referendum in S witzerland—namelv, the smallness of the number who go to record their votes. In the Canton of Berne only forty-three per cent. voted on a measure submitted to the Referendum, whereas sixty-three per cent. voted at elections to the Legislature. In the Canton of Zurich a great many people vote at the Referendum, but that is accounted for by the fact that an elector is there fined if he does not record his vote. One legislator said that not only should the people who did not vote be fined, but that those who voted should be paid for having done so—I think a franc. The result has been that a lot of people who would rather not pay the two francs or whatever the fine is for not voting at the Referendum, go into the voting room and drop a blank paper into the box. At the same time all the big measures covering a period of five years bad to be abandoned altogether, because a sufficient number of electors to make them into law could not be found. They declined to take a part in the Referendum. There is this other rather remarkable thing about the national Referendum, that generally less than sixty per cent. of those qualified vote.
704
This means that people who do not understand Bills do not go to vote upon them, or a good many ignorant people vote as they are instructed by the agitator. Though we are told that the Swiss people would not get rid of the Referendum if it were ever so, we cannot possibly get away from the remarkable statement made not very long ago by a leading Statesman in Switzerland, who probably knows more about Swiss politics than anybody else. M. Droz tells us that—
"The Referendum has given birth to a camarilla of politicans who exploit the credulity or passions of the populace in order to oppose measures which are perfectly legitimate."
There is one other form of Referendum which has not been mentioned in Lord Balfour's Bill but which is often alluded to in general conversation. It is said that the Legislature should discover from the people themselves before a proposition is given legislative form whether they are in favour of it. A great many people say this sort of thing: Why not put National Service or Woman Suffrage to the Referendum, and thus find out whether there is a majority of people in favour of either of them? Personally I do not favour this kind of Referendum. In the first place, if the Referendum went against National Service, I, as a member of the National Service League, would work all the harder to get a majority, so that would not be likely to settle the matter. And if we know anything of those who take part in the agitation for votes for women, they would not be likely to give it up on account of the Referendum having gone against them. They would say that it was taken by people who understood nothing about the question—meaning the opposite sex—and they would not attach any value to the majority. But to my mind there is in this form of Referendum something worse than that. It is that this sort of Referendum is suggested very often by the very people who themselves ought to be leaders of public opinion, and a great many people suggest it in order that they may be saved the trouble of speaking out and leading their fellow citizens upon any important subject. I will quote M. Droz again. He says—
"Fear of Referendum makes timid legislators, who sometimes lack the courage to vote for what they believe to be the best for the country, or, having voted for it, to stand up for it before their fellow-citizens."
I cannot discover from the speech of my noble friend exactly what kind of measure he proposes to put to the Referendum, but

705
he said that in trying: to separate these matters a serious and formidable difficulty is encountered. The noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition said, with great truth, that most electors would have a good rough-and-read y notion whether they approved a particular Bill or not. I have no doubt that is so, and that in process of time you may educate the people of this country to become judges of Bills, but at present that is not the way in which they expect to have their legislation carried on. A number of the electors in this country have never seen a Bill, and many of the people in the place where I live would not see a Bill submitted to the country under the Referendum because to do so they would have to walk twelve miles to the office of the Clerk of the Peace, where suppose would be lodged the only available copy.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The object of that proposal is to provide a definite and concise form from which organs of public opinion can quote for the information of the people. It is not necessary for every one to inspect the precise form in which the Bill is put before the people, but a copy is to be deposited in the office of the Clerk of the Peace for inspection.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: The reason I lay some slight stress on this point is that in Switzerland the Legislature sends round a copy of the Bill to every single elector, so that they are quite sure he will have some chance of being able to form an opinion upon it. The Referendum if introduced into this country may be all right in order to settle questions which cannot be settled in any other way. If we could get some guarantee that it would only be used on very important occasions, I for one would support the Referendum in that respect; but there must be the most careful safeguards and guarantees that it is not going to be allowed to creep into and permeate the whole of our political system, in the way it has done in the political systems of other countries where it has been adopted. Many people compare Switzerland and England without having the slightest idea of the extraordinarily marked difference between the whole thought and tendency of the two peoples. In Switzerland there is Ito personal element whatever in the elections. In the year 1884 the people themselves voted down
706
the four most important Bills that had been passed in the session of the Swiss Council, yet in spite of that they returned the same members to office. That is not the way in which the people of this country have been accustomed to manage their affairs. They vote—as I think the noble Lord reminded us on one occasion—not for one measure or another, but in turn for one set of men or for another. That is a habit which I believe it will be very difficult to uproot. For once one feels inclined to agree with an able writer in the Clarion, who says—
"It is the business of real Statesmen to lead, not to follow, the people… The bulk of the English people are not politicians. They like to choose rulers and let them rule."
And so long as rulers do not produce anything organic or anything extreme, the people of this country are willing to allow them to dictate the general tenor of the measures which they produce. But we have to pay the penalty of this form of representative government in this country. We are paying the penalty at this very moment by having a Government in office who cart only keep their various groups together by proposing an organic and extreme method of dealing with the Constitutional problem.
The Tory mind I should have thought might be allowed to object to the Referendum as much as ever it liked, but I cannot understand the mind of noble Lords opposite and their friends in really objecting to the Referendum. The first thing that I should have thought they would have welcomed it for is that it concedes something to the idea which they approve but of which. I disapprove, that plural voting should be given up. That is what our friends opposite are always so anxious to see consummated. The principle of plural voting will, to a great extent, be destroyed by the Referendum. I have been brought up to think, and always shall think, that plural voting is a perfectly sound and desirable thing in this country. I shall be sorry to see any Bill passed into law which gives colour to the idea that we have abandoned tie principle of plural voting. Radical speakers are never tired of talking about the voice of the people, but it seems that they will do anything in the world except go to the people and consult them about any specific measure they happen to have on their programme. The Prime Minister said at Bury St.

707
Edmunds in December that he did not want the Referendum at all as it was only mutilating the functions of Parliament, but he proclaimed, amid loud cheers, that if anybody wanted the Referendum he could not have a better Referendum than the one they were having then at the General Election. The electors of Bury St. Edmunds took him at his word and returned a Conservative Member. But that is neither here nor there.
The Prime Minister claimed the last General Election as a specific Referendum upon the House of Lords question and upon nothing else, but since then the same Referendum has had to do duty for several other things. If the will of the people was expressed at the last General Election in favour of Home Rule and the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales as well as upon the House of Lords question, I cannot see what objection the Prime Minister and his friends can possibly have to placing these measures before the people themselves for a direct vote. I agree with the theory which the noble Viscount has always put forward in this House, that there is not at any General Election a specific mandate for any particular measure. But, however that may be, we say that there is no mandate whatever residing in the present Parliament for the destruction of the Constitution by straining the Royal Prerogative in the way proposed. I confess frankly that I view with great suspicion
708
the introduction of the principle of the. Referendum into the politics of this country, but I would sooner—and I think the country would far sooner—see any single issue put to the Referendum than that the far more drastic and revolutionary proposals of the Government should be adopted. If I interpret the noble Marquess rightly, we are contending for the principle that the people shall not have things thrust upon them on which they have not in reality been consulted, and that is a principle which we do not intend to abandon. I cannot see that it is such a fantastic notion either. The project in the Parliament Bill is a great deal more fantastic, and, as I say, a great deal more revolutionary. The noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture said that if the Government had wanted single-Chamber government they would have asked for it. I do not believe that they dare go to the country and ask for single-Chamber government. But they are doing something which is infinitely more discreditable—I use the word in a political and not in an offensive sense—in that they are trying to pass what is in effect single-Chamber government under the guise of preserving the double-Chamber system.
On Question, further debate adjourned till To-morrow, and to be taken first.
House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Four o'clock."