Sitting of 1 August 1912

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Keighley Corporation Bill,
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 23rd July, and agreed to.
Bordon and District Gas Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Metropolitan Railway Bill (by Order),
London County Council (Money) Bill (by Order),
London County Council (General Powers) Bill (by Order),
London County Council (Finance) Bill (by Order),
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Blyth Harbour Bill [Lords] (by Order),
As amended, considered; a Clause added; Amendments made:—
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
King's Consent signified.
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Clyde Valley Electrical Power Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read a second time; to be considered To-morrow.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill (by Order),
Sea Fisheries (Lynn) Provisional Orders Bill (by Order),
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.

MENTAL DEFICIENCY (EXPENSES).
Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of Salaries and other Expenses incurred under any Act of the present Session to make further and better provision with respect to Feeble-minded and other Mentally Defective Persons (King's Recommendation signified), Tomorrow.—[Mr. Gulland.]
SHIPPING CASUALTIES (LOSS OF THE STEAMSHIP "TITANIC").
Copy presented of Report of a Formal Investigation into the circumstances attending the foundering, on 15th April, 1912, of the British steamship "Titanic," of Liverpool, after striking ice in or near Latitude 41° 46 N., Longitude 50° 14' W., North Atlantic Ocean, whereby Loss of Life ensued [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MERCHANT SHIPPING (LIFE-SAVING APPLIANCES AND SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA).
Copy presented of Report of the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee respecting the Statutory Regulations as to Boats and Life-Saving Appliances and other means for ensuring safety of life at sea, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSUERANCE (SPECIAL ORDER).
Copy presented of the Special Exclusion (Drivers, etc.) Order, 1912, made by the Board of Trade under Part II. of the National Insurance Act, 1911 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of a Memorial as to the Preservation of the Decoration of certain parts of the Victoria and Albert Museum [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Report of the Committee appointed to advise as to the treatment of the Gallery and Staircase leading to the Lecture Theatre in the Victoria and Albert Museum [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

COPYRIGHT IN GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 31st July, 1912; Mr. Masterman]; to lie upon the Table.
HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 25th July, 1912; Mr. Winfrey]; to lie upon the Table.
ROAD IMPROVEMENT FUND.
Copy presented of Abstract Account of Receipts into and Payments out of the Road Improvement Fund for the period from 1st April, 1911, to 31st March, 1912, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
ROAD BOARD.
Copy presented of Second Annual Report of Proceedings of the Road Board [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION (SCOTLAND) (REGULATIONS).
Copy presented of Regulations of the National Health Insurance Commission (Scotland) as to Inspectors' Certificates of
2222
Appointment [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Eightieth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, with Appendices, for the year ending 31st March, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 4960 to 4964 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (No. 2) BILL [Lords]
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed.
HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES BILL.
Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I desire to present a petition from the Royal Sanitary Institution praying this House to pass the Housing of the Working Classes Bill.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Putumayo.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention had been called to the offer of the directors of the Evangelical Union of South America to send some of their missionaries, who are and have been for years working in Peru, to succour the distressed Indians of the Putumayo; and whether he would intimate to the Peruvian Government that any friendly recognition of these Protestant missionaries' labours in Peru would have a beneficial effect and tend to restore confidence in the Government of the Peruvian Amazon district?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second

  2223
  part, in view of previous experience and of the Peruvian Constitution, I am not hopeful of the active support of the Peruvian Government being given to any but a Roman Catholic Mission.
  Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is now in England a Protestant missionary who went out to Peru with a recommendation from the Foreign Office, and that there is another Protestant missionary whose religious liberties were interfered with unduly by the Peruvian Government, and who obtained through the Foreign Office an indemnity? If I can produce both these gentlemen—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put these questions on the Paper.

  British Ambassador at Washington.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether the resignation of our Ambassador at Washington is pending; and whether a successor has already been appointed?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to the hon. Member's question is that Mr. Bryce is returning to Washington about the begining of September to resume his work there as Ambassador.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: May I point out that that is not an answer to my question—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Comments upon answers received must be made on some other occasion.

  Nolan v. Nolan (Divorce).
  Mr. T. M. HEALYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether his attention has been called to the recent case of Nolan v. Nolan in the Divorce Court, in which Dr. Harold Nolan was found by a special jury guilty of systematic cruelty to his wife and misconduct with a young Persian girl who stated her age at the time to be under sixteen; whether he is aware that Dr. Nolan is a domiciled Englishman and Controller of the Public Safety in the Ministry of the Interior and is still in the service of the Egyptian Government; whether in such capacity, as head of the secret police, he was concerned in the recent arrests of persons alleged to be implicated in a plot against the Government in Egypt; whether he is aware that Dr. Nolan left this country
  2224
  without obeying the order of the Court directing him to hand over the two children of the marriage to his wife; and whether he is prepared to make any recommendation to the Egyptian Government with a view to enforcing the order of the Court for delivery up of the children?
  Sir E. GREY: I understand that an account of this trial has appeared in the newspapers, but I am advised that the Foreign Office cannot without a request from the judge intervene to enforce the order of the Court. So far as I can see, all the ordinary remedies are available against Dr. Nolan. I may add that I understand that his employment with the Egyptian Government either is terminated or will be terminated without delay, and that he was absent on leave when the arrests referred to were made.

  Arrests in Cairo.
  Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now state under what article of the Criminal Code the men charged with conspiracy to murder in Cairo will be tried; whether any recent modification of the criminal law is to be used in this case; and, if so, when and under what circumstances the modification was made?
  Sir E. GREY: The prisoners are all charged under Article 47 bis of the Penal Code, an Article which was enacted in 1910, in consequence of the inadequacy of existing dispositions for dealing with criminal conspiracy, and the impossibility of bringing the accomplices of criminals to justice. I may add that the charge is conspiracy to murder, punishable by a maximum of fifteen years' imprisonment.

  Parliamentary Committees (Foreign Countries).
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will be able shortly to circulate the Return showing the systems adopted in certain foreign countries of Parliamentary Committees attached to Government Departments?
  Sir E. GREY: I am still awaiting one of the Reports called for. The Return will be presented on its receipt.

  Persia.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what conditions Russia has formulated in respect of the payment of her portion of the advance of the Anglo-Russian loan to Persia?
  Sir E. GREY: The only advance actually made by the two Governments to Persia is that of the 20th March last, the conditions of which were laid on the Table of the House in Persia No. 2 (1912). A further small advance has recently been discussed, but no definite conditions have yet been formulated.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is the loan "held up" through want of compliance with some condition on the part of Persia?
  Sir E. GREY: The definite conditions on the part of the Russian Government in regard to their share of the further small advance have not yet been actually formulated; of course, the loan cannot be raised until the conditions are fulfilled.

  Ballyclough Petty Sessions (Licensing Act, 1872).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if Mr. John D.O'Connor, chairman of the Kanturk Rural District Council, is the holder of a wholesale beer dealers' licence in the locality; and that, acting as a justice of the peace in virtue of his position as chairman of the council, Mr. O'Connor attended the Petty Sessions of Ballyclough on Monday, the 1st instant, and adjudicated in a case brought under the Licensing Acts and declared himself against a conviction, with the result that the bench was divided and the case had to be adjourned; and whether this action of Mr. O'Connor's will be brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor and steps taken to enforce a penalty on Mr. O'Connor under Section 60 of the Licensing Act of 1872?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The matter referred to by the hon. Member is still sub judice, and I am therefore not in a position to make any statement regarding it.

  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether complaints are made by certain national school teachers in Ireland that they are not reimbursed the amount of their out-of-pocket expenses in connection with the heating and cleansing of their particular national schools; and whether he will take steps to ensure that, where a Grant is made, vouchers for the expenditure, signed by the principal teachers, are produced by the managers in support of the claim?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that in all cases in which it appears that any portion of the expenditure on the heating and cleaning of a national school has been defrayed by the teacher the attention of the manager is called to the provisions of the Commissioners' Rule on the subject, and he is informed that arrangements must be made to relieve the teacher from the liability in future. Before payment of the Grant for heating and cleaning is made the Commissioners satisfy themselves that the teacher has been, or will be, reimbursed for the payments made by him, and the payment of the Grant is conditional on such repayment to the teacher. Any case of breach of the Commissioners' Rule on this subject which may be brought under their notice will be carefully inquired into. I am glad the hon. and gallant Gentleman has called my attention to this matter.

  Police Barracks, County Westmeath.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether the police barracks have been removed from Reynella Cross Road, Rathconnell, Killucan, county Westmeath, since when there have been several cases of intimidation by tramps; whether he can reinstate a few men or arrange amore frequent patrol between Delvin and Mullingar; and whether he is aware that uneasiness prevails among a certain section of the population since the withdrawal of the police from the neighbourhood?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Inspector-General informs me that this barracks was abolished in April, 1911, there being no further necessity for it. The police have not heard of any cases of intimidation by tramps, nor are they aware that any uneasiness prevails among any section of the people in the neighbourhood owing to the abolition of the barracks. It is not considered necessary to increase the police force as frequent patrols visit the locality by day and night.
  Mr. JOYCE: Did any of these tramps come from Blenheim?

  Outrages (Ireland).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Sectary whether he is aware that on the night of the 5th July thirty-nine head of cattle were driven off a farm near Carrickmacross, county Monaghan, and were found eight miles away the next day, and that the gates were removed from the

  2227
  fields and the cattle abused; and if any person has been made amenable for this outrage?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The police authorities inform me that on 28th June thirty-nine head of cattle were driven off a farm near Carrickmacross, and were all recovered next day uninjured at a considerable distance from the farm. The cattle were not abused. One iron gate was taken off its hinges and thrown down, and the bolt of another was broken. Up to the present no person has been made amenable in connection with the affair.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary if he has received any report to the effect that a man named P. Hannavan was fired at and wounded in the county Managhan on the 12th July last?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The police authorities inform me that on the 12th July Patrick Hannavan was fired at and slightly wounded upon the left finger. The woman who fired the shot has been returned for trial.
  Mr. LARDNER: Is it a fact that this lady is the wife of a prominent Protestant in the district, and that she pleaded that she was not aware that the gun was loaded at the time she fired the shot?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have no doubt whatever can be said will be said when the case comes on for trial.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that on the night of Friday, 5th July, both the ears of a valuable horse, the property of a farmer named Abane, in county Cork, were cut off; and if any person has been made amenable for this outrage?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The police authorities inform me that two horses, the property of a farmer at Ahanebeg, county Cork, had their left ears cut off on the night of the 5th July. So far the perpetrators of this abominable outrage have not been traced.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary if on the night of the 5th July a quantity of tar was thrown over the foot of the statue of Lord Farnham in the town of Cavan, and a vault belonging to the Moore family in the Franciscan cemetery in Cavan was desecrated on the same night; and whether any one has been made amenable for these outrages?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the question on this subject asked by the hon. Member for West Cavan on the 25th July.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
    Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether, in view of the proposal in the Government of Ireland Bill to hand over the Royal Irish Constabulary at a certain period to the control of an Irish Executive, any provision has been made to arrange that the benefits provided for widows and orphans out of the Constabulary Force Fund will be secured under the Imperial Treasury and not left to the discretion of an Irish Executive; and whether this fund is now in a perfectly solvent condition and prepared, so far as can be foreseen, to meet all claims likely to be made on behalf of the wives and children of surviving subscribers to the benefit branch?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Payments out of the Constabulary Force Fund to widows and orphans of deceased members of the force are made under the authortiy of the Lord Lieutenant and will continue to be so made after the passing of the Bill. There appears to be no occasion for special provision of the nature indicated by the hon. Member, but the fund is to a certain extent under the control of the National Debt Commissioners and may be dealt with, if necessary, under Clause 44 of the Bill. The fund is solvent.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Colonel M'CALMONTasked the Chief Secretary whether Mrs. O'Brien, a member of the Rathkeale District Council, has been allotted seven acres of the Clounriesk untenanted lands, Hewson estate, county Limerick; and whether he is aware that there are a number of labourers in the division who are anxious to get parcels of land, and that the seven acres allotted to Mrs. O'Brien would have gone a long way towards supplying their wants?
    Mr. BIRRELL: With regard to the first paragraph of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the question on this subject asked by the hon. Member for South Antrim on the 25th July. The allotment of the lands was made by the Estates Commissioners after inquiry and in the exercise of the discretion vested in them.
    Mr. AUGUSTINE ROCHEasked the Chief Secretary under what circumstances was a considerable tract of land in the Clermont demesne, county Louth, which was purchased by the Estates Commissioners for distribution amongst evicted tenants, given by them to Colonel Guinness, then commanding a battery of Royal Field Artillery in Dundalk; and what provision do the Commissioners propose to make for the evicted tenants in county Louth who up to the present have not been restored to their farms or provided with equivalent lands elsewhere?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners acquired Clermont demesne, county Louth, under the Irish Land Act, 1903, and not under the Evicted Tenants Act as suggested in the question. The Commissioners divided the lands, and provided holdings for eight evicted tenants, and two sons of tenants, and they gave enlargements to seventeen tenants of other holdings, and in addition allotted forty acres to the rural district council for the purposes of the Labourers Acts. The division which included the mansion house was not suitable for sub-division, and as a considerable portion of the price was in respect of the buildings the full purchase money could not be advanced subject to a land purchase annuity. It was accordingly let to Colonel Guinness, who agreed to purchase it, and to pay portion of the purchase money in cash. There is only one evicted tenant in county Louth who has been noted for consideration in the allotment of untenanted land, and who has not yet been provided with a holding.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether on the Westby estate, Kilballyowen, West Clare, of which the division among the tenants has been long awaited, the holder of a portion of the estates is putting up large buildings which would be useless in the event of the distribution of the land among the uneconomic tenants; and whether the fears of these tenants are justified that in this case the Land Act of 1909 is to remain a dead letter or, if not, whether steps will be taken to deal with this estate without further delay?
    Mr. BIRRELL: This estate is the subject of proceedings for sale direct by the owner to the tenants under the Irish Land Act, 1903. The Estates Commissioners have no information as to the erection of buildings by one of the tenants, and they have no power to deal with the estate until it is reached in proper order of priority.
    Mr. LYNCH: Is there not some danger if this building takes place that the land will not be available?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am afraid that danger must be faced.
    Mr. JOYCEasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of the tenants on the Walsh and Bryon estate, consisting of 600 acres of land in the townlands of Keyanna, Killonan, and Ballyclough, in the county of Limerick; is he aware of the fact that the tenants on this estate signed their purchase agreements in the year 1905, and the estate was inspected several years since; why have those tenants not got their vesting orders; can he say in what manner do the landlords intend to get paid, whether in cash or in stock; have there been any difficulties regarding titles or legatees, and, if so, of what nature; is he aware that those tenants cannot get loans from the Board of Works for the improvement of their farms until the lands are vested in them; and whether taking all those matters into account, and in view of the desirability of a final settlement, he will see that a vesting order will be issued as soon as possible?
    Mr. BIRRELL: This estate is the subject of proceedings for sale direct by the vendors to the tenants under the Irish Land Act, 1903, and is on the principal register of direct sales (all cash). The Estates Commissioners hope to be in a position to advance the purchase money, and vest the holdings in the purchasing tenants at an early date.

    County Court Procedure (Ireland).
    Mr. CHARLES CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has yet considered the Report of the County Court Judges on County Court Procedure; if so, when does he propose to take action on the Report; if the Lord Chancellor has not yet considered the Report, will he state what is the cause of the delay; and, in view of the importance and urgency of the question of County Court procedure to barristers, solicitors, and litigants, and of the delay which has already taken place, if he will take immediate steps to induce the Lord Chancellor to give the matter his attention?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Lord Chancellor has considered the Report of the County Court judges, and has sent a copy to the Incor-

    2231
    porated Law Society at their request. When the society furnish their observations on the Report the question of legislation will be considered.
    Mr. LARDNER: Can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to lay a copy of the Report on the Table of the House?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, Sir, I will try to do so.

    Rathkeale Poor Law Union, County Limerick.
    Colonel M'CALMONTasked the Chief Secretary whether two guardians representing the Askeaton West Division of the Rathkeale Poor Law Union, county Limerick, are respectively the wife of the medical officer of the Askeaton dispensary district and the husband of the matron of the Rathkeale Union Workhouse; whether he is aware that the matron was voted an increase in her salary from £30 a year to £60 a year, being an increase of 100 per cent.; that this increase was considered excessive by the Local Government Board; and that on the 3rd of July, without further notice of motion and against the remonstrances of some of the guardians, a salary of £52 a year, being an increase of 73 per cent., was voted; and whether, in the interests of the paupers and ratepayers, steps will be taken to prevent the husbands and wives of officials of unions and district councils having seats and votes in such unions and district councils?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The members representing the Askeaton West Division of the Rathkeale Board of Guardians are Mrs. Elizabeth O'Brien and Mr. James Sheehy. The latter is the husband of the matron of the workhouse; but, although the Local Government Board have no information as to whether Mrs. O'Brien is the wife of the medical officer of the Askeaton Dispensary District, I believe the case is so. The guardians originally voted an increase of salary to the matron from £30 to £60, which the Local Government Board refused to sanction, and it was then proposed to fix the salary at £52. The Board ultimately sanctioned an increase to £45, this amount being the maximum salary paid to matrons in other unions of the same class. There is nothing in the law to prevent the husband or wife of an officer of a board of guardians from becoming a guardian of the union if duly elected by the Local Government electors.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Were not the members of the district council, with one or two exceptions, in favour of the larger increase, and is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that these are the parties responsible to the ratepayers; and what right has the hon. and gallant Member to interfere in this matter?
    Mr. BIRRELL: It is a matter for the Local Government Board, and any one can ask questions relating to it. The Local Government Board have undoubtedly to exercise restrictions upon the generosity of members of boards of guardians.

    Poor Law Clerks and Magistracy (Ireland).
    Mr. MULDOONasked the Chief Secretary whether heretofore in Ireland clerks of Poor Law guardians were excluded from the office of justice of the peace; whether the present Lord Chancellor has frequently expressed his determination to adhere to this rule; what is the" reason for this practice; whether any candidates for the Commission concealed the circumstance of their being union clerks from both the Lord Lieutenant of the county and the Lord Chancellor; whether he can state the number of persons who have so imposed upon the Lord Chancellor since he came into office; and what steps he proposes to take in reference to them?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Lord Chancellor informs me that the usual practice has been not to appoint clerks of union to the magistracy, but there have been cases in which they were appointed. The practice is based on the view that the duties of a magistrate may interfere with the proper discharge of the duties of a clerk of union, and it is also considered undesirable, that the chairman of the board, usually a magistrate, and an official of the board should act as justices on the same bench. There has been only a single case of the kind since the present Lord Chancellor came into office. At the time of the appointment the Lord Chancellor had no knowledge of the fact that the candidate was a clerk of a union. Some time after the appointment the Lord Chancellor was apprised of the fact, and, having made full inquiries, he has finally concluded that he cannot hold that the candidate had any intention to deceive either the Lord Chancellor or the Lieutenant of the County, although he did not state that he was a clerk of a union.
    Mr. MULDOON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Lord Chancellor had not previously refused to appoint this very person?
    Mr. BIRRELL: That I do not know.

    Athlone Urban Council.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the proceedings of the Athlone Urban District Council on 24th July, when the question of the council's debts was under discussion, and it was stated by the chairman that the council had been presented with an account for coal supplied to them amounting to £2,000, of which they were unable to pay more than £200, and that they were threatened with legal proceedings by the contractors if the debt were not paid within a week; whether he is aware that it was also stated that a further sum of £2,800 was owing for gas, that the council were unable to pay interest on its debt, and that the rates could not be collected, and that it was decided to apply to the Local Government Board for a loan to enable the council to meet its current liabilities; whether he can say what is the total indebtedness of the Athlone Urban Council; and whether the Government intends to sanction a loan for the purpose of paying the tradesmen's bills of this council?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The facts are as stated in the first paragraph of the question. An application for sanction to a loan to meet the council's liability to the contractors in question has been received by the Local Government Board. The council were informed on the 16th June, 1911, in connection with a similar application, that the Board had no power to authorise borrowing for such a purpose, and they are new referring the council to the terms of that letter. There is no information available as to the other matters referred to in the question, and the Board have no precise particulars as to the total indebtedness of the council.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Will the Local Government Board cause any inquiry into the finances of this body?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board are considering the state of the case.

    Disturbances in Belfast.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the Chief Secretary whether he has been informed that, on Sunday, 28th July, two
    2234
    Protestants, named respectively Farren and M'Neill, were set upon by Nationalists in Belfast while they were proceeding to the docks to go aboard a steamer, and that they were kicked and injured so severely that they had to be taken to the hospital; that two other Protestants, named respectively Shields and Atkinson, were similarly attacked by Nationalists on Monday, 29th July, in the streets of Belfast, with the result that they also had to be removed to hospital; and whether any arrests have been made in connection with either of these outrages?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The police inform me that on the 28th July a fireman named Fanning, who was on his way to his ship, and two companions named Fanning and MacNully were assaulted. They were taken to hospital, but were not detained, as their injuries were not serious. Warrants have been issued for the arrest of their assailants. The men attacked were Protestants, but I cannot say what was the motive of the assault. That will no doubt be brought out in Court. On the 29th, while the police wore taking two drunken and disorderly prisoners to barracks, a crowd collected and two men named Shields and Atkinson, both Protestants, were assaulted. Both were treated in hospital but were not detained. They could not identify their assailants, and the police were too fully occupied with their prisoners to make any arrests. Atkinson is a stranger of the tramp class.

    Irish Land Commission (Report).
    Mr. FFRENCHasked if the Report of the Irish Land Commission has yet been issued; and when will it be laid upon the Table of the House?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Report will be presented within the next few days.

    Irish Education Act, 1892 (Compulsory Sections).
    Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: The question appears upon the Paper by mistake to-day, and unless the Chief Secretary is prepared to answer it I will postpone it until Monday. The question is whether a Bill to amend the compulsory Sections of the Irish Education Act, 1892, was submitted in 1909 to the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland for observations thereon; if so, did they make any such observations, and what were they; and is it intended now to initiate legislation on this subject?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have got an answer. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member will regard it as satisfactory or not. The answer is: The Bill referred to was a private Member's Bill, and was submitted to the Commissioners of National Education in 1909, who decided to take no action with regard to it. The answer to the last paragraph of the question is in the negative.

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
    Mr. T. M. HEALYasked whether, in opposition to the unanimous opinion of Irish cattle traders, including Mr. Gavin Low, the Department's expert adviser, he persists in refusing to slaughter on the farm at Swords where the last reported outbreak occurred; whether he will now take steps to have all the cattle on this farm slaughtered; and whether, as Ireland has only shown disease in this small district, he will press the English Department to permit fat cattle coming by rail from outside this area to be shipped from Dublin, Dundalk, and Drogheda for immediate slaughter at Birkenhead and other foreign wharves, and thus save Irish farmers from enormous uncompensated loss?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Department have slaughtered on the farm at Swords, where the last case of foot-and-mouth disease occurred, all the cattle which were in the infected field. The remainder of the stock to the number of over 800 have been isolated, and are kept under close and daily observation. No symptom of the disease has yet appeared in any of these animals, and unless it does the Department would not be justified in ordering their slaughter. Mr. Gavin Low is not an expert adviser of the Department. He is only employed for the purpose of valuing animals ordered to be slaughtered. The Department are not aware that the cattle traders generally have expressed the opinion suggested in the question. With regard to the last paragraph of the question, I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to the question of the hon. Member for North Meath on this subject, and to the replies of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether while the Department in Dublin are refusing to allow these cattle to be put upon trains for the ports, they are permitting them to be walked
    2236
    through the various districts, including the city of Dublin; and if the cattle can be walked through districts, why cannot they be allowed on trains; whether also Mr. Gavin Low did not make a recommendation that these cattle should be slaughtered?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I do not, of course, know about Mr. Gavin Low, but I rather gather from the tenour of the answer he probably did. I will make inquiries with regard to the movements of the cattle.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is the general policy of the English Board of Agriculture to slaughter all animals on the affected farm, and all in-contact animals on the adjoining farm, and is he aware that the policy of the Irish Department is causing considerable apprehension to English stock owners?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I will call the attention of the Vice-President of the Department in Ireland to that. The animals in the affected field were slaughtered and all the other animals are isolated and are subject to daily inspection, and the moment they stow any symptoms of the disease they will be slaughtered. I will communicate the hon. Member's observations to the Vice-President.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Do the Irish Department consider they know the accurate period of incubation and what will that be?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Noble Lord knows as well as I do there is difference of opinion as to what the period of incubation should be, but the Irish Department think they have good information of what the period is, and until it is expired they feel they are not at liberty to allow those animals to be moved.
    Mr. FIELD: Is it not a fact that these 800 cattle were not in contact with the other cattle and were in a different part of the farm altogether?
    Mr. BIRRELL: That is so.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: May I ask whether, if there is no danger from these animals, and if they are not to be slaughtered, why should all the other cattle traders in Ireland be held up because of these cattle?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I suppose because you cannot be certain for a certain period that the animals are free.
    Mr. KILBRIDE: Would the right hon. Gentleman give the period of time in which the experts have reported to the Board of Agriculture that the cattle will be free?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot give that information, and I am not sure whether any one is in a position to give such information or whether any importance attaches to it.
    Mr. KILBRIDE: Is it not a fact that there has been no case in Ireland for the last fourteen days, and whether it is not generally held by experts that after ten days the cattle are immune?
    Mr. BIRRELL: With regard to the fourteen days the hon. Member is right, but whether ten days is sufficient or not is another matter.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether, in view of the mystery surrounding the reappearance after many years of foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland, the serious spread of the disease in England, and the suspicion resting upon the administration of his Department in the matter, he will appoint an independent Departmental or, in conjunction with the Board of Agriculture, an Interdepartmental Committee to inquire into the origin and development of the disease?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The appearance of foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland twenty-nine years ago was due to its introduction from England. I am not aware of any suspicion resting upon the administration of the Department. As at present advised, I see no necessity for the appointment of a Committee such as is suggested.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the disease did appear in Ireland twenty-nine years ago it spread to every county in Ireland but one, showing the danger there is in that country owing to atmospheric conditions?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am not able to say that, but On this occasion it is confined to Swords.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of appointing an Interdepartmental Committee in order to harmonise the methods of dealing with the outbreaks in England and in Ireland, and to secure equal confidence in people on both sides of the Channel in the administration of the law?
    Mr. BIRRELL: If this admirable result could be accomplished by such an Interdepartmental Committee I think such a Committee should be adopted. I will convey the opinion to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. FIELD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he knows as a matter of fact that according to the evidence brought forward this outbreak was imported from England into Ireland and that in recent years there have been outbreaks of the disease in England and none in Ireland?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, we know about that.

    Jhobi Militia (Attack on Major Bickford).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can give the House any information regarding the attack on Major Bickford, lately commanding the Jhobi Militia?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): Major Bickford has reported that, when driving from Fort Sandeman to Babar, on 14th June, with an escort of four Militia sowars, he was attacked by raiders, who opened fire and killed one of the sowars and badly wounded another. Major Bickford was unarmed and was shot through the thigh; the third sowar was wounded; but the fourth sowar very pluckily held his ground and returned the fire of the enemy, who, after three-quarters of an hour, made off. The second sowar succumbed to his wounds.

    New Capital of Delhi (Temporary Accommodation).
    Sir J.D. REESasked if the hon. state the estimated cost of accommodation which is at Delhi for use next cold Government of India; and is estimated will elapse capital is ready?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The cost of the proposed temporary accommodation at Delhi for the Government of India is estimated roughly at Rs. 49,00,000, of which it is expected that about Rs. 16,50,000 will eventually be recovered. I am unable at present to give any estimate of the time that will be required for the completion of the new capital.
    Sir J. D. REES: Seeing that the Government of India have been accommodated in

    2239
    Calcutta for 150 years, would it not be better to stay on there for a year or two more and save this expense?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I do not think I can enter into that controversy again.

    British Soldiers in India (Deductions from Pay).
    Sir J. D. REESasked if the hon. Gentleman will state what precedent exists for making deduction from payments sanctioned by the Indian Government under an Act of the Home Government; whether India is a financially independent unit; and whether the records of the India Office supply proof of the unwisdom of making forcible deductions from the pay of British soldiers serving in India?
    Mr. MONTAGU: In his search for precedents the hon. Member has apparently overlooked the existence of the Army Act, which is an Act of the Imperial Parliament, which applies to the British soldier in India as elsewhere, and which is the authority for many deductions from his pay. Broadly speaking, India is for most purposes a financially independent unit, but her independence in this respect is subject always to the control of the Imperial Parliament. I am not aware that deductions made from the pay of British soldiers serving in India have a different effect from similar deductions made on similar authority from British soldiers serving elsewhere.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is it not a fact that in one case the money is provided by a financially independent unit, and, therefore, any deductions made from pay are open to the greater objection?

    Jam Sahib of Nawanagar.
    Mr. GEORGE GREENWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether His Highness the Jam Sahib of Nawanagar claims to be above the jurisdiction of the British Law Courts; whether such claim is admitted by the India Office; and, if so, whether there is any method by which he could be induced to submit the claim of the Coupé Company in respect of work done to his order in connection with his proposed summer palace, to arbitration, as suggested by the claimant company?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am not aware what claim His Highness the Jam Sahib makes,
    2240
    but it would be for the Court to decide in each case whether it possessed jurisdiction. As regards the last part of the question, the Secretary of State is quite sure that His Highness will take such action as is demanded by his honour and that of the distinguished class to which he belongs.

    Gold Coast Colony (Importation of Spirits).
    Sir WILFRID LAWSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the quantity in gallons of ale and porter, gin, rum, and other spirits, respectively, imported into the Gold Coast Colony in the years 1910 and 1911, and the values of each liquor?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): The figures for 1910 are: Ale and porter, 98,290 gallons, value £14,517; gin, 498,939 gallons, value £69,406; rum, 1,039,964 gallons, value £82,289; other spirits, 42,722 gallons, value £24,670. And for 1911: Ale and porter, 113,536 gallons, value £16,829; gin, 556,130 gallons, value £79,067; rum, 958,316 gallons, value £79,000; other spirits, 45,336 gallons, value £27,062.
    Sir WILFRID LAWSONasked if the right hon. Gentleman will state what was the receipt in 1911 from the Import Duty on spirits of all kinds imported into the Gold Coast, and what is the amount of the increase of that sum as compared with1910; and what was the increased duty collected on gin in 1911 as compared with 1910?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The revenue derived from the Import Duties on spirits in 1911 was £421,970, an increase of £37,432 as compared with 1910. Of this increase, £15,610 represents the increase in the amount of the duties collected on gin.

    British East Africa Natives (Capital Offences).
    Mr. T. E. HARVEYasked if the right hon. Gentleman will state what steps have been taken to secure that natives in British East Africa when tried for capital offences should be provided with some legal assistance at their trial?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have decided that, in cases where natives of British East Africa are undergoing trial for capital offences and are unable to bear the cost of providing counsel for their defence, counsel shall, as far as possible, be provided for them at Government expense.

    British North Borneo Company.
    Mr. THEODORE TAYLORasked if the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to a report of the half-yearly meeting of the British North Borneo Company, held on the 11th July, at which the fact was disclosed that the company derives a large revenue from the sale of opium; and whether it is at his desire, as stated by the chairman in his speech, that the company itself should carry on such a traffic?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The company is about to take into its own hands the control of the opium trade and to abolish the farm system, thus following the example of the Straits Settlements and other Eastern administrations. I consider that this is a very desirable step, as it renders possible a more complete control by Government of the opium traffic. My hon. Friend is, of course, aware that the British North Borneo Company is itself the governing body of the State of North Borneo.

    Regent's Park (Bathing).
    Mr. ASTORasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether boys are allowed to bathe, and do bathe, in the canal in Regent's Park; and whether the water in the canal is partly derived from sewage effluents?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The Regent's Canal is not under the jurisdiction of the First Commissioner, and he has no power to issue bathing regulations in respect of it.
    Mr. ASTORasked whether boys are allowed to bathe in the lakes in Regent's Park?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: It has been considered inadvisable to permit bathing in these lakes.

    Autumn Session.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether, on the resumption of the Sittings of this House in October, a comprehensive time-table will be submitted allocating a number of days for the Government of Ireland Bill, the Established Church (Wales) Bill, and the Franchise and Registration Bill, respectively, so that the passage of these measures may be assured, and hon. Members may form some estimate of the duration of the Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am not prepared to make any statement as to the intentions of the Government, but anything that may tend to the convenience of hon. Members will be borne in mind.

    Housing of the Working Classes Bill.
    Sir ARTHUR GRIFFITH - BOSCAWENasked whether, in view of the declarations that have lately been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Members of the Government that a new housing policy is urgently needed, he will give facilities for the further stages of the Housing of the Working Classes Bill (as amended by the Standing Committee), as being an instalment of housing reform?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think I need add anything to the answer I gave to the Noble Lord the Member for the Newton Division on the 27th June.

    Established Church (Wales) Bill (Petitions).
    Sir ARTHUR GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENasked if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that 1,073 petitions have been presented from Wales and Monmouthshire, containing 552,477 signatures of adult persons, praying that I he Established Church (Wales) Bill be not further proceeded with, and that only one petition, containing only one signature, has been presented in favour of the measure, and that petition comes, not from Wales, but from Scotland; and whether, in view of the evident hostility to the Bill and the want of enthusiasm on the part of its supporters, the Government propose to drop it?
    Mr. KING: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this question, may I ask him whether he has observed that eight pages in one petition are signed by a "X" and by illiterates, that in another petition there is a whole page of workhouse inmates, that in another petition there is a whole page of girls of a high school, and that in several other petitions there are a large number of people described as inhabitants who are trippers or visitors to seaside or holiday resorts; and whether also he has observed that, taking the whole petitions, there is a large preponderance of women and children over those of the masculine gender?
    Viscount WOLMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware these petitions were signed by adults only and inhabitants of Wales?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I have not examined them myself and cannot say whether all the circumstances mentioned by my hon. Friend are to be found upon the face of the petitions themselves, but the facts which he has stated would not be inconsistent with the allegation that they have all been signed by adult persons. The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to the question on the Paper. With regard to the first part of the question, I must refer the hon Member to the replies which I gave to the hon. Member for East Nottingham on the 15th and 24th of July. The Government will proceed with the Bill at the earliest possible opportunity in accordance with the desire, constitutionally expressed at eight General Elections at least, of a large majority of the Welsh people.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is therefore the intention of the Government to force through this Bill, under the Parliament Act, without any regard to public opinion at all?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Government are perfectly satisfied public opinion in Wales supports this Bill.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Wales is a separate political unit so that its majority holds good irrespective of the rest of the United Kingdom of which it is a part?
    Mr. McKENNA: The position of Wales is precisely the same as when the hon. Member represented a Welsh constituency and held the same views upon the subject as I hold still.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is not a place for glorious repentance open for him also?
    Viscount WOLMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly say how many Welsh Members mentioned the Bill in their election addresses?

    National Armaments.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the growing cost of armaments, he will at once take the initiative in inviting the great Powers to a conference for the purpose of considering a reduction in armaments?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The question was brought up at the Conference of the Powers at The Hague in 1889 and 1907. To take an initiative in proposing a Conference without information that the proposal would be acceptable is more likely to hinder than to help the object in view.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the Prime Minister take steps to find out whether it would be desirable or not?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We have our mind constantly directed to this matter.

    Government Departments (Expenditure).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a committee of experts to overhaul the expenditure of all Government Departments with a view to effecting economies in the administration of such Departments?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to remind the hon. Member that the expenditure of Government Departments is now subject to review by two Select Committees of this House—the Public Accounts Committee, and the Estimates Committee, appointed under the Resolution of 17th April last. I am not prepared to consider the appointment of yet another Committee, if that is the suggestion of the hon. Member.

    Brussels Sugar Convention.
    Mr. LOUGHasked the Prime Minister, whether he can now fix a time for the promised discussion with regard to the adherence of this country to the Brussels Sugar Convention after September, 1913, or if he can make any statement with regard to the policy which the Government have decided to pursue in the matter?
    The PRESIDENT Of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): The Government have studied the Motion which my right hon. Friend has put down. The Government announced in this House, and declared through their Delegates on the Permanent Sugar Commission, that unless satisfactory terms were arranged in regard to the exports of Russian sugar, they would be compelled to withdraw from the Convention. The terms of the new Protocol lately signed by the other members of the Convention are not satisfactory to His Majesty's Government; and they have therefore decided to withdraw from the Convention. A year's notice of withdrawal from the Convention is necessary,

    2245
    such notice to be given before 1st September in any year. The British Government will, therefore, before 1st September next, give notice of their withdrawal from the Convention, and will cease to be parties to it after 1st September, 1913.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when the Government arrived at this decision to withdraw from the Convention, and whether he does not think this House ought to have an opportunity of expressing its opinion before the Government takes a step of that character?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have said repeatedly, if there is a desire to discuss the matter, the Government will afford an opportunity?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Will not the way be now open for granting a preference to Colonial sugar?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: In what way does the right hon. Gentleman propose we should have an opportunity of discussing it before the decision is final?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend (Mr. Lough) has a notice on the Paper.
    HON. MEMBERS: What day?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We will endeavour to find a day.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is not the effect of the notice on the Paper to prevent any hon. Member discussing it on the Motion for the Adjournment? Is it not a blocking Motion?
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman or the President of the Board of Trade tell me when the Government arrived at the decision he has just announced?
    Mr. BUXTON: The date?
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, the actual date the Government arrived at the decision which has just been communicated to the House. [Communications having passed between the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade.] In that case, I will ask why the decision is only now communicated to the House in the very closing days of this portion of the Session, and whether the object of the Government is to render discussion before action nugatory?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The decision has only been recently arrived at, and this, as far as I know, is the first time any question has been put to us. The Government are most anxious to have a discussion, and, if necessary, I will give an extra day before this portion of the Session closes.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think, considering the interest which has been shown on both sides of the House, the Government might have volunteered a statement on the subject the first moment at which they had made up their minds, having hitherto replied to all questions that they had not made up their minds; and, in the second place, does he think an adequate opportunity for discussing it can possibly be given when the House is only now seized with the intention of the Government, and is to adjourn some time next week?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I think perfectly adequate.

    Wheat Supply.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, whereas in 1845 24,000,000 persons out of a total population of 26,000,000 in the United Kingdom were fed with bread made from home-grown wheat, 4,500,000 are now so fed out of a total of 44,000,000, a reduction of over 80 per cent.; and whether, in view of the possibility of national disaster resulting from the occurrence of a shortage in the world's crop, accompanied by an attempt on the part of a rival or unfriendly Power to corner the Russian and other overseas wheat markets, the Government propose to take any steps to promote an increase in the home production of wheat, or to secure the home-grown crop or a part thereof to meet the needs of a sudden national emergency?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Government are fully alive to the various aspects of the question of the food supplies of this country in times of national emergency. As regards the last part of the question, I can only refer the hon. Member to the answers which I gave to him on the 29th ultimo, and to the hon. and gallant Member for the Melton Division on 2nd April last.
    Mr. REMNANT: Were the facts stated in the question present to the right hon. Gentleman's mind when he decided to alter

    2247
    the naval policy of the country from a two-Power standard to a one-Power standard?
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the late Charles Bradlaugh brought in a Compulsory Land Cultivation Bill, and will the Government consider the advisability of bringing in a Bill of the same kind?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I must ask for notice of that question.

    Marriage Laws.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether, in view if the decision given last Monday by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the Canadian marriage questions, he will take into consideration the need of a uniform marriage law applicable to the whole British Empire, and will cause inquiries to be made with the object of gaining the adhesion of the self-governing Colonies to this proposal?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The difficulties attending such a proposal are so great that I fear I cannot undertake to do so.
    Mr. CASSEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of reserving to the United Kingdom under the Government of Ireland Bill the power of legislating with regard to marriage laws?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The judgment referred to has no bearing upon that subject, and I can only refer the hon. Member to the Bill.

    Minor Legal Appointments (Scotland).
    Mr. MUNROasked the Lord Advocate if he intends, this Session, to introduce legislation on the lines of the Report by the Commission on Minor Legal Appointments in Scotland?
    Mr. MACPHERSONasked the Lord Advocate whether he has considered the Report on minor legal appointments in Scotland; whether he accepts its findings; and, if so, when he proposes to act in accordance with these findings?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): I intend to introduce legislation dealing with the recommendations of the Committee at the earliest possible, opportunity.

    Right of Free Speech (Edinburgh).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been drawn to the prosecution of Mr. John
    2248
    M'Ara, in Edinburgh, on 26th May, for speaking in the open air at The Round, Princes Street, Edinburgh; whether he will state the law under which the prosecution took place; whether he will state the last occasion on which a prosecution took place under the same law; and whether such prosecutions have his approval?
    Mr. URE: My attention has been drawn to the case referred to. The prosecution was laid at Common Law. The accused was convicted of holding a meeting without having obtained a licence from the magistrates in contravention of the Proclamation issued by the magistrates on 19th July, 1912. A similar prosecution took place in 1882. This prosecution took place in the Burgh Court at the instance of the Burgh Procurator Fiscal. I see no ground on which I could express disapproval of the proceedings.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this particular locality in Edinburgh has been used for this purpose for centuries and not hitherto been interfered with? Does he approve of this action of the police authorities in Edinburgh in suppressing free speech in this particular part of the city?
    Mr. URE: I have no right to express cither approval or disapproval. I believe the police grant licences to those who apply for this particular purpose.

    Marconi Agreement.
    Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the Postmaster-General if the Marconi Agreement will be taken before the Recess; and whether, if the discussion is postponed to the autumn, it would be against all precedent for money to be spent upon this contract before it has been sanctioned by Parliament?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The Prime Minister will make a statement with respect to business, and will then say what course will be taken. As regards the second part of the question, it has never been contemplated that the Government should spend any money under this contract until it had been approved by the House of Commons.
    Sir HENRY NORMANasked whether the Marconi Company has incurred any expenditure under the contract for Imperial wireless stations in anticipation of the approval of the agreement by this House?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not know whether the company have already incurred expenditure for the purposes of the contract. They have certainly not been invited to do so by my Department. It is clearly stated in the contract that it does not become operative until it has been approved by the House of Commons.
    Sir HENRY NORMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman have the contract laid on the Table before the discussion of the whole matter? The contract was signed on the 7th March.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There was no contract signed on the 7th March. A letter was merely signed by the Post Office accepting the tender. I will have a copy of that laid.
    Mr. J. WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the prices of the shares of the Marconi Company before the tender was accepted and the prices after it was known that the contract was sealed?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have no concern with the prices of the company's shares either before the tender was accepted or immediately after or now.
    Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich): Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to lay before the House a list of the company's shareholders?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have no concern with the company's shareholders.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    STAMPS.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether employers who pay wages quarterly may at the expiry of the quarter affix to the card one stamp for 6s. 6d. instead of thirteen 6d. stamps?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): 6s. 6d. Health Insurance stamps will be supplied to employers who have adopted the system of bulk stamping with a preliminary deposit. The Insurance Commissioners would be prepared to consider the question of supplying thirteen-weeks' stamps to any employer who may pay wages quarterly at the end of the insurance quarters, if there were any evidence that the supply of such stamps upon special application to them would be of general convenience. No such evidence is, however, at present available.

    CASUAL WORKERS
    Captain CLIVEasked whether a casual worker, who is so unfortunate as only to get one day's work in a week, has nevertheless to forfeit 4d., or 3d., from that day's pay under the National Insurance Act; and, if so, whether he will use any means in his power to prevent this money being so deducted and to enable it to be used for the more pressing needs of the worker or his family?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If the rate of remuneration is equivalent to over 15s. a week for whole time service the employer, who must pay the normal contribution, is entitled to deduct 4d. from the wages of the workman for his insurance.
    Captain CLIVE: How is the employer of casual labour on the Monday to know what the employé's remuneration is for the whole week?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It has nothing to do with what the remuneration is for the whole week, but simply the rate of remuneration.
    Captain CLIVE: To find the rate, has the remuneration for that day to be multiplied by six, even although he may not be employed on the other five days of the week?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Full information has been given as to how the rate of remuneration is to be obtained, and I shall be glad to send the hon. Member a pamphlet on the subject.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I wish to know whether the simple question put by my hon. Friend cannot be answered in less space than a pamphlet?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think so. It depends on how many hours the man is employed and other considerations, and it could not be answered in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. KING: Does it not depend on the intelligence of those who read?

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked if the right hon. Gentleman can say what will be the position under the National Insurance Act, of the sanatorium established by voluntary effort in county Clare; will the promoters of this institution be assisted by the fnuds of the insurance scheme for sanatoria; and will any credit be allowed for the money already spent on the sanatorium in Clare?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: With regard to the first part of the question, if the sanatorium referred to is approved by the Local Government Board for Ireland, it will be competent for insurance committees to make arrangements with the managers of the sanatorium for the treatment therein of insured persons suffering from tuberculosis, for which insurance committees will make payment. The last two parts of the question are within the province of the Local Government Board for Ireland, who are primarily responsible for the distribution of the capital Grant available under Section 16 of the Finance Act, 1911, and Section 64 (1) of the National Insurance Act; and I would suggest that my hon. Friend should put down a question to my right hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary.

    CHARWOMEN.
    Mr. RENDALLasked if a married woman, maintained by her husband, who has a regular job of charing two days a week is an employed person within the meaning of the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The woman referred to is an employed contributor unless she obtains a certificate of exemption, e.g., on the ground that she is ordinarily and mainly dependent on her husband. Form of application for such certificate may be obtained at post offices.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Would a woman, under the same conditions, not having a husband to maintain her, be entitled to exemption?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: She would require to be under the same conditions, and if a married woman engaged two days a week, she would be an employed contributor.

    SHOOTING RABBITS.
    Mr. RENDALLasked whether a man who does killing for local farmers, which may occupy a day or two or an houror two a week, and who spends the largest part of his time shooting rabbits on farms upon which he has himself bought the shooting, falls within the National Insurance Act; whether he may become a voluntary insured person; and if he does, and produces his insurance card stamped by himself with workman's and employer's contributions for the current week, when applying for odd jobs of the nature alluded to, his employers will be relieved from the necessity of making deductions from wages they pay him or from themselves contributing the employer's contribution?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: On the facts as stated by the hon. Member the man in question would not appear to be employed under a contract of service, and would probably not therefore be an employed contributor. As I have stated in previous answers, however, decisions on questions of this kind cannot be given with certainty without a full statement of all the relevant facts. Procedure is established by the Act under Section 66 for dealing with questions of this character, and any of the parties concerned can apply to the Commission for a judicial decision through the local officer of Customs and Excise.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether an employer is responsible for any payment if the man brings his card with a 7d. stamp which he himself has put on?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not in the least understand that case, and I should have to have a good many more facts before me in order to answer a question like that.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If a casual workman—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Is the hon. Member referring to a man who shoots rabbits?

    INSURANCE COMMISSION (WALES).
    Mr. GIBBSasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the advertisement in the "Times" of 29th July by the Welsh Insurance Commissioners for an assistant-secretary, in which it is stated that the candidates must be capable organisers and have had administrative experience, though the Commissioners reserve the right to appoint on the basis of other considerations, or they may make a selection from among the members of the Civil Service; and whether he will state what will be the basis of other considerations, apart from organising and administrative experience or membership of the Civil Service, which the Commissioners may consider a justification for making such an appointment?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Welsh Insurance Commissioners have reserved the right to consider the claims of applicants for the post of assistant-secretary who may not have all the qualifications specified in the advertisement, but who may possess outstanding professional ability or great personal capacity or intimate knowledge

    2253
    of the industries, social conditions, and language of Wales.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Does that mean that practically he will have to be an ex-agent of the Liberal party?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think that is included amongst the qualifications.

    APPROVED SOCIETIES (COMPENSATION OF REPRESENTATIVES).
    Mr. GIBBSasked whether there is any regulation to prevent approved societies compensating those of their representatives attending county insurance committees from the management allowance provided under the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No regulations have been issued, but I am advised that expenditure of the kind indicated in the question could not legally be defrayed out of the administration account of an approved society. If, however, the special circumstances of any county are such that the Insurance Commissioners consider that the travelling expenses of the members of insurance committee should be repaid to them by the committee, the Insurance Commissioners may authorise such repayment.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will now state if he has considered the advisability of publishing in some handy form the questions and answers re the National Insurance Act this Session, especially such questions as deal with its administration?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no evidence of any general desire for the questions and answers on the National Insurance Act to be so collected, and in view of the fact that the ordinary volumes of Debates, including insurance questions are fully indexed, I do not think the expense involved in resetting and reprinting would be justified.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is it not a fact that during the discussion of the Insurance Bill the course asked for by the hon. Member was adopted, and all questions were separately published?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If hon. Members desire it, I am prepared to do so, but I have had no other representations.

    DOMESTIC SERVANTS (SICK BENEFIT).
    Viscount WOLMERasked whether, under the National Insurance Act, in the
    2254
    event of a domestic servant with whom her employer has made an arrangement to provide her with board and lodging during the first six weeks of an illness, and the reduced rate has therefore been paid on her behalf, taking service under another employer who declined to make any such arrangement and therefore paid the full rate, she would be entitled to full sickness benefit immediately after she had taken service under the new conditions; and, if not, for how long a period would she have to wait?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The second does not therefore arise.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the servant in this case have two waiting periods of six months—one before and one after?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I should like notice of that.

    LOCK AND HINGE TRADE.
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the regulations issued by the Insurance Commissioners provide that in the lock and hinge trade the master-men employing journeymen, and doing contract work for big firms on their own premises, are not to be considered as employers under the National Insurance Act, but that the big firms are to have that responsibility; and whether in the forging of blades and tools trade the Insurance Commissioners have decided that the main employers are not to be considered as employers under the National Insurance Act, but that each forger is the employer of his striker; and what distinction there is in the two trades between the relative position of a master-man and a forger which has given rise to this dissimilarity of treatment?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The same regulations under Part I. of the Act are applicable to the two cases referred to in the question. These regulations provide that where persons engaged by a sub-contractor in a factory or workshop within the meaning of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, work under the general control and management of the occupier of the factory or workshop, the latter, and not the sub-contractor, shall be responsible for the insurance contributions.
    Viscount WOLMER: Are we to understand that no distinction has been drawn between the master and the forger?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: There is no distinction in the regulations. It would depend whether they were under the general control of the master.

    DATE OF STAMPING CARDS.
    Mr. FELLasked if the Commissioners will sanction the stamping of the insurance cards of domestic servants at the date when the monthly wages are paid?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Stamping at the date the monthly wages are paid is the normal arrangement already made by the Commissioners. The method and conditions are fully stated in Leaflet 21, of which I am sending a copy to the hon. Member.

    CASUAL WORKERS.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked, in view of the fact that many casual workers find difficulty in obtaining employment from the fact that their cards are not stamped for the week, whether the Commissioners will consider the possibility of a scheme suitable to the casually employed, somewhat similar to that contemplated under Section 99 for those casual workers who have to be insured under Part II.?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Schemes may be made under Section 99 for the payment of health as well as of unemployment insurance contributions, and a number of such schemes have, in fact, been approved for particular classes of labour in particular places, and are now in operation. The Commissioners sent out, on 15th May and 3rd July, circulars containing suggestions for schemes of this nature for dealing with casual labour, and will be glad to hear from any groups of employers who are prepared to enter into a suitable scheme for the casual workers employed by them. The Commissioners have lost, and will lose, no opportunities of facilitating the payment of contributions in respect of casual workers by schemes of the nature indicated; but it must be pointed out that such arrangements are only possible with the active co-operaton of groups of employers in the particular industry affected. I am sending to the Noble Lord copies of the circulars mentioned.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: The right hon. Gentleman says he is only going to consult the employers. Will he not also consult the workmen?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: In many cases they have been consulted already and they will be in the future.

    PART-TIME FARM BAILIFFS.
    Mr. WRIGHTasked whether a man of the age of sixty-four years, not previously insured, who is engaged in the regular occupation of farming on his own account and is partly dependent for his livelihood on the earnings derived by him from that occupation, and is also employed part-time as farm bailiff by an employer at a salary of less than £160 a year, but whose total income exceeds that amount, comes under the provisions of the National Insurance Act as to voluntary or as to compulsory insurance; and, if not, whether he must take any, and what, steps to secure the opinion of the Commissioners as to the rate of his remuneration?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Procedure is established by the Act under Section 66 for dealing with questions of this character, and any of the parties concerned can apply to the Commission for a judicial decision through the local officer of Customs and Excise.

    NOTTINGHAM LACE TRADE.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the middle women are in fact the employers of the outworkers of the Nottingham lace trade; that they should keep the books and accounts relating to work and wages; that efforts are being made to induce the manufacturers, who are not the employers in this behalf, to keep such books and accounts; and whether he will instruct the National Insurance Commissioners to recognise as employers the middlewomen, who alone engage and contract with the outworkers?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As far as the information in the possession of the Insurance Commissioners goes, the middle woman in the Nottingham lace trade is in normal cases the employer within the meaning of Schedule I. of Part I. (c) of the Act. The point is not one on which the Commissioners are empowered by the Act to give an authoritative decision. The Commissioners will endeavour to secure that the persons who under the Act are legally the employers in this trade are treated as such for the purposes of the Act.

    MEDICAL BENEFITS.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether the Government accepts the fact that the medical profession, as represented by the British Medical Association, will not work the National Insurance Act on the terms

    2257
    offered; and, if the answer be in the affirmative, what steps they propose to take to provide those benefits for which compulsory contributions are levied?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; no terms have yet been offered by the insurance committees. The second part of the question does not therefore arise.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BILL PRESENTED.
    SALE OF GOODS BILL.
    "To amend section nine of the Factors Act, 1889, and sub-section (2) of section 25 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893." Presented by Mr. DUNDAS WHITE; supported by Sir William Beale, Sir George Younger, Mr. O'Grady, Sir John M'Callum, Mr. Price, Mr. France, and Baron De Forest. To be read a second time upon Monday, 14th October, and to be printed. [Bill 304.]

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Has the Prime Minister any statement to make with regard to public business?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We intend to go on with the Committee stage of the Finance Bill to-day.
    To-morrow we shall take the Committee stage of the Appropriation Bill, and after that the Finance Bill.
    On Monday next the business will be the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill, and a further stage of the Finance Bill.
    On Tuesday a further stage of the Finance Bill and the Second Reading of the Trades Union Bill; and, if that be concluded at a reasonable hour, we will begin the consideration of the Marconi Contract.
    Our intention had been to ask the House to meet on Wednesday at noon to conclude the consideration of the Marconi Contract, and then to take the Adjournment Motion; but if it be desired to discuss the Sugar Convention, it will be necessary to have a Sitting on Thursday next. Our present intention is to ask the House to meet, after the holidays, on Monday, 7th October.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I wish to ask if there is any necessity for discussing the Marconi Agreement before the close of the present portion of the Session? Would it not be better to postpone it till the autumn?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The advisers of the Government think it very important that this contract should be finally approved or disapproved, as the case may be, before the House rises. My present
    2290
    impression is that in the public interest, if not absolutely necessary, it is very desirable to have the contract concluded, but I will take the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman into consideration.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Whenever the Third Reading of the Finance Bill is taken, will it be the first order of the day?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
    Mr. PRICE: In view of the possibility of having a day for the discussion of the Sugar Convention, cannot the right hon. Gentleman give us a further day to debate the Scottish Estimates?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member will have his opportunity on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill. Supply, as he is aware, is now closed.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the proceedings on the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill, Seal Fisheries (North Pacific) Bill, Public Works Loans [Remission] Report, Public Works Loans Bill, and Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Bill, be not interrupted this evening under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon and proceeded with at any hour, though opposed."
    Mr. LANE-FOX: I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether he can promise that in the event of this Motion being carried, the Public Works Loans Bill will not be taken in the small hours of the morning. I do so in consequence of a very important point that arises owing to the action of the Public Works Loans Commissioners in dealing with loans with regard to small holdings. I cannot go into the merits of the question, but the whole of the work of the West Riding County Council in connection with small holdings has been hung up by the action of the Commissioners, because the county council acted in accordance with the recommendations of the Board of Agriculture and the Local Government Board; but the Public Works Loans Commissioners refused to loan any further money for the acquisition of small holdings in consequence of the county council refusing to put the sinking fund upon the rate for small holdings. This affects a large number of other counties all through the country. I do not know whether there will be any other opportunity upon which we can discuss their action. I ask the

    2291
    right hon. Gentleman whether, in these circumstances, he will promise that this Bill will be taken at a time when it can be adequately discussed?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The point raised by the hon. Member is a very important one. The Government had hoped to introduce a Clause in the Bill dealing with it, but at this stage of the Session, and in view of the difference of opinion which prevailed, they thought it better not to do so. The matter has not been lost sight of. I am not sure that I do not share the views of the hon. Member as expressed by him. The point does not actually arise on the Bill as now framed.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: May I draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that since last night a crop of Amendments to this Bill has appeared on the Paper, which necessarily will involve its taking much longer time than was originally contemplated?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have not had time to acquaint myself with them. I do not think the Amendments deal with the point raised by the hon. Member.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: One of them does.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will look into that.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: What action would the right hon. Gentleman advise the West Riding County Council to take under the circumstances of the conflict between the various authorities and the Commissioners?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is a question which should be put to the President of the Board of Agriculture.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: I did put one down for this afternoon.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): I will have the answer circulated with the Votes in accordance with the usual practice.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—[Mr. Gulland.]
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: The House may remember the manner in which the Secretary to the Treasury yesterday attempted to make sport of a question of mine dealing with a very important subject connected with the finance of this country. I asked him a question in plain terms, which is to be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT. This question goes, I think, to the root of the entire plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in impounding £6,500,000 of money illegally on the occasion of the Budget. I asked him whether any precedent could be found in the long line of British history for putting into the Appropriation Bill loans instead of Grants. The right hon. Gentleman thought it good fun to read out to the House a list of twelve items, going back about thirty years, which he pretended contained an answer to my question. We often hear appeals to the Treasury Bench from hon. Members on this side of the House not to waste the time of the House, but the right hon. Gentleman took up ten minutes at least of Question Time, which is most precious to Members of this House. Will the House believe that not one of the answers he gave was the precedent of a loan about which I asked him, and that every one of them consisted of Grants, for which, the Appropriation Bill is the proper place, whereas on this occasion you have £500,000 of loan money put in the Appropriation Bill, as I contended when the Estimate was before the House, under the guise and pretence of a Grant to His Majesty. I propose before dealing with that scandalous reply of the right hon. Gentleman—which I must say is quite in keeping with the parasites of the Treasury who supplied him with the information, who, being the financial authority of this country, never disdain to stoop to any trick or device, no matter how contemptible, for the purpose of blindfolding Members of this House with a view to assisting Ministers when they get into a scrape or fix, as they now are—before I cite to the House what are the authorities with which he was good enough to supply me, let me give the House what is our position with regard to this financial question.
    4.0 P.M.
    We in Ireland are continually pressing for small Grants for national teachers, and for small loans. We cannot even suppress the cattle plague by killing a few beasts, in order to prevent misery and loss to the rest of the people, because there are no funds in the possession of the Department to enable these things to be

    2293
    carried out. But some day in the Cabinet, when the Government have committed an illegality and have impounded £6,500,000 belonging to the taxpayers—it is as much their property as the watch in my pocket is my property—when Ministers find that they are detected in this illegality, and the question of its distribution comes on, then apparently this £6,500,000 may be gifted away to one Member or another, according to the favouritism of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I should liked to have been present at that famous Cabinet Council. [Interruption.] The Labour party are interested in this, because they have been asking for funds to deal with the destitution of the poor. Here was £6,500,000 of money hanging on a loose end and needing distribution, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is buttonholed by the Colonial Secretary, who says, "Won't you give £500,000 to me? I want it for motor roads in Uganda." We cannot have motor roads in our own country. "I want to put a ship of a thousand tons burden on Lake Victoria, and I am going to put electric light on the pier at Kilindini." Let the House remember that twenty-five years ago this was not a British Possession. There are British possessions in Ireland with piers with no electric light and, if I might make a bull, with very small little pier. Accordingly, if you favour the Chancellor's policy in the Cabinet, you can get his donations in the shape of Grants. I suppose the Colonial Secretary is one of his favourites in the Cabinet. I suppose he supports his single-tax policy, though when you come to propose it I think the representatives of the Irish farmers will have something to say. Accordingly, without a memorandum, without a note in writing, without a letter passing between the two Departments, without any man here being able to put his finger as to why or wherefore, this scandalous transaction was accomplished, because you already had an Estimate as being a sufficiency for the entire Colonial amount—a sum of £50,000. That is to say, you prepared your Estimate, you prepared your Budget, you prepared your Finance Bill with nothing in it but £50,000, and then the exponents of the single-tax doctrine in the Cabinet looked around to see how they could support their favourites in the Cabinet, and the Colonial Secretary was favoured above all other members of the Ministry: one man alone is singled out for favour and he gets a Grant. Of course,
    2294
    the Navy had to get it. That was the suggestion upon which the £6,500,000 were held up. You said you were going to give the whole of it to the Navy if the strike did not cause too much depletion in the finances, so that it was no surprise to anyone that £1,000,000 was given to the Navy, and I supported it myself. I wish to state bluntly and frankly my position on the point If there is an invasion of these countries Ireland will suffer most, and therefore I cheerfully voted as far as I was concerned. If the Germans land it is our sheep and cattle that they will eat. It is our railways that they will seize, and for my part I do not want any of my descendants to grow up Von Healys. I shall have no hesitation whatever in extending my support to that part of the Grant.
    But then there is this £500,000. The first thing the House has to remember is that this £500,000 is put down as a loan. I want to know has this House ever lent the Kings of England money and has it not always granted them money? Did King Charles I., even in his greatest distress, come to your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, and say, "Pray lend me half-a-crown"? The Kings of England came to this House for grants of money, and Ministers are in exactly the same position, and when they want loans of money they must present a Bill to Parliament, which has to be read a first, second, and third time, asking the House for a loan and defining and delimiting the terms upon which the loan shall be granted, otherwise, say, when you lend the Irish farmers money for land purchase it could be put on the Estimates like the salaries of Members of Parliament. They have no conditions of percentage, Sinking Fund, or other details to be provided for. Of course, you can put them on the Estimates, but all the precedents are to the contrary. The fantastic so-called loan, which is the only one of the lot which even bears the suggestion of a loan, the loan to the Viceroy of Wuchang, was not a loan from this House at all. It was a loan from the Hong Kong Bank direct to the Viceroy, and all this House did was to supply a Grant to the bank in place of the loan which, in these days of distress, the Viceroy has obtained from the bank.
    When the Chancellor of the Exchequer in April decided to hang up his £6,500,000 there came a time when, under pressure from the country, he had to agree to distribute that amount, and accordingly he stated that he would give this £500,000 to

    2295
    the Colonial Secretary. At that time the Ways and Means Resolution of this House had been passed. We had passed the whole of the Budget Resolutions. Furthermore, the Finance Bill itself, founded on these Budget Resolutions, had been introduced, and accordingly the Government were in this difficulty, that the finance Resolution and the Finance Bill were already in black and white before this House. What did they do? I challenge it and I am prepared to submit it to any constitutional lawyer on that side or on this. What has been done has been absolutely illegal, and these so-called precedents, so far from being precedents in favour of the position of the Government, are precedents in connection with the argument which I am submitting. The right hon. Gentleman could not go further back, although this country has a record in finance of something like two or three centuries. Furthermore, this country has taught finance to Europe—nay, it has taught it to the other hemisphere, for every Parliament, wherever it has been founded, has adopted the British model of finance, and when you touch the British model of finance it is almost, so to speak, like touching the Ark of the Covenant, because you are touching that upon which the whole of your liberties depend because, although here from time you may forget the meaning of Votes on Account and Army Annual Bills or the Annual Finance Bill, in the minds of wise and prudent men these are the machinery by which you suppress tyranny. I therefore come to this case of 1877, which is the first instance that the right hon. Gentleman gives of his position. Here is his answer, produced for him no doubt by his advisers. I observe that wherever it was possible he tried to tar the Tory party with responsibility, because Disraeli was in office in 1877, and to say that Mr. Disraeli and his Cabinet had agreed to do this thing would have been, of course, to shut the mouth of anyone on this side who is a professor of constitutional practice:—
    "The earliest precedent which I have been able to trace goes back to 1877, when, on a Supplementary Estimate for 1876–7 a Grant of £35,000, being part of sums amounting in all to £105,000, was voted in aid of the Fiji revenues, to be repaid should Colonial funds become available for the purpose."
    What was my question? It was:—
    "Whether he will state the precedents where loans of money as distinct from Grants were placed on the Estimates?"
    The right hon. Gentleman thinks himself candid and thinks he will do credit
    2296
    to that bespattered Department, the British Treasury, which mints more lies annually than all the other Departments put together, by giving this precedent. Here it is. Forty and 41 Victoria, cap. 61. The right hon. Gentleman proposes by that reference to give me his statement that it contains a precedent for a loan. I suppose he thought he would reel off his twelve precedents and no one would take the trouble of going through these Statutes, because really we have something else to do than to be bamboozled by stories of this kind. Here is the precedent:—
    "In aid of Colonial revenues and for the salaries and allowances of Governors of the Transvaal, £171,000; charge on the Orange Territory, £2,000; expenses of mixed Commission, £7,000; Emigration Board, £2,000; salaries and expenses of the three representatives of the Suez Canal Company, £60,000; expenses of Her Majesty's Embassies abroad, £200,000; Consular establishments abroad, £247,000."
    There is not a rag or tittle of foundation for the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman that any one of these statements includes a loan.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): Is that the Appropriation Act?
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Yes. I am not going to refer to a single Estimate, for this reason. An Estimate, as I understand the law, has no Statutory validity. The thing that has Statutory validity is what is signed by His Majesty the King, and nothing else. An Estimate is a mere departmental document which has no validity of any kind, sort or description. I am reading from the Statute, and anyone can read it, as well as I, who has learnt his A B C. That is the beginning of the precedents of the right hon. Gentleman. That is his Disraelian classic. I now take seriatim through the Statutes the rest of his answer. Every one of them has as little foundation as the great Beaconsfield quotation. The first he gave was 1900. He calls it £200,000 voted for a Supplementary Estimate for the Gold Coast, and, remember, I was asking for loans. I asked nothing about Grants. We have granted hundreds of millions of money all over the shop in the last forty years, I am not asking about Grants; I am asking about loans, and loans alone. That is the only point in connection with this money for Uganda which is pretended to be a loan. To quote a Grant to me in support of what is now being done is to quote an absurdity. I have never asked about Grants. [Laughter.] This seems

    2297
    to be great fun for those hon. Members who go down to their constituents and pretend to be such high economists. Here is what was stated in 1900 about the £200,000 for the Gold Coast:—
    "For Grants-in-Aid of the expenses of the British Protectorates in Uganda and Central East Africa, and under the Uganda Railway Acts."
    Why have we not a Uganda Railway Act of 1912? You had one in 1911. Why do you not put the present £500,000 into an Act? What was the famous loan to the Wuchang Viceroy which the right hon. Gentleman quoted. Of course, we all remember, I suppose, that there was a disturbance in China in the year 1901. I suppose that, Hong-Kong being a British Possession, the bankers there, owing to stress of weather, thought it right to advance to the Viceroy of Wuchang the sum of £75,000. Why they did so, I do not stay to inquire. Let me quote the right hon. Gentleman's answer in regard to this pretended loan from us to the Viceroy of Wuchang, which was the only item of his long list that can figure in any shape as a loan. He said the loan to the Wuchang Viceroy of £75,000 was voted on a Supplementary Estimate on 8th August, and included in the Appropriation Act of 1901. When you turn to that Act, what do you find? It is not a loan at all. It is a Grant; it is a repayment by us to the Hong Kong Bank; it is in no sense a loan by us to the Wuchang Viceroy, although the right hon. Gentleman assured the House of Commons that we made a loan to the Wuchang Viceroy in 1901. It was nothing of the kind. We made a Grant of money, absolute and entire, and put it on the Estimates to recoup the Hong Kong Bank, for some consular or diplomatic reason, for the money they advanced to Wuchang. I would like to know if we got any of it back, and if after all it was a loan, I wonder whether the Viceroy of Wuchang met his I. O. U.'s in that country or whether the Hong Kong Bank returned to us any of the loan. I shall look through the next Estimates to see how much of that money we got back. I come to the right hon. Gentleman's next quotation, "Uganda Railway extension for 1910–11." This is another pretended loan. Really, when one does take an interest in these Appropriation Acts, one begins to see that of late, instead of the detailed information that was given in them in former years, millions are lumped as if they were the merest trifles, so that in fact the right hon.
    2298
    Gentleman's statement that there is £130,000 included in the Supplementary Estimate is one which I am willing to take his word for. It is put in this way in the Appropriation Act of 1910:—
    "For sundry Colonial services, including certain Grants-in-Aid (including a Supplementary sum of £130,000)—£1,277,759."
    The right hon. Gentleman had the audacity to quote that as a loan granted by us as a pattern for the loan we are now making. I can be contradicted in regard to these precedents if I am wrong. All his pretended precedents are alike, except that to the Viceroy of Wuchang. There is nothing to support his statement that the course he is now taking is in accordance with practice. There is a thing of a remarkable character in connection with last year's Statutes. I assert fearlessly that every loan this country has made has been by Bill. I will not say that in the long history of this country there have not been some exceptional occasions of emergency and stress; but I say that, taken normally, every loan we have made has been by Statute. Certainly, if anything could confound the practice of the Government, it is their own Finance Act of last year. What is the difference in principle between the £500,000 to Uganda in 1912 and the Grant of a smaller amount last year? You find on turning to the Statutes of 1911 that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that Session thought it was absolutely necessary to provide for the £250,000 by Statute, and, that being so, surely he condemns himself when he tries to do this year by Estimate and the insertion of £500,000 in the Appropriation Act what he did last year in respect of a smaller amount by Statute. Really the Budgets of the Chancellor of the Exchequer have become to himself sacrosanct, and I should have thought that he would be the last person to depart from the precedents he has sacredly set for himself. If we turn to the Finance Act of 1911, where the modest sum of £250,000 has been included, we find that Section 16, Sub-section (2), says:—
    "The Treasury may advance, by way of loan to the Government of the East Africa Protectorate for the purpose of providing improved railway communication and harbours in the Protectorate and improved water supply for Mombasa, any sums not exceeding in the whole two hundred and fifty thousand pounds."

    2299
    That is not all; that only provides for Grants. Here comes the provision for repayment, which is an important point. I would like to know how much of the £500,000 we are going to get back for the benefit of the strikers in the East End or the people who are losing by cattle disease in Ireland and in this country. The same Sub-section says:—
    "The Government of the Protectorate shall annually, until the whole advance is deemed to have been repaid, pay to the Treasury interest at the rate of three and a half per cent. on the amount advanced, and also, by way of Sinking Fund, a further sum equal to one per cent. on the amount advanced, and the whole of the advance shall be deemed to have been repaid when Sinking Fund payments have been made sufficient, if accumulated at three and a half per cent., with yearly rests, to produce an amount equal to the advance."
    The House will see that as regards this £250,000 there is an absolute provision by Statute for the Grant, and next for the repayment under a sinking fund. What are you doing with this £500,000? Remember you are giving it away without any power for the Comptroller and Auditor-General to come near it. I can understand in the case of a Grant-in-Aid to a Colony in a distant place that the Comptroller and Auditor-General would not have much to say to it, and that it might be exempt from the check which this House has imposed with respect to matters more immediately within our purview. But this £500,000 is to be granted away with no provision for repayment, or for a sinking fund. Where is it in the Appropriation Bill? If it is in the Bill, I should be glad to be enlightened on the subject by the right hon. Gentleman. From the glance I was able to take at the Bill, I could see no mention of it.
    I end as I began. I say this House has no security for these advances except upon Budget night. The Chancellor of the Exchequer estimates on that night for the whole of the requirements of the year, in order that the taxpayers shall know on that night what the liabilities of the country are, and how they are going to be met. What has happened here is a gross irregularity, and it reinforces my argument. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer impounds money of the public, no matter on what pretext, and allows himself to be canvassed by this Minister
    2300
    or that, according as he thinks he can get support for his policy in the Cabinet, then every irregularity grows out of that, because the system is a breeding ground of irregularities. Then when a humble Member of the House who has no special axe to grind in these matters, but who is only anxious to put forward, say, the case of the national school teachers of Ireland, who teach children who have to go to school with a piece of turf under the arm in order to get warmth and comfort in winter, the Chief Secretary, who, I frankly acknowledge, is doing his best, says, "We cannot give a shilling for Ireland; all our eyes are on the ends of the earth in Uganda or East Africa, and we have to give half a million one year and a quarter of a million in another year, and the unhappy people of our own household have to go without help, because all our interests are for these people abroad." As for the humbug of the great riches this country is going to get out of Africa, I do not believe it. You will get nothing out of that part of Africa except mosquito bites. It is a place where a mosquito bites you at ten in the morning; you then get a fever, and you are dead at three in the afternoon. This is the country into which you are pouring millions and millions and missionaries. I therefore, at all events, feel as regards these distant places, when money is being shovelled out on such a system, that it is essential that rigidness and regularity should take place in connection with it; and, at all events, when questions are put as to what are the precedents for loans, the Member who has not the opportunity of replying should not get reeled off to him a series of fraudulent statements issuing from the right hon. Gentleman as I have seen ribbons issuing from the mouth of a conjuror, including what I may call the blue ribbon of the Viceroy of Wuchang.
    Viscount WOLMER: On a point of Order. I wish to ask whether this Bill is in order inasmuch as it is not founded upon a financial Resolution in respect of the money which is being lent to Uganda and there is no precedent for a loan being put in the Appropriation Bill?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The terms of the Resolution which was passed last night are:—
    "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the Service of the year ending the 31st March, 1913, the sum of £92,847,343 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."

    2301
    That is the exact amount which is mentioned in the First Clause. This Bill is founded strictly upon the Financial Resolution.
    Viscount WOLMER: Am I not right in thinking that there has never been an Committee of Ways and Means a Resolution dealing with this specific loan in Uganda, and that it has never been specifically mentioned in any Resolution passed in Committee of Ways and Means?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Resolution in Ways and Means deals with the grand total of all the sums passed in Committee of Supply. That is the sum I have just quoted. That sum is made up of the different sums which have been voted in Supply, and the sum to which the Noble Lord referred is one of these. It was voted as a Supplementary Estimate.
    Viscount WOLMER: May I be allowed to point out that the question of a loan to Uganda was never mentioned in connection with the moneys voted in Supply?
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the Noble Lord will look at the Supplementary Votes in Supply he will see that the sum of money was mentioned—£500,000—and the terms in which it was granted appeared in the Notes.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If the Noble Lord who has interrupted had heard me give a little explanation of the matter he would have had no need to raise the point, because, as I shall have no difficulty in showing, the course which has been pursued by the Government this year in this matter is exactly similar to the course pursued by all Governments, at least since 1877, and every one of the precedents which I quoted yesterday to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. M. Healy) are exact precedents for the course which is being taken at the present moment. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke with some bitterness concerning myself, not only for making, as he said, fraudulent statements but also for what he seemed to think was an attempt to make little of him before the House. I can assure him that I had no such intention, but that I gave what I thought was a full and perfect answer to the question put by him, and that I could not have answered that question properly without giving the answer which I did give, though it was a long one, because the hon. and learned Gentleman definitely asked me for precedents, dates, Statutes and amounts where loans of
    2302
    money were placed on the Estimates and included in the Appropriation Bill.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: As distinct from Grants.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Certainly loans of money. In every one of these cases the money was given as a loan, and in all these cases the statement was on the Estimate that the money was a loan. In every one of these cases in the Appropriation Bill that loan was included as a Grant just the same as it is here. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will turn to the Appropriation Bill he will find that this loan is included as a Grant in exactly the same terms and under exactly the same conditions. I will not go through all these precedents. I am sure that he does not, and I am certain that the House does not, want me to do so. But I am perfectly sure that if he looks into them he will find that in the case of all the precedents I gave him yesterday they were exactly the same. Here is one of them. It is a Conservative precedent, but that, I assure him, has got nothing to do with, any attempt to make a party score out of the matter. He will see a Supplementary Estimate given under Colonial Services for the Grant-in-Aid to the Gold Coast Colonies in August, 1900. Without the amount ever having been on the original Estimate, and without any Bill or any Act of Parliament at all, but in the ordinary course of the machinery of finance of the year the House was invited to vote a Supplementary Estimate of £200,000 for the benefit of the Gold Coast Colony. On the Estimate it was definitely stated, "It is intended that the advance shall be repaid by the Gold Coast in such instalments as, looking to the financial condition of the Colonies, the Secretary of State may require."
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Is that Statute?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will let me keep to my argument. In March of the following year a further sum of £200,000 was voted under similar conditions and with the same statement made on the face of the Estimate. It was given to the Gold Coast by way of loan as a Grant-in-Aid, and the House was informed on the Estimate that it would be paid back to the Imperial Exchequer. If the hon. Gentleman takes the Appropriation Act of 1900 he will see sundry Colonial Services, including certain Grants-in-Aid, including a

    2303
    Supplementary sum of £200,000. That is the Statutory Service for which the money is released, and in 1901 the Appropriation Act granted sundry Colonial Services, including certain Grants-in-Aid. In all the precedents, and in the precedents in the ten or twelve examples which I gave, the House is asked to vote money as a Grant-in-Aid. It is informed on the Estimate that the Grant-in-Aid will be given to the Colonies by way of loans, and it is informed that the loan will be given under such conditions as the Treasury may prescribe, and that the money will be paid back, both interest and sinking fund, into the Imperial Exchequer. I would ask the House, further, to consider what has happened this year. A Supplementary Estimate is announced in exactly the same term as the Estimate for the Gold Coast. It is announced that it will be a Grant-in-Aid for Uganda, and that an additional sum of £500,000 will be given by way of loan, and that it will be accounted for by the Colonial audit, and not by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and that it will be repaid at an interest of 3½ per cent. on terms prescribed by the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury. To complete my story, if the hon. and learned Gentleman will turn to the Appropriation Bill of this year he will find that we are appropriating under the Colonial Office Vote sundry Colonial services, including certain Grants-in-Aid (including a Supplementary sum of £503,000), £1,363,754. There is not a word of difference, yet the hon. and learned Gentleman called my precedents fantastic and fraudulent.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: So they are.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Every one of them is exactly similar to what has already been done, including a Grant-in-Aid of £3,000,000 on the Supplementary Estimate to the Transvaal Colony, and including a large number of sums more substantial in character than the sums which are being voted at the present time. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, I think, that we had for the first time taken this Grant out of the control of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and he seemed to think that that was another criminal action.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: That was not the way I put it.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman explain the way he put it?
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I said that we knew very well that Grants-in-Aid for these distant places had not been put under the control of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, but I said that last year, when you dealt with the matter by Statute, there was no such provision in the Statute.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The complaint that the hon. and learned Gentleman made was that this was not under the control of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and he seemed to think that this was a special arrangement made because the nature of the loan would not bear examination. The conditions under which this loan is accounted for and audited are precisely the same as the conditions under which the Colonial Vote is accounted for and audited, and it is accounted for and audited by the Colonial audit under the conditions laid down by the Public Accounts Committee. In 1910 the Colonial Audit Office was created, and the Public Accounts Committee recommended that the Colonial Services should be accounted for, not by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, but by the Colonial Audit when given in Grants-in-Aid. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had taken the trouble to turn up the original Colonial Office Vote he would have found exactly similar cases not accounted for by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, but by the Colonial Audit, and in giving a Grant-in-Aid supplementary to the original Colonial Office Vote the same conditions, of course, must necessarily prevail.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Why had you a Statute last year?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That is a different question altogether. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that there was no precedent for this, and that it was quite an illegal and fraudulent business. I gave him ten precedents.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: You have given none.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: He then stated that they were all fraudulent and were a deliberate attempt to deceive the House, and when I assured him that there had been numerous cases exactly similar, I should have thought that he would be prepared to acknowledge it and to withdraw the term fraudulent.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: As the right hon. Gentleman has appealed to me, I did not mean to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman was personally conscious of it, but I believe that he has been, and is being, imposed upon.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will go through all the ten or twelve precedents which I have established, I think he will find that every one of them was exactly similar in character.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Why had you an Act last year?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As to the general question attending this loan to Uganda which the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised, I do not think he will expect me to say anything on that. The other question relating to Uganda which the hon. and learned Gentleman raised was very fully explained last week, and it was accepted with enthusiasm by hon. Members, and I think passed without any vote against it. In these circumstances, I trust we may proceed to the general question whether the Uganda loan is still desirable or not.

    SPECIAL RESERVE.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH - BOSCAWEN: I desire to raise a different question and one of very great importance from the financial point of view, and that is the condition of the Special Reserve Force at the present, time. My excuse for raising it on the Appropriation Bill is this: For three years this question was never discussed in Committee of this House at all. On every single occasion the particular Vote for the Special Reserve was closured. This year we had a very short discussion upon it on the Estimates—it lasted under two hours. The answer of the Government was in my opinion most unsatisfactory. The Secretary of State was not here.
    An HON. MEMBER: He was.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The right hon. Gentleman may have been here part of the time, but at all events he did not take any part in the Debate. Perhaps he did not think the Special Reserve sufficiently important for him to intervene. At any rate, the Financial Secretary to the War Office replied, and I feel bound to say—I do not want to be rude to him—that his answer displayed very little interest and not a very great amount of knowledge as to the position of the Special Reserve. I think we are justified, having regard to
    2306
    the importance of the subject, and to the fact that we got a very inadequate answer on the last occasion from the Government in raising the question again, especially as the Special Reserve was designed by Lord Haldane in his much-advertised scheme to play a very important function. As we understand, part of the Special Reserve was to be utilised as units, some of them to join the Expeditionary Force, and the rest to carry out the important function of providing drafts for the Regular battalions. If the Special Reserve breaks down, if this part of the military machine is not in proper use, the whole organisation of the Army as a military scheme breaks down altogether. It is, therefore, most important, considering our defences as a whole, that we should see that the Special Reserve and every other part of Lord Haldane's machine is in working order. I will just recall the history of this question. Lord Haldane, for reasons which appeared to him adequate—and he was supported in this House and in the other House—chose to abolish the old Militia Force. I must say that I never thought it was a very wise thing to do. What was the position of the Militia at the time this change was made? They had their difficulties, we all know, but, at all events, the Militia Force had this characteristic: it was the only force which could provide units in time of emergency or war. Old forces like the Volunteers and Yeomanry did very good service, but they could not come out as units. What the Militia did in the South African war was really rather remarkable. Of no less than 126 battalions of Militia which came out as units in the South African war, sixty-one served in South Africa, nine in the Mediterranean, and fifty-six at home.
    The result was that they freed so many Regular battalions to go to the front. Whether they were in garrison in this country or on the lines of communication in South Africa, or whether they occupied important stations like Malta, Egypt, or Gibraltar, they were freed to go to the front; and if the Militia had not come out as military units, we could not have sent so many battalions to the front, by a very large number, as we actually did. You abolished the Militia altogether, and substituted the Special Reserve. What is the position of the Special Reserve now? In place of 126 units of Infantry, with a certain number of batteries of Artillery and corps of Engineers, we have a total Special Reserve which numbers only

    2307
    80,860 men. But the actual strength is only 57,153 men; in other words, it is 23,707 men short. It is not only a question of being short in men, but it is a question of being short in officers. Let us take, not the whole Special Reserve, but the Infantry part of it. The establishment of the Infantry Special Reserve is 63,000 odd; the actual strength is only 47,000, a deficiency of 15,571, these being the actual figures. If you take the officers, you find that out of 2,207 officers there is a deficiency of no less than 1,161. My contention is that under the present conditions, with the deficiency of men and the deficiency of officers, it would be quite impossible for the Special Reserve to carry out the functions allotted to it under the Haldane scheme. In the old days the whole of the Militia Infantry were available to come but as units. We have now only twenty-seven fourth battalions to come out as units. We have special Reserve and Extra Special Reserve, and I hate those newfangled names. Instead of 126 battalions which we had before to come out as units, we have only twenty-seven fourth battalions, and seventy-four drafting battalions. As to the twenty-seven fourth battalions their establishment is 750; but what are the actual figures? According to a statement made this afternoon in answer to a question put by me to the Secretary of State, their actual average strength instead of being 750 is only 490. From the 490 must be deducted at, least 10 per cent. for immature lads who could not serve; in other words, on the average, they would come out only 440 strong, it may be as part of the Expeditionary Force, or at all events on mobilisation.
    They have got no Reserve at all. How are they going to be reinforced? The Army has an Army Reserve, and also the main part of the Special Reserve. Where are the Reserves to come from? The Noble Lord in the other House said the third battalions could reinforce the fourth battalions. How can they do that? There are also 392 officers short, taking the twenty-seven battalions. I say it is perfectly ludicrous talking of the twenty-seven battalions taking the field with only 440 men on the average, and with a shortage of officers which in the case of some battalions amounts to no less than fifteen out of a nominal twenty-eight. Let us look at the seventy-four drafting battalions. Their establishment is 580; but their actual average strength, according to the figures which have been circulated, is only 473 per
    2308
    battalion. From that you have to deduct, first of all, 47 per cent. who go on to the Line. If they go on to the Line, you cannot count them twice over—you cannot count them as recruits, and also as belonging to the Special Reserve. You have to deduct another 10 per cent. in respect of immature lads, and that brings the number down to 225 per battalion. In fact the whole total available for drafts is only 16,000. I am perfectly certain that Lord Haldane intended the Special Reserve to find a great deal more than 16,000 in the way of drafts. That is all you have now—27 weak battalions to go out as units—battalions of under 500 strength, and 16,000 for drafts.
    The fact is the Government are allowing the Special Reverve to slip away altogether. Apparently they are not taking any steps—I am not aware of any steps they are taking—to deal with this question. If you allow your Special Reserve to be treated in this way, your whole military machine breaks down, and the Government are bound to find something else, or they must bring up the Special Reserve to its proper strength. Let us consider what the Government proposes to do Although I deplore very greatly the reduction in strength, and think it a very serious matter. I am bound to admit one improvement that was made by the new scheme: The efficiency of the Special Reserve is certainly greater than that of the old Militia. The presence of regular established officers has certainly been of great advantage, and if anybody looks back to the manœuvres in 1910, when a large number of Special Reserve battalions sent drafts to their Line battalions in order to bring them up to the proper strength, it must be recognised that the Special Reservists did uncommonly well on that occasion. That is why it is such a frightful pity that something more is not done to bring them up to strength. On the last occasion I made a good many suggestions, and I will repeat them and make one or two others which I hope the Secretary of State will take into consideration, and endeavour to carry them into effect. Possibly the wisdom of the War Office may suggest something. The War Office does not exist merely to listen to what private Members do, and surely something might be devised in the Department itself.
    5.0 P.M.
    Here are some of the proposals that I make. Take first of all the difficulty of getting officers. That difficulty was originally due to this: Lord Haldane in his

    2309
    scheme provided that young men joining the Reserve had to do twelve months preliminary drill on probation with a Line battalion. I admit that in practice those who went under that probation undoubtedly made more efficient officers than those who did not undergo that drill. But the difficulty was that you could not get young men in the country with leisure to give twelve months to this drill on probation. I have interviewed many young men who were anxious to join, but when they were told they had to do twelve months preliminary drill they simply said, "We cannot do it." The situation has been somewhat eased by an alteration which has been made reducing the period from twelve months to six months, but it is far from being eased sufficiently. Only last week a promising young subaltern told me that he could not manage the six months. In view of the great difficulty of finding officers for the Special Reserve I suggest that you should get rid of the probation altogether, and lay down simply that a new officer must do three months with a Line battalion some lime in the first two years that he serves. I agree that we shall not perhaps get the full efficiency we obtained under the probationary service, but surely it is better to get more officers to fill up the ranks, as we have to do at the present time, and teach them as best we can, instead of making it almost impossible to get them at all. Look at the position. These twenty-seven extra special battalions you have to regard as units. They are frightfully short of officers now. Take the case of the third battalions. If mobilisation came the 3rd Battalion would be in a very remarkable position. In my battalion on mobilisation I should find myself in charge of 1,600 or 1,800 men, and you would have all the immature lads and an enormous number of men of all kinds thrown together from the different services. The Regular establishment of officers would be taken away and we should have to send four officers of the Special Reserve to the Regular battalion, and we should be left with something like fourteen officers in charge of all those hundreds of men. That is an absurd position, and if you are going to have efficient drafting you must provide a scheme for more officers for the Special Reserve. I make another suggestion. One difficulty with regard to Special Reserve officers is the unnecessary cost and expense which is put upon them, not by extravagant living in the Special
    2310
    Reserve, but by the Government pure and simple. There is the question which I mentioned before, and to which I got no answer, and that is the question of bands. I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that from the point of view of getting recruits, not only men, but officers, it is important to have an efficient band attached to a battalion. We get now a sergeant-drummer and eight permanent staff drummers, who are drummers and not musicians, and £25 per year. Nobody on earth could run a band on those terms. The only way it can be done at all is by the Special Reserve officers putting their hands pretty deeply into their pockets to make up the deficiency, which the Government ought not to allow to take place at all. Then, again, the Government gives a retaining fee to officers. I myself never asked for a retaining fee, and, as a matter of fact, officers over thirty-five years of age do not get it; and why they do not, when you give it at all, for the life of me I cannot understand! If you are going on a system of retaining fee to endeavour to get officers, you ought to give an adequate retaining fee, and not stop it at the age of thirty-five.
    I come to the question of men. One difficulty of the Special Reserve is this. No Government, and I do not say this Government in particular, because in the old Militia days it was the same, ever treated the Special Reserve or the old Militia properly. They have always been treated as a sort of stepchild for whom the Government apologise. Take the uniform, could there be anything more horribly devised than the red serges and the antediluvian helmets which the Special Reservists have at the present moment? I was in camp recently when there was a large number of Territorials, and I can assure you when they walked out they had quite a nice appearance, and they wore very smart things. The Government dole out to us these miserable, part-worn, serge things, which fit in the most baggy way, and helmets the like of which I have never seen. In my battalion I was so ashamed of them that I would not take them out last year. If yon want to attract recruits you must treat them properly, and give them a dress in which they can walk out and feel smart. You make them now absolutely a laughing-stock, and they are the very worst-dressed people in the Army. It may be said that all the work in the Special Reserve is done in khaki; but when they walkout they should gel a decent dress that would make them feel smart

    2311
    and proud of the corps to which they belong. There is another suggestion made by the hon. Member for Somerset, namely, that in the case of the Special Reserve the men should get a separation allowance, just as in the Regulars and in the Territorials. That should be given to all married Special Reservists who are in camp. There is no doubt about it that it is a great hardship to many of those married men who are separated for four weeks from their wives and families that they are given no separation allowance. I venture to think that if an allowance were given it would do a good deal in the way of attracting men.
    I would go much further. I would like to adopt in the Special Reserve in this country a scheme very similar to some scheme in operation abroad at present. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, in certain foreign countries, I think in Germany and France, recruits are enlisted to serve first of all with the Colours, and then to serve in what you may call the Army Reserve; and, last of all, they serve in the Landwehr or Militia, Force. An attempt has been made in this country, especially in the fourth battalion, to enlist old soldiers. I do not know to what extent it has been successful; but I do know that in my own battalion we have got very few of them. I make the suggestion that you should deliberately enlist a certain number of men in this country on the understanding that after doing seven years with the Colours and five years with the Reserve that they should do four years in the Special Reserve. I think in that way you would get a regular stream of recruits from the Army every year. No doubt the old soldiers would get some extra attraction. A scheme of that kind would be of the very greatest advantage to the Special Reserve, at all events. That is the suggestion which I put forward, and it might be done in all cases, so that the time-expired man would go into the Special Reserve. I do not know whether that would result in stopping recruiting for the Army generally; but you might have a special class of recruit, and take them with that object in view; and in that way I feel sure you would largely fill the depleted ranks of the Special Reserve.
    There are some other minor suggestions. One of the greatest difficulties we have is this: when Special Reservists join as recruits they are called Special Reservists, and are entered in the recruiting list as such in the weekly or monthly strength,
    2312
    and are sent down to the commanding officer, although many of those never go out to training at all. When they have completed their recruit drill they get a bounty of 30s., and go into the Line. It has been suggested, and I think the suggestion is a very good one, that no recruit should get that 30s. on completion of his recruit drill unless he has done at least one training in the Special Reserve. In that way you would strengthen and stiffen the battalion in camp, and I think it is only sensible that a man should not be called a Special Reservist unless he has done at least one training in the corps. I have ventured therefore to call attention, and I know some of my hon. Friends desire to call the attention, of the Government to the condition of affairs. I want to know if the Government seriously propose to do anything to mend the present state of affairs. They must be conscious that if the Special Reserve breaks down the whole scheme of mobilisation breaks down. That part of the scheme cannot work if it is so depleted in strength as at present. I want to ask the Government whether they are willing to take vigorous and strong steps to put the Special Reserve into the condition in which it was intended to be by Lord Haldane; and I desire to point out that as they have abolished the Militia, and are allowing the Special Reserve to disappear, they have taken away what was, and still might be, a very useful force in the Army. I raise this point in no spirit of hostility. I believe, myself, thoroughly in the efficiency and spirit of the Special Reserve. I believe if the Government would only give some encouragement and help, it might be made one of the most useful forces we have at the present time.
    Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREW: I wish to say a very few words on what I venture to think is a most important subject. Looking round the House I am sorry to see that my opinion is not the same as that held by some hon. Members. I do think that this is a most serious question. It appears to me that it is acknowledged by most reasonable human beings that we maintain our Armed Forces, both on land and on sea, to police and to look after our possessions and our commerce and our food supplies in every part of the world; and to enable us to take our part in preserving the balance of power and therefore the peace of the world, and, if, unfortunately we are driven into war to fight for our homes and our country. I apologise for

    2313
    uttering these platitudes, but when one sees the state of these benches at present, and when one hears the speeches which are not infrequently indulged in by hon. Members and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, in which, on the one hand they object to pay, and on the other hand they apologise for asking them to pay, then I do think that the time has come when they should be given to understand what they do not now fully understand, namely, that for every nation which is self-respecting and has anything to lose, armed forces are a necessity. If they are a necessity surely it is only sensible and wise that we should try and make them able and fit for the purpose for which they are raised. And unless they are fit and able to be mobilised when the time comes, I venture to say that the money spent on them is money thrown away. I go further, and I say that in modern times any nation that is able to mobilise quicker than others, given a not too great disparity in quality and numbers, that nation will surely be the one that will win. In the Army Debates we have had in this House in the last two years we on this side of the House I think undoubtedly have had the best of the arguments when we attempted to show the faults and expose the blots in our present system. I say that with great sorrow, because I feel sure that we all in this House only wish that the training and organisation of our forces should be such as to ensure success if ever we are called on to fight. I think it has been clearly demonstrated that we cannot mobilise according to the numbers adumbrated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and we cannot do it with that rapidity which alone can ensure success. That being the case in the Regular Forces, in the Territorials we have proof that what was said in another place about two years ago by an Under-Secretary was quite correct, namely, that it was never intended to send six divisions out of this country until six months after war had begun. As my hon. and gallant Friend has pointed out, it was only on the 16th of last month that, the first time I think for three years, the House had an opportunity of discussing the Special Reserve—a most important part of the whole chain. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, that if one link of the chain is weak the whole is rendered ineffective; but I differ from him because I think there is no link in the chain that is really sound at all.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: What are you spending £27,000,000 a year for?
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: I agree. What are the Government spending it for? That is my point.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: No; you.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: Am I the Government? What are the Government spending £27,000,000 a year for? For very little, because what they have is not perfect, and unless it is perfect it is no good. I cannot understand why the Government were in such a hurry to abolish that grand old constitutional force, the Militia. They had a nominal strength of 130,000 men. They trained 100,000 men. They found 126 units during the South African war. Not only did they release sixty-five battalions of the Line in the Mediterranean and in this country, but they sent sixty-one of their own battalions on active service in that war. Look, too, at their record. They had a grand record; they never failed to answer to the call. They always did excellent service; they were very proud of their name; they were very proud of their traditions, and justifiably so. Moreover, they had behind them a very great and valuable power, the power of the ballot, which is not possessed by the Special Reserve. Why did the Government get rid of them in such a hurry? If it was thought necessary to improve their training, to improve their constitution, and to render them legally liable for active service in the field—although they had never failed to answer the call—surely it would have been better to have given the old Militia every chance before it was decided to sweep them away. That is why I quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman opposite. That is the record of the Radical party. They are always ready to destroy and never able to build up. They are exactly the opposite of what I think Burke said was the ideal of a statesman. They have not the desire to preserve, and they have not the ability to improve. I think the Militia is a case in point.
    Turning to the Special Reserve, with which my hon. Friend has dealt very fully and ably, instead of 126 battalions, what have we to fall back upon? As my hon. Friend pointed out, we have twenty-seven weak battalions, which, according to the showing of the right hon. Gentleman himself, will not produce more than 400 men apiece, and are terribly short of officers.

    2315
    These battalions are to be embodied in case of war, and presumably they are to perform the duties of the 126 battalions of the old Militia, or, at any rate, of the sixty-five battalions which relieved the battalions in the Mediterranean and in this country. I call that rather a tall order. When the question was put to the Under-Secretary on the 16th of last month he made absolutely no reply. He comforted himself with the thought that certain speakers on this side of the House, who had put their case very forcibly, had said, as my hon. Friend said to-day, that the training of the Special Reserve was better than that of the old Militia. Surely that might have been secured without abolishing the Militia. The Under-Secretary could not understand why a change of name should make any difference in recruiting, nor how it was that men should prefer to serve in their own county regiments and under their own county name rather than in a regiment of which they had never heard before. If that is his feeling, it is a very great pity that when the Government instituted a training school for officers they did not also institute a training school for Under-Secretaries, as the hon. Gentleman might then have learnt something about his office. The ordinary Special Reserve, as has been pointed out, consist of seventy-four battalions, and they are to provide drafts for the Regular Army in time of war. My hon. Friend has shown conclusively that when the call comes they cannot number more than 16,000 men. There are in the Special Contingent some 15,000, or thereabouts, who are to go with the Expeditionary Force. I want to know of whom the Special Contingent consists. If you have only 16,000 in the Special Reserve it must consist of somebody else. Fifteen thousand are to go. Who are they? What are they? Are they to go as regiments? Are they to be embodied? Are they to have their full complement of officers? Are they, if any of them are mounted, to have horses? In fact, where are they to come from? I think these are important questions which ought to be answered. Possibly the Yeomanry are mixed up with them. That may be so, but they are called Special Reserves. If there are twenty-seven regiments of the Extra-Special Reserve, and only 16,000 of the rest—and they very short of officers—to find the drafts for the Line, where are the 15,000 for the Special Contingent to come from? There are at least 1,200 officers short, but they have to provide officers for the Line
    2316
    when they go on active service. This is not an unfair description of the force for which the good old Militia has been destroyed.
    The right hon. Gentleman asks for suggestions. I will give him one. Let him at once abolish the Special Reserve and the Extra-Special Reserve, and put back the old Militia. I firmly believe that it would be very much better. I have had experience of it myself. It has the power of the ballot, which may be, and I think will be, of inestimable value when the pinch comes. One thing is perfectly certain from the Debates we have had on this subject and from what we have been told, namely, that you have not one single branch of your land forces at the present moment fit to mobilise with the rapidity which alone can ensure success. This is a very serious state of affairs. The least fit of all the branches to mobilise is the Special Reserve. I will ask one more question. I have asked it before, but it has not been answered. Are the military members of the Army Council satisfied with this state of affairs, or are they not? We do not want the opinion of individual members. We do not want opinions which, if you read between the lines, can be given a very different interpretation from that given by the right hon. Gentleman. We want to know whether the Secretary of State's military advisers as a body are honestly of opinion that the present organisation of our land forces is such that it will provide 150,000 men fit in every way, with transport, horses, officers, and Reserves, for the Expeditionary Force. We want to know whether at the same time it will provide the necessary reinforcements for India and our other possessions abroad, and also give us the garrisons necessary for the safety and security of these islands. Until we get that opinion we are fully justified in telling the right hon. Gentleman that he has not done and is not doing his duty to the country. His organisation—but I will not call it his; I will call it the organisation invented by a voluble and plausible lawyer—has not come up to expectations. At the present moment it is very little beyond a sham and a make-believe, very much like the other efforts in administration of the Radical party. By that oragnisation, and by their supineness in not doing their best to improve it, they are putting this country and the Empire generally in a state of deadly peril.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): I think the speech to which we have just listened demands a reply from me at the first possible moment. I know that there are many other Members who desire to address the House on this important subject, but I think it will be for the convenience of the House ff I reply at once to the points raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir R. Pole-Carew) and also to the general statement of the case very ably put by the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen). I take first the general indictment of the policy of the Government as a whole, with special reference to the Special Reserve. I pass by the hon. and gallant Gentleman's sarcasm with regard to a voluble lawyer, by whom I suppose he meant the late Secretary of State for War.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: Yes.
    Colonel SEELY: I pass it by, because officers of the greatest distinction in all parts of the Empire have united in saying that the Army has been fortunate during the last six years in having at its head a man of such tireless industry and remarkable brain power as the late Secretary of State for War, who listened, thought, and laboured to get the best opinion, and then endeavoured to the best of his ability to put forward a good military organisation in this country, built upon the foundations upon which alone he could build. It may be that the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite would have managed affairs better, but, frankly, I do not think anybody except himself is of that opinion. I will give reasons from the speech to which we have just listened. He urged, on this particular point, that it was a mistake to abolish the old Militia, and to substitute for it the Special Reserve, because in connection with the old Militia you could apply the ballot. That shows a remarkable confusion of thought. The whole object of establishing the Special Reserve, and the reason why the establishment of the Special Reserve was approved in principle by both sides of the House—apart from points of detail, upon which differences must of course arise—was that it was realised by the Committee of Defence and by every thoughtful man that the most important problem for this country was to secure reinforcements for wars oversea. Home defence has an important place in our military organisation. It is agreed on all hands, by men in all parts of the Empire who have studied our
    2318
    strategical problems, that our great difficulty was to have ready to our hand reinforcements for the Army that has to operate overseas. The obvious reason for that, which I stated several times, and which I now state again, is that during the last hundred years the Army has constantly been at war, but never within these Islands, and the vital problem, the one to which we must devote our attention, is the securing of adequate reinforcements to the Army when engaged in operations overseas. It was for that reason that Lord Haldane, now Lord Chancellor—and I believe in this matter with the approval of the Front Bench opposite—at least I have heard it so stated by members of that Front Bench—decided that it was right to make some sacrifices in numbers in order to secure a force which could be employed for foreign service on which the military authorities could count. That being so, what becomes of those extraordinary arguments that we should have retained the old Militia as it was because the ballot could be employed?
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: May I say one word? I think the right hon. Gentleman cannot have heard what I said. I said particularly that before you destroyed the Militia would it not have been better to have given them a chance—if you considered your course necessary to make them legally liable to serve overseas—before you did away with them? They had never failed you before.
    Colonel SEELY: With great respect, I repeat that this confusion of thought is getting more confused. The whole point—and I would call the hon. and gallant Gentleman's attention to it, so that we may arrive at the real point—is that it does not matter whether you would have got the old Militia to accept the foreign service obligation; the point that he makes is that the ballot was an essential part of the Militia for compulsory service.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: The ballot is not compulsory service.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): The hon. Member has made his speech.
    Colonel SEELY: The ballot providing for compulsory service—
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: On active service.
    Colonel SEELY: I have never yet heard any responsible man in any quarter of the House propose, and I did not suppose I

    2319
    ever would have heard it proposed, that you should resort to compulsory service for service overseas. I have never heard it, and I do not suppose I ever shall, that the ballot should be resorted to; that compulsion should be resorted to for service overseas, say, on the frontier of India, or elsewhere. If no responsible man has ever proposed that you should resort to compulsion for service overseas, what becomes of the argument that the advantage of the old Militia was that you could resort to a ballot?
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: May I be permitted to say one word?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member must give way to the Secretary for War. If he is unable to listen to a reply, he ought not to have made his speech.
    Colonel SEELY: I pass to a more important part of the Debate which was raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen), whose personal service in the Special Reserve gives him a special right to speak on this matter, and who has given up not only time and thought, but personal active service. Everything he says on the matter, I can assure him, will receive the most careful consideration. When he points out to us, as he did just now, that it is necessary that the War Office should have ideas of its own. I say: "Yes, we have ideas of our own, but in this very difficult matter we do welcome ideas from other sources, especially from those who axe actually serving in the force." It is quite true that the numbers are far below what we hoped they would be. We fully admit that. The reason for that, if I may say so, is not very far to seek. What is necessary for an army in the field? It is to have reinforcements in drafts. This problem of drafts is one that has come to the front since armies in their modern form began. Whenever casualties occur in battle or are caused by disease you want drafts for each battalion, say, fifty men for this, and 200 for that. What is wanted from the military point of view is that you should have these fifty men to be drafted to battalion A and the 200 men to be drafted off to battalion B. That is exactly a thing which does not suit the ideal of the average man; least of all does it suit the ideal of the average Englishman.
    We are in a very difficult position then, not only because we cannot adopt compul-
    2320
    sion even if we would for service overseas—and we have no intention of doing so—but also because it is, no doubt, the genius of the English to co-operate together. They want to go as units. Those who remember what took place at the time of the last great war in which we were engaged will realise the special difficulty that we then had. We wanted to get drafts both from the Volunteers and we should have been glad to have them from the old Militia, but the answer always came: "We will all go together; we do not want to go in driblets." But it is just this going in driblets which is necessary for war, and it is that that the Special Reserve is designed to provide. I fully admit that we have not got the numbers that we want, and that we should be much safer if we had those numbers. I do not, however, for a moment admit that the State is in any peril because we have not got these numbers. I will never admit that. I do not believe it is so. But it would be far better if we could get them. The reason we cannot get them is because the demands of military efficiency are difficult to square with civilian needs and the civilian ideals of the people of this country. It is for that special reason that I welcome the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite and of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, when they say that they will gladly co-operate with us in any scheme to make the Special Reserve a success.
    On the point that the old Militia was better, or that it would have been wiser to retain it, there is this to be said: It must not be assumed that the old Militia was in every respect a success. We all of us remember it. We remember the excellent service the old Militia rendered in war, but it had many drawbacks similar to those which have been brought before us to-day. They had not the advantage—not being liable to foreign service—that the military authorities knew on whom they could count. It is quite true that they volunteered, but they volunteered as units; and I come back to this point, that when you wanted to fill up your ranks at the front they volunteered, and they wanted, as all Englishmen want, to stand shoulder to shoulder in their organisation, and to go to the front as units. For the purpose of reinforcement the Special Reserve does fulfil military needs. For the reasons I have given the old Militia did not.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The 3rd Battalions had not then been formed.
    Colonel SEELY: Quite, and the 4th battalions are only 27 out of the total number. In the case of the old Militia they had other drawbacks. I would quote what was said by my predecessor as showing their deficiency in numbers and in other respects. I do not think anybody disputed the statement made by my right hon. Friend in February, 1907. He said:—
    "They are deficient to the extent of a thousand decrease, and their cost is going up. Ten years ago the cost was £14 per man, now it is £22; so that while they are steadily increasing in cost per head they are steadily decreasing in the efficiency of their units. Of their battalions, of which there is 124, forty-six are not 500 strong, but that does not disclose the worst feature of the organisation. Many battalions have enlisted youths of only about seventeen years of age because they could not get into the Line. These youths would be useless for war. If we had to send the Militia abroad, and if these youths volunteered to go, we could not as a rule send those under twenty, and as a large number are under twenty the battalions are in reality much under the number of their current strength."
    The whole point of the attack which has been made is that we have abandoned the Militia which was a successful organisation, and have got the Special Reserve, which is not successful. What I am pointing out, what I think I have proved so far, is that the Special Reserve has definite military advantages which the Militia could not possess, in providing reinforcements for the Line, and that the Militia itself suffered from defects as grave, and in some cases even more grave, than the Special Reserve we now have. Let me quote Lord Haldane again. He said, speaking of the old Militia:—
    "That is a deplorable state of things. This force does not yield anything like what we might have expected from the men who compose it, and who, from no fault of their own, are condemned to impotence."
    I believe that very emphatic statement, made by one who is in all quarters of the House, except one, regarded as a great War Minister, will be endorsed by most people. I think it shows that the old Militia had real defects, and that when we substituted for them the Special Reserve, although we have not achieved all that we hoped, at leave we have got a force which provides us with certain military advantages which the Militia had not. We parted from a force which, in spite of its public spirit, had very grave defects. Anyone who thinks otherwise has, of course, no recollection of the old Militia. One admits the greatness of its patriotic endeavour, and of its services. As to the question of numbers. While I admit that they are far below what they should be, the picture is not quite so gloomy as some may suppose. The actual recruits enlisted for the first six months of the year numbered
    2322
    11,261, as compared with 9,952 last year, an increase which I only hope may be continued.
    Viscount WOLMER: Do the figures include those who have gone into the Army?
    Colonel SEELY: I am comparing like with like. What number has gone into the Army this year as compared with last year I have not got the figures by me to say, but I think I should have known if they had been abnormal. I think we may say—and it is no party matter—that it is a satisfactory matter that there has been an increased number of recruits joined the first six months of the year. With regard to re-engagement, last May we gave a bounty of £1. This has not had much time to take effect, and I, do not know whether it has had an effect, but the re-engagements of May and June of this year are 1,992, and for the same period of last year they were only 599. And that is highly satisfactory, unless there be some special reason to account for it of which I confess I am not aware.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: There is.
    Colonel SEELY: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will tell me what it is.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: One reason is this: The Special Reserve was formed in 1908 and the great bulk of the old Militia transferred to the Special Reserve after four years. That four years is now up, and unless there was very large re-engagement there would be no Special Reserve at all.
    Colonel SEELY: It was because I thought there was some special reason that I did not want to commit myself to this figure. But my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary reminds me that he gave that information on the last occasion. I may perhaps take this opportunity of saying that though I do not think I heard all he said, because there was a conversation going on in the House in view of the Debate which was to take place in the Adjournment, and it was with great difficulty my hon. Friend could make himself heard, I think it was perhaps a little unkind of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite to complain of the statement made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. He spoke to the House with the greatest difficulty, because the con-

    2323
    versation was loud and prolonged, but I read every word my hon. Friend said on that occasion, and it seems to me that he made the most complete and lucid statement of the case that could possibly be made at the time at his disposal. I am glad to supplement his statement in any way possible, but I say he made a most lucid and conclusive statement, having regard to the time at his disposal.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: He did not use up all the time he might.
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, I took up to one minute to eleven o'clock.
    Colonel SEELY: I am dealing very completely with all the points raised, because hon. Gentlemen opposite are anxious that I should do so. It is true we have a very considerable shortage of officers. There are several things we have to consider, and the first is that the Officers' Training Corps will undoubtedly bring more officers to the Special Reserve, and those who come there are excellent young officers We see the fruits of the Officers' Training Corps already, and I think that very much larger numbers may come from the Officers' Training Corps to the Special Reserve. It is even suggested if we were able to do that which I think we ought to be able to do, namely, to make it more possible for men to be promoted from the ranks and to rise to the higher positions as some have done—as one very eminent officer of the Staff College has done—we might find in the Special Reserve a very suitable and congenial sphere for promoted officers when their pay is less than it costs an officer to live upon. I do not wish to commit myself to a scheme I have seen proposed in many quarters, and for some of which I have great respect, but I think we ought to keep our eyes fixed upon the necessity of enabling every soldier to think that he may have a field-marshal's baton in his kit, so that we may find in the ranks plenty of men capable of serving us in time of war. There is the £20 retaining fee, which I am advised is only for a certain class up to thirty-five years of age. After that age I am advised that retaining fee ceases. I am told that the object of that was to allow the old men to go—I am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend opposite did not take the hint—and to let the young ones come in. When you are short of officers it seems to me unwise to encourage any one to go so long as he is in health and vigour and capable
    2324
    of serving his country. With regard to the matter of uniforms, I confess I do not like changes in uniforms.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am not advocating that.
    Colonel SEELY: No; but if it be the fact, as the hon. and gallant Members assures us, that the uniform is worthy of all the epithets he poured upon it, we must consider whether something equally effective, but less unattractive, cannot be devised.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I was not really referring to my own corps. What I was referring to was the full dress, both of the Regular and of the Territorial, which is a tunic. The Special Reserve only get a very ill-fitting serge jacket, and what I suggest is that they should be put into the same tunic as the Regular battalions and the Territorials.
    Colonel SEELY: I am glad to have the explanation from the hon. and gallant Gentleman that it is not a large change that he wants, and I shall carefully bear in mind the proposals he makes. I think the Committee will realise that we have one real advantage over our predecessors in the matter of such a force as the Special Reserve. The Special Reserve provides us with men with a certain amount of training and whose names we know. In the National Reserve we have the names of men upon which we could not count before. I fully admit that we do not know how many we can count on, but we can count on more than before, and we know where they are to be found. It only shows the advantage of allowing people to form organisations and effective organisations under military influence. We pay an allowance during training, and we keep up our Special Reserve even to the present small number of 60,000 men. The National Reserve, in an incredibly short space of time, gives a total of 150,000 men, who I am told are willing to take the obligation of serving their country. That brings me to the question of separation allowance, for this Special Reserve. It is always held by the military authorities that the bounties given to the Special Reserve more than compensate for the absence of the separation allowance granted in the case of the Territorials, and I hitherto always inclined to that view. When I intimate that we will consider the point, I in no sense make a promise, because hon. Members will agree with me we must lay out our funds to the greatest advantage, and it may well be that some of those with whom I shall

    2325
    consult, may advise that as the sums at our disposal are limited, that they should be spent in some other way.
    The second point is as regards Territorial titles for regiments. It is said that if you only allow the Special Reserve to retain their Territorial and County titles, you will find it much easier to recruit, and a special instance was given in the case of Cumberland and Denbigh. But I have looked at the Army List and I find in the Army List that in brackets that regiment is described as the "Cumberland Militia," and the other is described in brackets as the "Denbigh and Flint Militia." If it will do any good to take away the brackets, the brackets shall go, and when I say that I would not trouble the House by a statement of that kind unless I meant it to be symptomatic of changes we are perfectly prepared to attempt.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to make such a change that in these two cases the official title shall be the Cumberland Militia and the Denbigh Militia. It is not a question of putting these titles between brackets in the Army List. That only suggests to us the original title.
    Colonel SEELY: We put them in brackets in the Army List, and we are willing to take away the brackets, but if I am asked to abolish the title "3rd Welsh Royal Fusiliers," and substitute that for the "Denbigh Militia," I doubt if that would have the support of the Special Reserve as a whole. The matter demands inquiry and more close attention, but to take away the title by which they are affiliated to their regular unit is I think going too far without much further inquiry, as this particular unit might bitterly resent being described as not being one of the battalions of that great regiment of Welsh Fusiliers. We must try and do good with one hand without doing harm with the other, and I shall be glad to receive suggestions from hon. Members in all quarters upon the matter. With regard to the questions of bands, it may seem a small matter but it leads to recruiting and the bands are a sort of centre of union in all corps of the British Empire. The special difficulty in the case of the bands in the Special Reserve has relation to the difficulty we were discussing in connection with the shortage of officers. What is easy for a unit with a full complement of officers is difficult in the case of units reduced by half. The officers always subscribe small
    2326
    sums towards their bands, and I do not think it is a bad custom, but the difficulty in connection with the bands is more acute when the number of officers is small, and we must consider whether we cannot do something in regard to the bands. I, for one, will do what I can to mitigate this grievance of the Special Reserve. I apologise for having detained the House for so long, but I was informed yesterday it would be for the convenience of Members if I made a full statement.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: What about the Special Contingents, category B?
    6.0 P.M.
    Colonel SEELY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will find all the information with regard to that in the Annual Report. I would sooner not occupy any more time. I want to hear other hon. Members speak, and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will refer to the appropriate place he will find full information. We must have some means of reinforcing the Expeditionary Force during the first incidence of war. I conceive that no Government could very materially change the kind of force we now have. That it could be based upon compulsion we must dismiss as utterly without the region of practical politics for the reasons which I gave earlier in my speech. That you can only reinforce by units is hardly a practical proposition. Could we do so, as in some armies, I think a great many of our difficulties would disappear; but the practical difficulty of reinforcing only by units and allowing units as soon as they fall below a certain strength to go back to the base would be a policy so at variance with sound military doctrine that I do not think it would be an advantage. Therefore, something of this kind has got to be, and it is a waste of time to suggest that we should scrap the Special Reserve. That seems to me to be a policy which will never commend itself to any responsible body in this House. That more can be done to bring up the strength I admit, and I promise that the Government will leave no stone unturned to find out the real reasons which militate against the success of the Special Reserve. It must not, however, be supposed that the Special Reserve is a useless body. I have myself seen some battalions of the Special Reserve which are remarkably efficient and consisting of splendid men. That we can obtain many more of that stamp I have no doubt, but that it will be difficult and demand the co-operation of

    2327
    all parties is quite certain, and for that reason I welcome all the criticisms to which we have been subjected, and I trust we shall have many more valuable suggestions.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to misquote what I said. I think, however, he gave the House the impression that I had suggested that the ballot for the Militia could be used for service outside these Islands in time of peace. I never said anything of the sort. What I suggested was that we should go back to the old Militia, when they had the very valuable power of the ballot. Every nation in the civilised globe, except ourselves, has compulsory service for service outside its own country in time of war, and there is no reason why we should not have the ballot for the same kind of service in time of war.
    Captain PEEL: The reply of the right hon. Gentleman has given us some satisfaction with regard to the Special Reserve on the question of separation allowance. I am sure it would tend to improve recruiting if the right hon. Gentleman gives this matter his careful consideration. We all agree that what we want to do is to get this force up to strength. I do not want to repeat what I said the other day, but I want to draw attention to one or two questions which have not been answered by the Secretary for War, and perhaps he will ask one of his colleagues to answer them later on. One question I wish to draw attention to is with regard to the bounty. When the Special Reserve was first started the bounty at the end of the training was £1; but the old Militia used to get 30s. I should very much like to have this bounty at 30s., like it was in the old Militia. In the 4th battalions, owing to the absence of Regular engagement officers, our recruits have to be trained by 3rd battalion officers at the depôt. I should like to be able, when we have a sufficient number of recruits, to call up a 4th battalion officer. We have very great difficulty about this matter, and we had no less than fifty recruits this year before the annual training. In the old Militia there was on the establishment of all battalions a musketry instructor, but to-day we do not have one, and have to get an officer from a Line battalion. I think the old system might be restored with advantage.
    2328
    I do not understand in what way the Government can back up the practice of allowing only twenty-seven permanent staff in the 4th battalion, with an establishment of 750 men, and at the same time authorise ninety-six permanent staff in the 3rd battalion, with an establishment of 580 men, when the 4th battalion has to go out as a unit in time of war. With regard to training, I suppose it is too much to ask, but I should like the period of training for recruiting in the 4th battalion to be five months, as in the 3rd. Men come in as recruits who have been out of employment, and they want training for the longest possible time. I feel sure that you would largely make up the numbers if you gave the separation allowance I have suggested, and if you gave the 30s. bounty. The men want more pay, and the officers want more employment. The officers often apply for employment at the depôts during the non-training period, and all they get is one more month attached to another battalion, and that is all they are allowed nowadays. What is there to induce them to join the Special Reserve except patriotism and a desire to serve their country?
    Take a lieutenant-colonel. After he has finished his time in the Special Reserve, he has no prospects at all, although he may be a very young man. I think it would be of advantage to allow lieutenant-colonels in the Special Reserve, where they are efficient and thoroughly well reported on by their generals, the prospect of commanding Special Reserve brigades during the training. I understand that the officers commanding districts now have a great many duties to perform in the way of inspecting troops and inspecting the books. I think it would lessen their duties if Special Reserve colonels were promoted to full colonels who could take charge of brigades. With regard to subalterns, there is very little inducement to them, owing to paragraph 510, under which captains go to the Special Reserve after ten years. The captains' lists are so filled up that the Special Reserve subalterns have very little chance of promotion, and under this regime there is very little chance of employment for the officers. I think they ought to be given a chance of employment at the depôt, and they should also have an opportunity of going through the courses during the non-training period. I am not sure that the course being pursued is the wise one if you want to encourage officers to join the Special Reserve. With regard to admission to the

    2329
    subaltern ranks, we have heard a good deal about the Officers Training Corps. It is understood that 200 of its members have joined the Special Reserve in the first six months of this year. If you keep up that average in a year they will send 400 officers into the Special Reserve.
    The whole of the expenses of the Training Corps, which are £64,000 annually, are put down to the Special Reserve, as if every man in the Officers' Training Corps was a Special Reserve officer. A large number of these men in the Officers' Training Corps go into the Territorial Force, a certain number go into the Special Reserve, and a good many pass forward into the Army. The Officers' Training Corps is trained by Regular officers, and the allowance they get goes down to the Special Reserve. A much more fair principle would be to divide the £64,000 equally between the Territorial Vote, the Special Reserve Vote, and the Vote for the Regular Army. You would thus have a saving on your Special Reserve Vote of £41,000 or £42,000, and this would enable you to raise the retaining fee for subalterns to £30, which for 500 officers would amount to £10,000, and would also enable you to increase the bounty by 10s., making the total 30s., as in the days of the old Militia, and that for 60,000 men would amount to £30,000. I saw a commanding officer of a Special Reserve battalion this morning, and he was very anxious to get subalterns. He told me he wrote to the adjutant of one of the universities for a list of the men who had passed A and B. He obtained a list of them, and he wrote to seventy, but only twenty-four of them replied, and out of the twenty-four not one single one even put forward the proposition that he would like to join the Special Reserve. A letter was written to the adjutant at another university on 3rd July, and no answer has yet been received at all. Fourteen public schools were written to, and four of them replied.
    I wish the Secretary of State for War would get something practical done to bring the authorities of the Officers' Training Corps to a sense of their duties with regard to the Special Reserve, as they are paid from our Vote. You have got in the 3rd battalions four Regular engagement officers, two of them probably subalterns, and, if you took your two subalterns from your Regular establishment and allowed two of your Special Reserve officers to take their places in the Line battalion, you would be giving an opportunity of employ-
    2330
    ment for your Special Reserve subalterns. I must say I agree very strongly with a good deal that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) with regard to the old name. I do think there is a good deal in the old name, and, if we are not to have the old name of "Militia," I should like at any rate to have a small change in the present name. In the "Gazette" to-day there is a force referred to as the "Special Reserve of Officers," as if it contained no men at all. It does not give the idea that there are any men in the Special Reserve. If you are going to adhere to the term "Special Reserve," call it "Special Reserve" and not "Special Reserve of Officers." It would show then to the ordinary mind that there are men as well as officers in the Special Reserve. We are all agreed that the main point with regard to this force is its efficiency, but the Special Reserve has always suffered from the fact that cheapness is considered before efficiency. Last night we had a Supplementary Estimate of something like £430,000 for national health. National health is important, but to my mind national existence is of still greater importance, and if you willingly grant Supplementary Estimates of hundreds of thousands of pounds for national health, I think you should at any rate allow our old estimates for the Special Reserve to be kept up.
    Mr. AMERY: I do not propose to follow my hon. Friend in some of the detailed suggestions he has made to benefit the Special Reserve. I feel, even if the right hon. Gentleman adopted them all and spent whatever was required in doing so, he would not really meet the needs of what has been as regards the Special Reserve a progressive condition of things. The establishment of the Militia before the South African war was fixed at 130,000, and it was supposed presumably that 130,000 were required for the purposes of the defence of this country. As a matter of fact, the force was continually falling short, and at the time of the war it was at a strength of about 106,000, or very nearly 25,000 short of the establishment. It did as my hon. and gallant Friend has reminded us, extremely good service in the South African war. Though under no contract to serve abroad, it did send some 60,000 to serve in South Africa and the Mediterranean, and it did supply another 45,000 in units for home defence. After the war, from one cause or another, the actual

    2331
    strength declined until it was reduced to 84,000 or 85,000. Apart from changing the name, the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor cut down the old Parliamentary establishment and implied that 83,000 were what was required. We now have an establishment of 83,000, and an actual strength of nearly 60,000, and I suppose the Financial Secretary will tell us 83,000 is only a Parliamentary establishment, a form of words, and that the General Staff are fully satisfied 60,000 is ample for any war in which this country may be engaged. I confess the very quotation the right hon. Gentleman gave us just now indicates that the reduction in numbers has not been compensated for by any great increase in efficiency. What were the criticisms which Lord Haldane made? One criticism was that the Militia could not be efficient because of the grave shortage of officers. There was a shortage of 1,000 officers on a strength of over 80,000. To-day there is a shortage of 1,300 on a strength of 60,000. That evidently is a much more serious situation than that which Lord Haldane criticised six or seven years ago. Again, he said many battalions enlisted youths only seventeen years of age. He bet a standard of twenty years for foreign service. You will have to make very heavy reductions if you eliminate recruits and those under twenty from the Special Reserve, and to-day you would have barely 30,000 whom you could rely on for foreign service. Even if you let them go abroad at nineteen, you have barely 40,000.
    I know the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the fact that the Special Reserve are under a definite obligation to serve overseas, but he did not mention that of the old Militia Reserve 29,000 were under that obligation. I remember previously, when I ventured to remind him of that fact, he said the force was now twice as strong, implying that we had 60,000 to send abroad to-day, whereas there were only 29,000 of the old Reserve Militia available for foreign service. I ventured to interrupt him, and to ask how many of the present Special Reserve were really of an age fit for foreign service, and had been through their first period of training. He replied that it was most undesirable to publish those figures. I suppose the suggestion is that it is not desirable that they should be known to the Attachés of foreign military Powers, officers whom I have met, who possess very considerable intelligence, and
    2332
    who also possess, I imagine, funds quite sufficient to enable them to purchase a copy of the "Army Annual," in which all the figures are given, and from which I have drawn the deduction that, if you make the standard nineteen years and one period of training, the actual number you have got to draw upon for foreign service is at the outside 40,000 men.
    The right hon. Gentleman laid great stress, and rightly so, upon the need of providing drafts. He did not tell us, however, to what extent the Special Reserve drafts were adequate for the purpose of the Expeditionary Force. My hon. and gallant Friend pointed out that, as a matter of fact the Special Reserve could only supply 16,000, or perhaps 20,000 drafts for the Expeditionary Force. Now that force requires practically the whole of the Reserve, except Section D, on mobilisation. When you take the first contingent of drafts to go abroad with an expedition you take the greater part of the available men, and after two or three big battles you will find that you have exhausted the whole of the force available for oversea service. It is true with regard to the Special Reserve we have a very little more available to send abroad than with the old Militia Reserve; but the right hon. Gentleman did not mention that among the changes which his predecessor introduced, was the abolition of a number of Regular battalions with a reserve producing capacity of something like 30,000 men.
    How are we to meet a great crisis if that is all the reserve of trained men we have to put into the fighting line after the first two or three weeks of war? If I may, I will quote a few sentences from what I confess is my favourite military speech, delivered some years ago by the right hon. Gentleman in another capacity. He remarked how, after a war with a small white people within a year and a half we came to an end of our trained men and a grave state of things existed. He pointed out that at a time of war we might come to the end of our trained men, not in a year and a half, but in months or even weeks. "I know there are people who say it is unwise to make these statements publicly, because they give an impression of weakness to our friends abroad. But our friends abroad are more aware of these facts than are the people of this country." It seems to me that the situation which the right hon. Gentleman then criticised exists in exactly the same form to-day, while the danger that this

    2333
    country has to face has increased ten-fold. The right hon. Gentleman has rightly laid stress on the importance of the Special Reserve as a vehicle for producing drafts of single, individual men to replenish our battalions abroad. But in other speeches he and his predecessor, and those who have been described as his satellites, have again and again referred to the same Special Reserve as available for other purposes. There has never been a force so small that has been counted so many times over. I have been looking through some recent speeches during this Session. I find the right hon. Gentleman himself, only the other day, implied that the Special Reserve would furnish 60,000 drafts to an Expeditionary Force overseas. I notice he has also included them, at a strength of 60,000, among the 410,000 who are going to eat up an invading army. They are also included among the garrisons allotted to our forts and coast defences. They are included to the extent of 14,000 among the twenty-seven extra Special Reserve battalions, and they are also included in the figures of the Regular Army, because of the 28,000 recruits last year the Regular Army took 20,000 from the Special Reserve. I imagine it ad impossible to find out from any returns exactly to what extent they have been counted over and over again. But, at any rate, many thousands figure both in the Line and the Special Reserve. Adding these figures together I reckon that in the speeches delivered from the benches opposite the Special Reserve has been counted at a total strength of 200,000 men when its actual available strength is something like 40,000 men.
    How are you going to meet these needs? How are you going to meet the continual decline? The real point, after all, was put very concisely by the right hon. Gentleman himself when he said that the demands of military efficiency were difficult to square with civilian needs. It is, indeed, impossible to square them if you are to get enough men for service in the Regular Army, or in the Special Reserve, or in the Territorial Force. You cannot do it if, while you are seeking to comply with these needs, you place the men willing to serve in a position of the greatest economic disadvantage as compared with the men who are unwilling to serve. As long as you have got that state of things you have a state of what I may call compulsory unpatriotism. Men may be willing to give their services, whether in the Territorial Force or the Special
    2334
    Reserve, even if they serve under a foreign service obligation; but as long as you put this tremendous handicap upon them I cannot imagine any minor remedies that will ever meet the case. We are face to face with two facts: the immensely increasing demand for drafts from the Reserve for the Expeditionary Force, and a much greater demand for home service. The same men cannot count for both, and, therefore, you have an ever-increasing demand with a steadily diminishing supply of men. There appears, in fact, to be a steady progress. Fifteen years ago it was 130,000; it is 60,000 to-day. Possibly that may soon become our "Parliamentary establishment," and in a few years' time we shall be told that 40,000 will meet the case. I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to admit all my contentions, but I do hope he will consider the gravity of the situation, and, realising that the present state of things cannot last, consider whether, after all, it would not be far better to reorganise before the next war comes than after.
    Viscount WOLMER: The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his remarks, claimed that the Special Reserve, as it is to-day, in spite of all its defects, is a great deal more efficient than the old Militia.
    Colonel SEELY: I do not think, with all respect to the Noble Lord, that he can put in a single phrase what it took me about ten minutes to explain.
    Viscount WOLMER: At any rate, in the right hon. Gentleman's opinion the Special Reserve in its relation to the old Militia is neither a great deal more efficient nor less efficient. I perfectly agree with him when he said there was a great advantage in the Special Reserve being under a liability to be sent abroad, but I cannot for the life of me see how the Special Reserve to-day are in any way superior to the old Militia. I know my hon. and gallant. Friend the Member for Dudley has said that his regiment is a great deal more efficient than it was in the old Militia days. Naturally he says that, because he is in command of the regiment. I have no doubt he is perfectly right, but I venture to suggest that, if that is so, it is because my hon. Friend is in command of the regiment and not because of the new system that has come into force. The right hon. Gentleman quoted some words of Lord Haldane about the old Militia. The old Militia, Lord Haldane said, was a thousand officers short on an establishment of 90,000,

    2335
    and my hon. Friend pointed out that we are now 1,300 officers short on the strength of 60,000. Next, Lord Haldane said that the old Militia had many battalions less than 500 men strong. I wish the right hon. Gentleman could come out and see the battalion in which I serve, and which paraded on the last day of the training this year 270 men strong. Then Lord Haldane said that there were in the old Militia a great many youths under seventeen years of age. My experience of the Special Reserve is that it is practically composed of youths under twenty. Of course we have to remember that the old Militia was 90,000 men strong in its last days. We are now nominally about 63,000 men strong. Lord Haldane described that as a deplorable state of things, but I cannot for the life of me see that we are any better off to-day. What I want to impress on the right hon. Gentleman is the extremely disheartening effect of having to drill a battalion hopelessly under strength—only about 33 per cent. of its proper strength. The whole of the company drill absolutely collapses. It takes the heart out of officers and men to set up an organisation of a battalion with eight companies and then only ten or twenty men come out on parade to form those companies. It reduces the whole thing to a farce, and is really most disheartening to many who desire to take things seriously.
    The right hon. Gentleman has asked us on this side to make suggestions as to how that state of affairs can be improved. I want to make one or two. There is one feature of the present system of recruiting which has not been mentioned in these Debates. If a recruit joins the Special Reserve he has to do six months' preliminary drill, and if these six months expire in the middle of the annual training he is allowed to go off. The result of that provision is that you start the training about 400 strong, the men dribble off from day to day, and at the end of the training you have but 100 or 150 men. You train in the summer, the bulk of the men join in the winter, and it is consequently during the summer training that the six months' preliminary drill of the great majority expires. Accordingly you see the whole force melt away. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to consider the possibilities of providing that the men shall stay to the end of their first training, at any rate, because their going away in the
    2336
    middle of the training deprives them of the benefit of the training and disorganises the companies and battalion as well. I have another suggestion to make with regard to battalions of the Special Reserve which are so very short. I want the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it would not be possible for him to provide that during the training of the Special Reserve a couple of hundred men from the Regular battalions of the same regiment shall attend. My point is that if a battalion goes out, about 300 or 400 strong, neither the officers nor the men get adequate training. If the Regular battalion could spare a couple of companies, each 100 strong, to go out and take part in the training of the Special Reserve battalion, or if certain sections from all the companies of a battalion were allowed to go out, they would level up the whole, and would give you a sufficient number of men that you could drill properly. The Special Reservists would be shoulder to shoulder with the Regulars. They would be improved by the example of the Regulars among them, and they would know what company training and company drill really meant. I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that he could do this without disorganising the Regular regiment. Regular officers have told me that they think it could be easily done. It might be a sham, and the men might be counted twice over, but you cannot make bricks without straw, and the result would be that your Special Reserve men would receive a better training than under the present system. The present system is such a disheartening farce that they do not learn what they ought to learn.
    Another suggestion I would make with regard to the Special Reserve is that there should be a further application of the Territorial system. The hon. Member for Dudley laid great stress on the importance of Territorial Association of the Special Reserves in every county. I believe that something further could be done in territorialising the companies, if it is possible. Instructions should be issued that all the men who come from one part of the county should be put into the same company, so as to give them an esprit de corps. In that way one company would become identified with one town, or one part of the county. I believe that was tried in one case by a colonel on his own account, and was a success. I believe a little more sympathetic treatment in that direction might

    2337
    have considerable results. I wish to say a few words about the men who form the Special Reserve. I said that the great majority of them were boys of eighteen or nineteen. The Under-Secretary for War, in answering me the other day, said that that criticism did not come very well from my mouth, as I was only twenty-five years old myself. I do not see what that has to do with it. It does not make any difference whether I am a baby or as old as Methuselah. The point is the age of the Special Reservists, and whether seventeen, eighteen, or nineteen, or up to twenty-five is a suitable recruiting age for the average age of your regiment. I ask hon. Members to go down and watch the Special battalions doing their training. What they will see is a mere collection of boys.
    Colonel SEELY: No, no.
    Viscount WOLMER: I have personal experience of only one battalion, but it is exceedingly surprising if that battalion is absolutely unique in regard to its ages.
    Colonel SEELY: There is such a wrong impression of this force that it would be disheartening if I did not correct the Noble Lord. I myself have seen many corps of Special Reserves, in which there are men of very mature age. Only the other day I saw a battalion of Special Reserves in which a great proportion of the men were old soldiers of mature age, who had served in war. They are not boys.
    Viscount WOLMER: The right hon. Gentleman knows that no Special Reserve men are allowed to join after the age of forty. In the old Militia you had a strong seasoning of men over forty. They have been removed. The veterans the right hon. Gentleman talks about are under forty. All that I can say is that I have not seen 10 per cent of a Special Reserve regiment—not only my own regiment, but those with which we have been brigaded on Salisbury Plain and at other nice places—not 30 per cent. of these men can be said to be in the prime of life. The vast majority of them are boys who are afterwards going into the Army. My point is that not only are these boys not in the prime of life, and therefore not physically able to take the field against a foreign conscript army, but that you are not building up a Reserve, which I believe was one of the main ideas of the old Militia. The idea was that yon had a
    2338
    succession of men doing six years in the Militia, and then going back into civilian life, and it was thought that should war break out these men would have had something of a training and could be relied on. Now, these men are counted twice over. They join the Special Reserve as boys. Their chests broaden and they are able to pass the standard for the Army and go straight into the Army. To regard the Special Reserve at the present time as in any sense an efficient fighting unit is really only deceiving the people of this country. That is why we criticise the Special Reserve. We do not wish to run down unnecessarily any force, but we do think it is a danger that the public should not realise what is the real state of affairs. If I may say so, the great evil which has arisen from the vast amount of advertising which Lord Haldane had to give to his Army scheme is that it has been to make a great many people think that we had entered upon an entirely new era of military administration in this country, and that we enjoyed far greater safety than we really do. It is because we see these very glaring defects, which are forced upon us every summer when we go out for training, and because we try to take our part in this force, that we consider it our duty to bring this matter to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, and ask him whether he cannot do something to improve the efficiency of the force.

    PERSIA.
    Mr. MORRELL: I desire to call attention to the present state of affairs in Persia. I am quite aware that it is only three weeks since some aspects of the Persian question were debated in this House on the Foreign Office Vote, but the situation is, I think, so serious, the state of affairs in Persia is so unsettled, the prospect of maintaining in any degree the independence and the integrity of Persia according to our pledges has become so precarious, that I hope there is no need to apologise for raising this question again. In doing so I want to confine myself so far as possible to the immediate situation. In some of these Debates we are apt to enter into a good many recriminations as to the virtues or the demerits of the Convention of 1907. I could hardly imagine a more useless argument than that. The Convention is a fact. For my part I accept it, and have always accepted it. I accept the policy of the Convention. Nor do I wish again to attack

    2339
    in any way the present policy, so far as I understand it, of the right hon. Gentleman and of the Foreign Office. I have not always agreed with his policy in the past. In the crisis of last December a good many of us felt that he did not, perhaps, do all that might have been done to save for Persia the best servant that possibly Persia in recent years has even had, Mr. Shuster. I always deplored the dismissal of Mr. Shuster, and more particularly the circumstances in which he was dismissed. But these are old stories. What I want to deal with to-night is the present policy. What I want to ask the House is, how far the present policy as laid down by my right hon. Friend himself is being adhered to and carried out?
    The present policy was described by the Secretary of State in a speech of 14th December, to which I listened with great interest and attention. It was made at the time of the crisis. Mr. Shuster was just being got rid of, and my right hon. Friend, after dealing with the incident of Mr. Shuster, turned to the future, and laid down what he called the general lines of a constructive policy with regard to Persia. The object of his policy was to place the Persian Government on its feet and maintain it there. It was to be a policy directed, rightly enough, to the peaceful development of the country. He painted, I will not say a rosy picture, because every one must realise the difficulties the Foreign Office has to contend with in Persia, but he gave us a fairly hopeful outlook of what might be done when the causes of friction had been removed, and Great Britain and Russia were co-operating for the peaceful development of Persia. Let me describe, very briefly, the four main points he put before us. They were six altogether, but two of them were comparatively unimportant. The four main points were: First, that the Persian Government should conform to the principles of the Anglo-Russian Convention; secondly, that the ex-Shah should not be brought back to Persia—I think Lord Morley said that in no circumstances whatever would, the British Government recognise the ex-Shah in Persia; thirdly, that a sufficient loan should be advanced to the Persian Government to enable them to restore order; and, fourthly, that the Russian troops which were then in Northern Persia should be withdrawn as soon as possible.
    7.0 P.M.
    Those were the four main heads of the programme, which had already been sub-
    2340
    mitted by my right hon. Friend, and apparently accepted, so far as I can judge from the White Paper, by the Russian Government, before they were mentioned to this House. What I want to know is how far is that policy being carried out? It is only eight months since it was announced, and one could not expect that it would be carried out all at once. But at least we may ask what prospect is there of its being carried out? As regards the first point, every one who has studied the matter will see that there is no question that the Persian Government have conformed, and are doing their best to conform in every possible way, to the Anglo-Russian Convention. Never was there a more amenable and docile Government than that in Persia to-day. They may fairly ask themselves what they are getting in exchange for the attitude of submission they are showing to the two great Powers. As regards the second point, that the ex-Shah should not come back, he has not at present come back, but every one who studies the present Persian situation must be aware that as regards that we have not any great certainty. Ever since the right hon. Gentleman spoke on 14th December the ex-Shah's main lieutenant has been maintained illegally as Governor of Tabriz. In many towns in Northern Persia meetings are openly held advocating the return of the ex-Shah. I cannot believe that the British Government can so far stultify itself as to consent to his return, but I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to give us once more assurances on this point.
    The loan was referred to by the Secretary of State as perhaps the most important point. He laid great stress upon it. He said it was a cardinal point of the utmost importance that the Persian Government should be put in a position to restore order in Persia, and I quite recognise that by his efforts £200,000 has already been advanced to the Persian Government in March last. At the time it was advanced a great deal of it was required for paying off the soldiers of the ex-Shah in order to disband them; and a great deal more was required in order to carry out expeditions against the brother of the ex-Shah, with the result, I understand, that all the money has been spent. The Persian Government is penniless, and therefore helpless. When I asked my right hon. Friend the other day what he was going to do to advance the further money which they must have if they are

    2341
    to restore order in that country, he said until order had been restored there would be no sufficient security for any further loan. It is suggested that the Persian Government can restore order without any further loan. That is impossible after all that has happened. After four years in which they have had revolutions, counter-revolutions, civil war and invasion, it is utterly impossible to suppose that the Persian Government can organise their gendarmerie and their police without resources. They are not allowed to go to any other country in order to raise the loan which they require, and at present, as I understand, Great Britain and Russia are not willing to advance the necessary loan themselves. I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to give us some assurances on this point. I also sincerely hope that we shall not be told that fresh conditions are to be extorted from the Persian Government as the price of a further loan. I come to the last point in his policy, the question of the Russian troops in Persia. Upon that the request made by the British Government was perfectly precise. As I understand, from reading the papers, the answer of the Russian Government to the request made by my right hon. Friend on 7th and 8th December was that all Russian troops should be withdrawn from Northern Persia—not merely the expeditionary force, but all Russian troops—at the earliest possible moment, and I have here the reply which was made on 23rd December upon that point by M. Sazonoff. Sir George Buchanan telegraphed:—
    "M. Sazonoff assured me the decision of Russia would not be influenced in any way by the fresh incidents, the outbreaks which have occurred at Retsch and Tabriz. The expeditionary force would be withdrawn as soon as Shuster's dismissal had actually taken place. Persian Government confirmed in writing their verbal acceptance of the three Russian demands."
    From that day to this they have been pressed again and again as regards the withdrawal of these troops. On 15th January the British Government sent a dispatch of the most urgent character, asking that some, at any rate, of these troops should be withdrawn. To-day there are 12,400 Russian troops in Northern Persia, and from information which I have from residents in Tabriz I understand that, so far from these being diminished, they are being increased in numbers, and that fresh guns are arriving. I do not know if that information can be substantiated, but, at any rate, the position is very serious in this respect. I know what the answer is. We are told, of course, at once that it is
    2342
    impossible for Russian troops to be withdrawn as long as there is disorder—and there is disorder in the North of Persia. Unfortunately, there is disorder, but I think in a good many cases it is the Russian troops themselves who, by their presence, are creating it. In one case certainly, as far as I know, they are actively engaged in disarming some of the native tribes. A movement of that sort must be found to lead to disorder. It is impossible to ask that all Russian troops should be immediately withdrawn—I quite admit that we cannot expect that in the present state of Persia—but I think we are entitled to ask that the Persian Government should be put in a position to ensure order themselves, and that as their new gendarmerie is being created so at the same time the Russian Expeditionary Force should be withdrawn.
    We are being told again and again by despairing friends of Persia that the position is already hopeless. They say Northern Persia has become a Russian province. Why not, they say, accept the situation? Let the British Government occupy Southern Persia, and make that a British or an Indian province as well. I hope it is unnecessary to say it would be not merely a gross breach of faith, but it would be, of course, a reversal of the policy which has been pursued for one hundred years past if we were to consent to any policy of that sort. Bad as the situation in Persia is, I do not believe it is hopeless. The powers of recuperation of a nation are extraordinary. A great deal of the independence has been destroyed, at any rate, but still nominally the integrity remains. I trust my right hon. Friend will be able to give us some more hopeful assurances that the pledges given by the two Governments to Persia will be faithfully carried out, and that the independence and the integrity of that country, which are of such importance to the British Empire, and which we are bound in honour to do our utmost to maintain, will as far as possible be preserved.
    Mr. NOEL BUXTON: No apology is needed for calling attention to a matter of so much importance to Great Britain as the recent crisis in Turkey. Great Britain can never be disinterested in what happens in the near East, and we are for the third time in four years confronted with a crisis which may lead to grave events. It is curious to think that only three years ago the men who have just been hurled

    2343
    from power in Turkey wore being entertained in this House by the Government in conjunction with the Leader of the Opposition. Their photographs still hang in the passage downstairs, and the time may come when they will be in power again. Meanwhile it is noticeable that the change of Government which has taken place is not an ordinary change of Government, but a revolution. It is a change brought about by a military mutiny, as the famous revolution of four years ago was brought about, and who knows but that in a short time, possibly in the next few weeks, the whole near Eastern question may be in the melting pot. This is a subject which concerns the British public on several grounds, but largely because the influence of Great Britain in the near East concerns itself with the preservation of the peace, and without our influence in the near East peace is less easy to preserve. An illustration of that is the influence which was exercised by Lord Lansdowne in the years between 1903 and 1906, and by the present Foreign Secretary in regard to the long negotiations and efforts which were made to bring about a reform in European Turkey. If it had not been for the influence of the Foreign Office in giving a lead on several occasions to the other Powers in proposing the introduction of foreign officers and foreign advisers peace might possibly not have been preserved, and in that sense the British public is closely interested in what happens in the near East. We are always, of course, interested too, because Turkey holds the gate of the road by which our largest corn supply comes to this country, and again we are always interested in that part of the world because of our obligations under the Berlin Treaty, and everyone feels and knows that the debt which we incurred under the Berlin Treaty has not yet been fully discharged to the populations that suffered under the Turkish Empire.
    Various contingencies might arise before this House meets again, and I should like to draw attention to a contingency which we all hope will arise, that is the conclusion of the war, which sometimes almost seems to be forgotten, but which means an enormous cost to both parties to it, and which has lasted now for ten months. Supposing the war came to an end or supposing the negotiations for bringing it to an end to be in progress. This country will naturally have a great influence. The latest event has been the seizure of a great
    2344
    number of the Ægean Islands. What many of us wish to urge in that connection is that the maxim which Lord Salisbury laid down should be remembered. Lord Salisbury said that where any country had been removed from the direct control of the Turkish Government it should never return under the Turkish Government. It will be a difficult question what is to be the fate of the Ægean Islands, and it raises very many difficult questions. I would only urge that Lord Salisbury's maxim in this country has unanimous support and there is one possibility which if it can be acted upon will very likely cause more general satisfaction than any other, and that would mean that the Ægean Islands which have now passed from Turkish control should be formed into some sort of federation which would meet their own desire and need of self-government, and by which the face of the Turks might be preserved by retaining Turkish suzerainty under the Turkish flag, and in which possibly even—although this is an irresponsible suggestion—the Cretan question might be solved in conjunction with the solution which will be found best by the Powers for the other Islands. However that may be, the contingency of peace will arise, though it is more probable that peace may be very far off. It is more probable that things will drift on.
    Although Turkey is at war, it has been occupied with reforms. The internal problem of Turkish government proceeds by gradual stages towards solution, war or no war, and I would urge that reform may very likely proceed, before this House meets again, to a solution which may last for a long time, and in which this House is keenly interested. We have now by a singular turn in the wheel of fortune, a Government in Turkey again which is not only favourable to reform, but is considered to be pro-British. I do not think it is wise to dwell upon the supposed partialities of one Minister or another. A country is in an unhealthy state when Ministers seek for support from foreign countries, and when one faction pits its friendship to another country against another faction. But we have a chance of influence with the Turkish Government which has come round to us by a stroke of luck. We have had such a chance before. In the hands of His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople will now lie great opportunities which we all know he will be ready and eager to take. We will have influence in regard to reforms which

    2345
    the Turkish Government have already voluntarily suggested. The Government that has just fallen proposed that in Macedonia there should be European Powers, and, as we all know, it applied to this country for a loan of officers. In regard to that I would urge that the vital thing, if these officers are to be of value, is the extent of their diplomatic and personal power, and their knowledge of the country to which they are sent. They cannot have, obviously, direct, executive control, but many British officers, and in particular some of the military men and military gendarmerie officers we have lent to Turkey, have had immense influence. I would urge that if we lend these officers, since there will be undoubtedly a very great number of applications for those posts, their personal qualifications, not only military, but diplomatic—diplomatic, I mean, in the way of experience—are of vital importance.
    The Government of Turkey must come to us, because it needs not only political, but financial help. It desires our friendship, and while we may have the opportunity of lending them military officers, I would suggest another point in which we may be able to introduce British and European civilising influences. The civil government of Macedonia, which is a danger spot of European Turkey, and perhaps the greatest danger spot of the world, was influenced before the Revolution by European officers, and we may have the opportunity of bringing it about that Europeans will also be invited to aid in the civil government. That is a point at which we might exercise influence which would turn the scale in favour of the permanency and success of the Turkish government in Europe, and I hope our influence will be exercised in that direction. There is one other possible contingency, and that is that such chaos as existed before the Revolution of 1908 might return in Macedonia. There has been in recent times a very unhappy return towards that. Extraordinarily violent proceedings have been witnessed in the recent elections, and violent death has been a common feature not only in Macedonia, but in Albania. I have only one point to urge in regard to that. If chaos should come back again, I would urge upon my right hon. Friend that his policy of four years ago, by which he proposed that European control should be established over Macedonia, would again be appropriate to the situation. The
    2346
    Foreign Secretary, in 1908, made a move which was of extraordinary value. Although it did not bring about the control at which he aimed, it brought about something very great, and, more important still, it brought about the Turkish Revolution. That proposal, which is associated with the Reval visit, has not had the attention it deserves owing to the Turkish Revolution, but it did represent such a contribution of thought, energy, and courage, as I think has not been surpassed in the efforts of Foreign Secretaries for a long time. The Foreign Secretary would be the last to care whether he received credit or not for such efforts, but among those who knew the Turkish situation it was recognised as a contribution of extraordinary value.
    I think the time has come when such a contribution will be valuable again, and I hope that, if chaos intervenes in Turkey, it is not impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to turn his attention to that policy of four years ago when he desired that the Powers should exercise direct control by means of a European Governor and work together as a concert, and not leave matters to the two most interested Powers, but rather, by concerted action and preserving the status quo in the territorial integrity of Turkey, introduce European control in the civil government. Four years have been granted to the Young Turks to show whether they were worth their salt. We may very well give a respectable tether to their successors. I hope they will always understand that the support of Great Britain is conditional on their establishing reforms. Personal security is a matter of concern to the British public, and the present Government we may hope will reverse the Turkeyfying policy, as it has been called, and establish the Ottoman policy of granting equal rights to every section and every religion. My right hon. Friend in watching these matters will be carrying out the desire widely felt in this country, and representing really national interests.

    PUTUMAYO DISTRICT (COLLECTION OF RUBBER).
    Mr. KING: I believe I shall have the sympathy of all quarters of the House in bringing into Debate for the first time the case of the terrible treatment of natives in the Putumayo district of the Amazon. So far as I know this question has never been mentioned in this House except at Question Time. The story which has lately been unfolded by Sir Roger Casement is certainly

    2347
    one of deep importance and significance. It has harrowed our feelings, and caused comment and called forth protests throughout the civilised world. It is a question of the deepest importance to the civilisation and progress of the world, because it raises the issue how we are to control the methods of trade, commerce, and so-called civilisation, in the outlandish parts of the world. I will not say anything here to-day against the Government in whose dominions these horrors have been perpetrated, except that we all must deeply regret that it has not been found possible to bring even yet, after eighteen months of disclosed horror and crime, the criminals to justice. We must bear in mind that it is further from Lima, the capital of Peru, to the Putumayo district in time than from London to Putumayo, and, of course, it is a matter of the very greatest difficulty for the Peruvian Government to exercise control in those distant parts of its large domain. I will emphasise as strongly as I can that this is essentially a British subject where British honour and policy are deeply concerned. Why? These horrors have largely been perpetrated by impressing British subjects to work in this district.
    In one year 200 of these men were recruited in Barbadoes to work in the Amazon district, and they were subjected to methods of barbarism and horror with-out a parallel in the world's history. These men were recruited through a British Government agent. They were handed over in the course of time to serve under a British company, and I am sorry to think that the product of their operations has been brought down to the sea in British ships, and brought over to this land to be the raw material of British manufactures. I think, therefore, we may say that this is a matter in which British honour and policy are deeply concerned. Under these circumstances it is humiliating and intolerable that we cannot bring the criminals to justice. It is also most unsatisfactory, to my mind, that we cannot with a clear conscience say that the British company which has command of this trade is clear of blame, and that its directors and officials are clear of knowing what was going on, or, at any rate, that they did not blindly pass over those methods which have been going on. Moreover, it is by no means certain that this policy is not being continued at this very moment in this very district.
    2348
    The company has gone into liquidation and has been handed over to Mr. Arana, the man who organised the whole of this business. We have no knowledge that he is not continuing freely the methods which he inaugurated and has carried on for years, and by which no doubt from the very smallest beginnings he has added to his own possessions immense wealth. Moreover, this portion of the Amazon which has been investigated is only part of a large district where similar centres either exist or certainly may easily be established. Therefore, if we could carry out some policy which will put an end once for all to these horrors and make them impossible of recurrence we should be doing a great service to the whole civilised world.
    I would ask the Foreign Secretary to do everything in his power as soon as possible to bring these things completely to an end. We know that the publication of Sir Roger Casement's report is due to the terrible delay of the Peruvian Government. The Peruvian Government promised that on the 28th July or before it a scheme for the reform of this district would be presented to their National Legislature. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will see that that is done as soon as possible, and I would ask him to give due consideration to such suggestions as are possible of adoption to carry out the promised reform. Can anything be done to clear the directors of the Peruvian Amazon Company and the chief officials of the company in their own interests as well as in the interests of this company, who have a reputation for honest commerce and honest treatment of natives? Can something be done by inquiry or otherwise to make clear that, at any rate, these horrors have not been perpetrated with the knowledge of British directors? Can the right hon. Gentleman keep an open mind for all methods of missions of civilisation in the form of trade or any possible agency which will help to bring this great district of the upper waters of the Amazon within the pale of civilisation and legitimate commerce? I believe that something may and can be done if various missions, not only one privileged mission, be allowed to enter that country. I trust that between now and the beginning of October great progress will be made, and that when we reassemble the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us that with the support and co-operation of the United States and the powers of South America something

    2349
    at last has been done by which we may rest assured that these atrocities cannot be repeated.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell), who introduced this Debate, said he had no desire to raise the very wide questions of general policy with regard to Persia, and I feel that as the question of general policy was raised and discussed only a short time ago it would neither be necessary nor perhaps desirable that I should restate the views which are expressed therein, because they remain on record, and constantly to travel over the same ground cannot do any good, and possibly may give rise to difficulties that have not yet arisen. But with regard to the particular points which my hon. Friend has raised, taking first the point of the Russian troops, he asked whether it was not the case that they were being strengthened, as he had heard that fresh troops were coming in. So far as I am aware, the fresh troops that have been coming into Northern Persia have been generally, at any rate, reliefs for troops which have returned to Russia. The withdrawal of troops from Kazvin, Enzelin and Resht, where the expeditionary forces were, has in part taken place, because, I think, according to the latest information before us, there were about 2,000 fewer troops at these two places taken together than there had been originally, though I do not think that the total of the Russian troops in Northern Persia has been reduced, because it has been increased in some other places. Earlier in the year it was the opinion not only of the Russian Minister, but of the British Minister at Teheran that it would not be safe for the Russian troops to be completely withdrawn from Kazvin, owing to the disordered state of the country, as the disorder would become worse instead of better if the withdrawal took place. It is very difficult to press the question of withdrawal of Russian troops from Northern Persia at a moment when our trade is suffering so much in Southern Persia from the disorder which is there, and when it has been pointed out sometimes that British trade has suffered more than Russian trade, precisely because Russia has had troops in Northern Persia and has been able to protect her trade, while we have not followed suit and sent troops into Southern Persia to protect our trade. That, at any rate, shows that disorder in Persia is not created
    2350
    solely in the district where there are Russian troops.
    I have not deferred to the argument that we ought to send a force of our own to Southern Persia to protect our trade, because I am most anxious not to increase our own responsibility, and, though it may seem a very simple step to send troops to patrol a given piece of road, once you have taken that step you are apt to be told that it is absolutely useless unless you proceed to some further step, and then something happens which you are told makes a third step necessary, and that is why I have been very reluctant to do anything of the kind, and I do not contemplate at the present moment taking any steps of that kind. But the moment when we are obliged to admit that our own trade is suffering heavily in Southern Persia because we have not taken that step is not the moment we can press with very great force for a large reduction of Russian troops in Northern Persia when you are open to the retort that if that reduction takes place the same consequences may immediately befall Russian trade as have befallen British trade in Southern Persia. I do not wish in the least to detract from the point of view that the presence of Russian troops in Northern Persia is a temporary measure, and that when things improve we should expect to see those troops withdrawn. For instance, the formation of a body, I think, of 700 Persian Cossacks at Tabriz under Russian officers I regard as a desirable step. I hope that if the force of Persian Cossacks under Russian officers is organised at Tabriz, as there has been for many years at Teheran, that ought to lead to such security at Tabriz as would enable some of the Russian troops now there to be withdrawn. As soon as that force becomes an operative force I hope that there will be a diminution of the Russian troops.
    The real problem of the moment is the problem of the internal disorder in Persia itself. It is a very serious problem, and I am not at all surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley should have pointed to what he called the vicious circle that we should get in these circumstances of being told that money is essential for the preservation of order, and yet money cannot be lent because there is no proper security. I am afraid that that is not a problem which is entirely peculiar to Persia at the present moment. No doubt it is with Persia that we are

    2351
    especially concerned in this Debate, and the problem is acute there. At the present moment I do not suppose you could find any group of financiers to lend money to Persia unless there was a British or a Russian or joint British and Russian guarantee behind the loan. To guarantee a large loan to Persia is of course to undertake one of those first steps towards incurring responsibility which I have been trying to avoid not only in Persia, but in some other parts of the world as well during the last few years. What we contemplate at the present moment is a further advance to Persia ourselves of £100,000 and an advance from the Russian Government of £100,000, just as was done a little time ago. Two hundred thousand pounds is a small amount, of course, but a small amount goes a very long way, and, as perhaps people will realise from the time which has elapsed since the last joint advance of £200,000 was made, it not only goes a long way, but it lasts a considerable time in Persia, provided you are quite sure that it is going to be properly spent.
    My hon. Friend deprecates any conditions being made. I cannot say as far as the £100,000 which Russia may advance exactly what conditions she will stipulate for, but according to such information as I have they will not be conditions onerous to the Persian Government. As far as we are concerned, if we advance another £100,000 to Persia the condition I should stipulate for would be that that money should be spent in promoting the formation of a force of Persian gendarmerie under Swedish officers, or any other means which will restore order in Southern Persia. If we do not ourselves send troops to Southern Persia to control the roads and protect our trade there I think we should concentrate in securing that any money we lend to the Persian Government is spent by them—we are not pressing for British officers; we are content with officers of any minor Power—in forming an effective gendarmerie under, I presume it would be, Swedish officers, which will, by restoring order on the roads, benefit British trade and give us in that way some compensation for any pecuniary responsibility which we may incur. With regard to the large loan by financiers, I am afraid that I can say nothing at the present moment, because I am not prepared to advocate a British guarantee or to ask the House to agree to a British guarantee. I can only hope
    2352
    that if a small advance were made the prospects in Persia may improve in such a way as to bring a large loan—I should not advocate at the moment a loan larger than Persia needs, but a loan which some Powers would not call a large loan—more in sight than it is at the present moment.
    With regard to what my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk (Mr. Noel Buxton) said about the Ægean Islands and Turkey, the occupation of these islands during the war is, of course, one of those things which occur in every war which must give rise to considerable discussion when the war is over and the settlement takes place. The occupation of the Ægean Islands or their condition and their destiny is a matter in which more than one great European Power would take a considerable interest. More than that I cannot say at the present moment, and while the war is proceeding, and, of course, a settlement cannot be discussed until peace is in sight. My hon. Friend said he was making some contingent suggestions, and the suggestions which he made were made on contingencies which were very unpleasant with regard to the future of Turkey. He spoke of the possibility of chaos. I hope that contingency will not arise. The internal situation in Turkey, as everybody knows, is exceedingly delicate at the present moment, but I sincerely trust there will be a favourable issue, and I do not propose to discuss any suggestions based on any other contingency at present. With regard to Putumayo, of course the Blue Book laid before the House provides. I think, the most horrible reading that has ever come before mo. In the Foreign Office one is constantly receiving reports of a painful character from various parts of the world, and which are not the loss unpleasant and painful because they are very often matters in which we can do little or perhaps nothing, and in which we have no responsibility. Of all the things I have ever read that have occurred in modern times, in office or out of office, the accounts of the brutalities in Putumayo are the most horrible. Therefore I do not in the least deprecate what my hon. Friend said in regard to the nature of the report. I do rather deprecate his pressing too much the point of British honour and responsibility. He spoke as if these atrocities had been perpetrated by labour recruited by a British officer.
    Mr. KING: I said "through a British officer."
    Sir E. GREY: I would like it to be quite clear that "through" does not mean "by," and I hope the hon. Member did not mean "through" in the sense of "by," or that a British officer was conniving at these things. He was merely the person who attested the signatures of parties to engagements, just, I imagine, as a magistrate in this country witnesses some transaction with regard to which he takes no responsibility himself except to see that the contract entered into was bonâ fide as between the parties on each side. I imagine that it is something of that kind. All the British officer does is to witness the contract, or countersign it, so that it may be evidence in the hands of the British subject engaged, and prove chat the contract was properly entered into between him and the employer. In regard to the nature of the employment and so forth, of course the British officer could know nothing. However, I regard these questions of responsibility, responsibility of the past, as smaller issues than the question as to how these things can be prevented in the future. As far as responsibility for the past is concerned, the British Government, at any rate, have an honourable responsibility in the fact that they have brought this state of things to light, and which, but for its action, would not have been brought to light. We have not, of course, a right to send roving commissions of inquiry to different parts of the world where we have no jurisdiction and no treaty rights; and in this case it was not until it was represented to us that there were probably, if not certainly, some British subjects who might be sufferers in Putumayo that I felt we were on ground which entitled us to say to the Government of the country that we were sending a British Consul to look after the condition of certain British subjects there. Having done that, when we got the full report of the true state of things, we felt it was something which ought not to be withheld from the knowledge of the world at large. The world, at any rate, ought to know in these days when things of that kind are going on; and, having come into that knowledge, we thought it right to publish it.
    Of course, we do not want to be content simply with publishing it, and, as anybody can see who reads the Blue Book, we have not been content simply with bringing the facts to the notice of the Peruvian Government, but we have done all we can by diplomatic means to urge that it
    2354
    was in the interests, and essential to the good name of Peru, that the Peruvian Government, who alone have the theoretical right, to act and take steps to punish the criminals and prevent these things from occurring in future. Then we felt that there is another force, perhaps a more potent one. Besides our own public opinion, there is, on the other side of the Atlantic, American public opinion itself, whether North American or South American. Anybody who reads the Blue Book will see that from a very early stage we have brought things to the knowledge of the Government of the United States, and have kept closely in touch with them ever since. Anything we can do to help or to encourage any steps which are being taken on the other side, by any Power, to secure that the condition of affairs in Putumayo will never again be what it has been, we shall be delighted to do. It is very difficult to be sure what is going on there at the present moment. I have no doubt in my own mind that the mere presence of Sir Roger Casement there, and while he was there, suspended those atrocities for the time being. The anxiety is as to what will happen when there is nobody like Sir Roger Casement representing us or the United States Government, and, perhaps, very little direct authority being exercised by the Government of Peru. That is why the other day, when I was questioned by the other side of the House as to what was the actual state of affairs in Putumayo, I was very guarded in my answer. The Peruvian Government said—I believe in all good faith—that they believe that these things are matters of the past, but the district is very remote and the Peruvian administration has been very slight and intermittent.
    I cannot but feel that unless and until the criminals whose names are known, and who were guilty of these horrors in the past, have been adequately punished, we cannot quite be sure that there will not be other people in that remote district who may think that they can perpetrate some of these atrocities with impunity. As long as the criminals, whose names are known, remain unpunished, I do not think it would be right—I would not undertake the responsibility except on direct information which I had myself—to give any assurances or to express any opinion with regard to what the actual state of things in Putumayo may be at the present moment. We want Sir Roger Casement's visit not to be an isolated visit. We have kept in touch

    2355
    with the United States Government because we believe that the public opinion of America, of the United States, must be just as shocked by these things, and must be just as sensitive about them as we are ourselves—perhaps more sensitive, because they are nearer. I am very glad to say that the United States have appointed a Consul of their own at the nearest post to Putumayo, and we have also a Consul there. I have heard that the two Consuls, the United States Consul and our Consul, I presume acting on the advice of the United States Government, have arranged to take advantage of a means of communication which is not always available, but which is apparently available now, to start on the 5th of this month, four days hence, to go into Putumayo. How long they will stay there of course they will have to judge when they arrive, but at any rate they will be in a position, the United States Consul and our Consul, to send direct information both to the United States Government and to us, of what is actually the state of things there. Besides that, I intend to do all I can to keep closely in touch with the United States Government. I have asked them to let us have any information which they get from their own sources, as to what the state of things is, to keep us informed of any steps which they think can be taken, and to give us their own view of the situation, and what can be done. We, in turn, will not neglect to bring under the consideration and attention of the United States Government any steps which seem possible for us to take, or seem possible for them or for anybody to take.
    8.0 P.M.
    That is all I can say at the present moment. I wish it was more definite than it is, but, after all, the mere fact of our Consul going there shows that those things will not go on at Putumayo again without becoming known. I cannot but believe that public opinion which finds expression, whether in the United States or on this side of the Atlantic, will not tolerate anything of this kind being repeated. The great difficulty in the present case is, no doubt, as to quick measures, owing to the great inaccessibility of the region itself. But the mere fact of there being now two Consuls who will from time to time visit that district, and who are visiting it at the present moment, is something which is a guarantee that a beginning is being made with a systematic visitation of this district that will, if not immediately, at any rate eventually, and in no very long
    2356
    time, secure that the state of things at Putumayo shall never return to what it has been. I admit that there is another measure to which my attention has been drawn, and that is the possibility of stopping the exports of rubber. That can only be done by Brazil itself. It might be a point for the attention of the United States Government as something worth considering. If Brazil is to take any steps of that kind, of course it might be effective, only it cannot be done except by Brazil itself, and I think it is very desirable if any step of that kind is to be taken it should be done when the United States Government itself is convinced that some coercive measure of that kind is necessary, and is prepared to give its full support to any action which is taken in Brazil in that direction. I am always afraid in matters of this kind to speak with greater optimism than the situation may justify. I feel as strongly as anybody in the House can feel, and that feeling is one of horror at the state of things which has been disclosed, and anxiety as to what the present state of things is. I can only say, as soon as I get further information I shall, of course, be very glad to put that information at the disposal of the House; and we shall neglect nothing, no opportunity of anything we can do, either by supporting suggestions from any other Power, or making suggestions to any other Power, or Powers, which are likely to be effective in doing all we can to ensure what I am certain public opinion both on this side of the Atlantic and on the other side desires, namely, the certainty that this state of things shall come to an end.

    PORT OF LONDON (STRIKE).
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I hope the House will bear with me whilst I refer to a matter relating to the Home Office. I am afraid it is going to be an echo of the recent—happily we may use the adjective—dock strike. I think my right hon. Friend is already in possession of the facts of the case, and therefore I will review them very briefly indeed. When the men returned to work it was agreed that no alteration should be made upon the conditions which had been observed hitherto, and more particularly in respect of the taking on of trade unionists outside the dock gates. That was one of the conditions which the men laid down, and which they will certainly do their best to maintain. In respect of Victoria Dock,

    2357
    the members of the trade union lined themselves up against a wall on the footway, near to the Custom House Station. That, I may say, is a principle of trade unionism in the docks. The Free Labour Association and the Shipping Federation, and those who have attempted to break down trade unionism, and the men who are not trade unionists, are taken on inside the dock. Those men go inside the dock and are taken on by the foremen, who then come out and select the men from the trade unionists. Although that may appear to be an exceedingly small point, yet it is a very important one from the point of view of trade unionism, as everybody knows who knows the history of the struggle of trade unionism in connection with dock labour in London.
    At this particular point, in respect of this dock, for over forty years I believe this custom has prevailed. From time to time, in order to suit public convenience, the particular spot where the men have gathered, at what they call their place of call, has been changed. About nine years ago an arrangement was come to between the Dockers' Union and the police that the place which is now being used should be the place, and every morning, from about a quarter-past six, and every noontime, from about a quarter or half-past twelve, the men who want work, especially if they are members of trade unions, and, in fact, it is only members of trade unions, go to this particular place and the foremen come out and select their men. Then, according to the rules of the union, as soon as the selection has been made for the day, or half-day, or shift, or whatever it is, the men are bound to disperse, because they do not want the members of their union to loiter about in the street and to take on casual jobs; so that there is no danger of obstruction of the traffic or of anything that would be objectionable from the public point of view. That is the recital of the habit of the place. The strike took place, and the strike was settled. The strike ends, and the men yesterday and the day before went to the usual place of call at this particular pavement and waited to be taken on by the foremen. Yesterday at about a quarter to one the men lined up, and the foremen came to select them; and, according to our information, which has been placed before the Home Secretary, and which is information not from members of trade unions, but from representatives of the employers, namely, the foremen who saw the whole of the proceedings—according to their
    2358
    statement given to us, and according to statements made in the Police Court this morning by a person who was accused of having assaulted the police or obstructed the police, and by witnesses who were called on his behalf, whilst this was going on a body of policemen marched down and were lined across the end of the street so as to block egress and ingress. They also blocked certain streets leading off this main thoroughfare, leaving only one street down which the men could go.
    Without any provocation and without any demonstration being made against them, and without any reason, so far as we can make out, and so far as the witnesses who gave their evidence, and so far as affidavits disclose, Inspector Boxall, who was in charge of the contingent, gives the order to clear the place, and called out at the top of his voice, instructing his men to use their batons in doing so. The men escaped hither and thither. They ran down the only street that was available, Freemason's Road. They found the streets leading into Freemason's Road had been blocked by policemen before they got there, and that a van has been drawn across Freemason's Road a little way down, which made it impossible for the men to escape easily. Some of them who escaped into shops were dragged out of the shops; the man who was brought before the Police Court this morning was one of those. I will refer to his case subsequently, and as to what the magistrate did with it. Then in one case, a Mr. Lewis Lewis, who is an official of the Dockers' Union and in charge of an office at No. 5, Freemason's Road, and who was receiving pay from men who were there paying their subscriptions, states that policemen actually went into his office and took those men who were paying their subscriptions out of his office, and hustled them and batoned them in the process. We have evidence of a man going into a jeweller's shop, who came to us last night and gave us his statement, of being dragged out of the jeweller's shop and ill-used. There was a man brought before the magistrate this morning who escaped into a shop and was ultimately arrested after being bruised and broken by batons. The case against him was heard this morning, witnesses were called, and the magistrate, who has not certainly erred on the side of the men, I do not say he has been unjust, but has not erred on the side of the men in giving his sentences during the dispute; having heard the witnesses and having listened to the

    2359
    evidence discharged the man; and the other prisoners who were brought up this morning were remanded for a week.
    I think we really must know why this was done. A deputation went to my right hon. Friend last night to lay the facts before him, and he was good enough to inform them that he would make inquiries with a view to stopping a similar proceeding this morning. I regret very much, as I thought that would be all right, that the intention which I had formed to go down myself at half-past six o'clock this morning and see the proceeding was not carried out. If I had thought there would have been any failure in the matter, and I do not blame my right hon. Friend for I assumed that what he said meant that the men would have been allowed to line up and be called on by the foremen, I would have gone down as I had intended to do. Lo and behold! we are told to-day that the men who assembled in their old place simply to be taken on outside the dock-gates, the foremen being there, were again hustled by policemen. They did not use batons to-day, but the men were hustled by the police and cleared off, and with the result that a boat which was going to be unladen by those men's labour is being unladen by labour of non-unionists who went inside the dock gates, a way to which these men object. We want to know is this place of call going to be abolished? If it is, at whose instance is it going to be abolished? If it is going to be abolished for good reason, why did not the police in the ordinary way approach the men's officials and reason the matter out with them, and negotiate the matter as they have done before? Is it that somebody who can influence the police and use the police wants to drive the men inside the dock-gates in order to be taken on? That is a point on which I think the House is entitled to get an answer, and, above all, in view of what took place yesterday, and in view of the affidavits which are now in our possession, and the basis of which, in the form of written statements my right hon. Friend had handed to him last night, and in view of what took place in the Police Courts this morning, I think we are very reasonable in asking that an inquiry should be held into the whole proceeding. An inquiry is now proceeding regarding certain events in Bermondsey which took place a week ago. Here, as we allege, without provocation, without warning, without a justification of any kind, men doing what has been done for forty years
    2360
    in that district and in respect of that dock and the adjoining dock, assembled in a place where they have assembled for nine years, and which is the ordinary method of the trade, are subject to assault by the police. Surely this House will insist, if it will insist on anything, upon an inquiry being held so that we may understand the meaning of all this, why it was done, and under what circumstances it was carried out. I hope my right hon. Friend will consider the request is a very reasonable one, and a very proper one, and with that recital of the case, and with that request, I leave the matter to the House, hoping that the Home Office will see to it, first of all, that this place of call is to be preserved and the men are not to be forced to go inside the dock gates to be taken on; and, secondly, that law and order, an excellent principle for the men, is also an equally, in fact more, excellent principle for the police.
    And, it being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further proceeding was postponed without Question put.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.

    MIDLAND RAILWAY (LONDON, TILBURY, AND SOUTHEND RAILWAY PURCHASE) BILL [Lords]. (By Order.)
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Bill be now read, the third time."
    Mr. BOWERMAN: I rise, not for the purpose of obstructing the progress of this Bill, but rather to elicit some information on a point of considerable interest to a large number of people. When this Bill was last before the House a protest was made on behalf of the season-ticket holders of Southend, and since that discussion the matter has been considered by the Committee to which the Bill was referred. I understand that some arrangement has been come to between the promoters of the Bill and the Committee who dealt with the matter, and I wish to ask the Chairman of the Committee, if I may, to be good enough to state the nature of that arrangement. The matter affects 6,000 or 7,000 season-ticket holders,

    2361
    and their request was that for a certain period of time—three, four or five years—no alteration of the season-ticket fares should be permitted.
    Mr. PETO: When I saw this Bill in the form in which it has passed the Committee I looked through it in search of a Clause giving some guarantee not only to season-ticket holders, but to the general inhabitants of Southend, that the facilities which they have had for cheap travel, and in consequence of which they have gone to live at Southend, would be secured to them under this amalgamation, but from beginning to end I could find nothing of the sort. I have since heard, quite by a side-wind, that there is a letter or something of that kind, which is not incorporated in the Bill, but is supposed to satisfy these people, promising that for some period their rights as season-ticket holders and travellers will not be interfered with. That seems to me to be an altogether irregular arrangement. If the protest made by the Southend Season Ticket Holders' and Railway Travellers' Association has been met, the arrangement ought to be in the Bill. There ought not to be put forward for Third Reading a measure which is not really the Bill which is being passed, but a part of the Bill with some sort of secret arrangement which may or may not satisfy the people concerned. The Bill provides for the purchase of the London, Tilbury and Southend Railway by the Midland Railway Company, and there are a large body of people living at Southend who have gone to live there mainly, if not entirely, because of the cheap facilities for travelling which they have enjoyed. They have no guarantee whatever that those facilities will be continued. Clause 10 is perfectly vague in its terms, and I believe it will be absolutely inoperative and useless, applying as it does only to the maximum fares that may be charged. Clause 13, which is described in the margin as being for the "protection of the Southend Corporation and others," deals simply with the question of service, and leaves a loophole for the amalgamated companies to say at any time that the accommodation at Fenchurch Street Station does not admit of their in-proving the service. There is not a word about any guarantee that the fares hitherto charged shall be continued. I understand that an arrangement has been come to that for three years the fares shall not be raised. Here we have an amalgamation
    2362
    in the nature of those amalgamations and working agreements in connection with which there is a general Bill before the House. When there has been introduced a Bill dealing with the whole of this great question, it is really a monstrous thing that one of these amalgamations should be pushed through, and, while the question of the advantages which shall accrue to the shareholders is dealt with, the interests of those who are really more deeply concerned, namely, those who live on the railway and day by day travel by it, are absolutely ignored. At the end of the three years the amalgamated companies, having no competition whatever to face, will be able to do anything they please with these people. I submit that we are entitled to a full explanation of why this Bill does not include the whole arrangement come to in Committee, and why that arrangement is not one laying down a perfectly solid and sound principle. If, in consequence of any of these amalgamations or working agreements, or of the purchase by one company of the undertaking of another company, there are going to be great economies in the working, we ought to be assured that not only the shareholders, but the travelling and trading public and those employed in the railway service will have their share of those economies which are put forward as justifying Bills of this kind.
    Sir J. COMPTON-RICKETT: I have had no communication with either of the parties in relation to this Bill. I hardly knew it was going to be opposed to-night. Still, as Chairman of the Committee, though I have not had the opportunity of looking up the case, I am quite prepared to give a short account of the reasons which determined the Committee upstairs to pass the Bill. In the first place, the Bill is not an ordinary amalgamation. The Midland, and the London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Companies were not competitive railways for the traffic of Southend or any portion of that coast in Essex. The Bill really means a prolongation of the Midland Railway, which is of very considerable advantage and value to those who reside in that district. The railway is some 50 miles in extent from London, and includes a loop line to the Port of Tilbury. The competition that will exist will be the competition that did exist—the competition of the Great Eastern Railway. The Great Eastern Railway will be the competitive line to

    2363
    Southend and to many parts of that district. The binding down of a railway to a rate for season tickets or for fares is most unusual. It is, indeed, very seldom done. It is very seldom allowed upstairs and very seldom imposed by this House. The only case that was mentioned to us—the only case made—was the case of the Chatham and South-Eastern, two lines in competition which amalgamated, and where the interests of the public demanded some sort of security against increased rates.
    Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the special Clause in the Taff Vale Bill in 1899?
    Sir J. COMPTON-RICKETT: I do not pretend to carry all the precedents in my head, and it may have been so in relation to Taff Vale, but it is a very unusual thing to do. The Committee thought it so unusual and so unnecessary that they did not regard it as a right and a proper thing to put in the Bill. There are circumstances that may make for the reduction or the efficiency of the railway. There may be a general rise in the cost of the working of railways all over the country, and it would be unfair to bind the Midland Company. At any rate, the interests of the Midland are the development of Southend, more particularly since the Committee have bound them to come to Parliament, not later than 1914, and apply for powers to electrify the whole line to Southend; to widen the line from Bromley-by-Bow to Stepney station, and probably as a necessary sequel to rebuild the station at Fenchurch Street. This will involve a very large expenditure, so much so that it was too great for the Tilbury Line to undertake. If they had tried and had not succeeded with it, it would have brought down the dividend of the Tilbury Line by leaps and bounds. The Midland Company having larger capital, the venture seemed to be fair and reasonable. We have not been content with the promise or the anticipation of these alterations of the Tilbury Line. We have bound the Midland Company to inaugurate the matter not later than 1914 and to carry it out in seven years subsequent to obtaining the powers. That is the usual term allowed to county councils in respect of tramway lines.
    The Corporation of Southend applied to the Midland Company for some protection in the case of the season ticket holders.
    2364
    The only case that appeared to affect the judgment of the Committee was where a number of people had taken houses for short terms of two or three years on the strength of the cheap tickets. A rise in the ticket rates might affect them. We thought that there should be some provision for these who thus occupied houses and were not able to clear themselves of their agreements for some time. The Corporation of Southend and the Midland Railway Company agreed upon one and a half years, and that was embodied in an agreement outside the Midland Bill. We heard the appeal of a number of holders of tickets to Southend, and we threw out the suggestion that the Midland should make the terms three years instead of one and a half. This was done outside the Bill. We distinctly refused to put it into the Bill. The Midland Company have bound themselves by statements made in the Committee upstairs and in other ways. They have certainly bound themselves for three years to make no changes in these tickets. Those who appealed to us were quite satisfied and apparently thankfully accepted the offer. So much for the tickets. The line itself will be very much improved by the transaction. The Port of Tilbury is likely to be largely increased in the future. We have secured access to it for a number of other railways, and we have given powers to the Great Northern to run to Tilbury. If this Bill is prejudiced or retarded, not only is the work of electrifying and developing the district to be put back, but the arrangements made to work with the Port Authority and to develop the Port of Tilbury will also be set back. I know no reason that this Bill, which occupied the Committee for ten or twelve days—or perhaps it was fourteen—should not go through. A great deal of evidence was taken and a very great deal of care was exercised, and I strongly advise the House to pass the Bill.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNE: I have a complaint to make, because I understand that in all these Bills the Board of Trade have something to say about the matter. It appears to me that the Board of Trade have not altogether done their duty in this connection. I think the President of the Board will remember that on more than one occasion—on more than a dozen occasions in fact—I have made complaint to the Board of Trade in consequence of the London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Company switching over the major part of

    2365
    their passenger traffic to the District Railway. In consequence of that there is congestion of the trains that run between Aldgate and East Ham and Barking. At Upton Park, in my Division, there is a very large railway works where the London and Tilbury Company make their engines. I understand that the company have given a guarantee that those works will be maintained for three years. When the Gas Light and Coke Company brought forward the Bill to absorb the West Ham Gas Company we had exactly the same Clause in that Bill. What has happened? The result has been that they have practically discharged half the men, and their works have been practically transferred elsewhere. What will happen here? I guarantee that in less than three years these works will be closed, and to a very large extent will injure the borough of West Ham. The assessments will go down, and the engines now made at Upton Park will be taken to Derby, which is a great centre of the Midland Railway Company. I hope and trust that the Board of Trade will see that the working classes get more protection than at present, and that something is done to relieve the congestion of traffic. I think something might have been done to compel this particular railway company to run more trains between East Ham and Fenchurch Street Station. It is too late now to attempt to throw out the Bill, but I put forward these points, and I hope in the future the Board of Trade will be more careful in matters of this sort.
    Mr. A. C. MORTON: When this Bill was before the House for Second Reading we were reminded of the fact that the company were not to alter the price of the season tickets until the end of next year. When the Bill came before the Committee people who held season tickets were represented, and the Committee were told that there was to be an arrangement by which it was to be agreed that the season tickets were not to be altered in price in any shape or form for three years. We are now told that there is no security for that agreement being carried out.
    Mr. J. W. HILLS: Oh, yes, there is—a perfectly binding bargain that these fares shall not be raised for three years.
    Mr. MORTON: That is what I want to be quite sure about. It is not in the Bill, and I want to know can anyone give, a guarantee on behalf of the company that
    2366
    the prices of these season tickets will not be raised for three years. It must not be forgotten that we are much concerned in this matter in the City, because those people who come to the City and work there use this railway and have the benefit of the cheap tickets. If we can get some undertaking from some representative of the company whereby these people can be quite sure that for three years the undertaking will be effective and binding, I should have nothing further to say. I do not know whether the Board of Trade can help us. They are usually more inclined to help the companies, but if we can get this undertaking in a shape that will be effective it would satisfy us, and I do hope we shall hear something to that effect.
    Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has raised the point that I intended to mention. Will a copy of the agreement be lodged with the Board of Trade so as to safeguard the season-ticket holders? If an undertaking can be given by the railway company that will have the force of law, I think it would meet the point. Personally, I am prepared to accept the word of the railway company. I believe if the promise was given to the Chairman of the Committee it might reasonably be accepted; but in this case we are dealing with the interests of a body of people who have not the same conception and knowledge of Parliamentary practice that we enjoy in this House, and therefore it is necessary that we should be able to give this undertaking, not only the force of the bargain, but legal sanction as well. For my part I have no desire to prevent the Bill passing its Third Reading. I take up a similar attitude to that advanced by other speakers on these benches. For my part I believe that whatever special undertaking is given, it will ultimately be in the competence of a railway company like this to revise the conditions, and, of course, they have a right to do that. I think it is quite reasonable for us to ask that somebody on behalf of the railway company or acting for them should give us an undertaking that during the next three years there shall be no alteration of the rates to the detriment of the season-ticket holders. My hon. Friend who introduced this discussion made reference to proceedings before a Departmental Committee of which I was a Member. He urged that economies effected under amalgamation should be shared by the public and the employés of the railway concerned, and

    2367
    should not be devoted exclusively to the interests of the shareholders and directors. I am in agreement with him there, but I also agree with the Chairman of the Committee that considered this Bill, that these circumstances hardly apply here. This is hardly a question of amalgamation; it is simply the prolongation of an existing system. For my part I recognise the great danger to the public that exists in these extensions of amalgamation, and I only hope that my hon. Friends have arrived at the same conclusion that I have, that after all there is no possible safeguard for the interests of the public short of the acquisition of the railway system. Of course, to argue that question would not be in order to-night, and I think the only point we need concern ourselves about is, whether those for whom we are acting shall have positive assurance that the undertaking given has legal sanction.
    Mr. HILLS: I have not myself seen this agreement, but I am informed that it is absolutely and legally binding and is of a character that a season-ticket holder whose fare was raised could go to the Courts and prevent the company from raising his fare. I give my assurance that that is the intention, and that that should be the legal effect of the agreement. I quite agree with what fell from the right hon. Gentleman who was Chairman of the Committee. The agreement was not embodied in the Bill, but that was not with a view to making it less binding; it is an absolutely binding agreement, and is in strictly legal form. There is not the slightest intention at the present time on the part of the Midland Railway to raise these fares, and there are many reasons why that should be so. In the first place, the company wish to attract traffic. They realise also that a large part of the season ticket traffic depends upon cheap fares; they have very strong competition, and they know that if they raise these fares they would lose that traffic. This Bill was discussed at great length; it was for ten days before a Committee of this House, and it was also discussed on Second Reading. I think I have endeavoured to satisfy all the objections raised, and I hope the House will now allow it to be read the third time.
    Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time," put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

    WEST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE ASYLUMS BILL [Lords]. (By Order.)
    As amended, considered; Amendments (proposed by the promoters) agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time." [The Deputy Chairman.]
    Mr. BOOTH: I have a Motion down on the Paper which I do not move, conveying my opinion with regard to a desirable Amendment which I sought to effect. I recognise that the matter was discussed upon the Second Reading, and the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Lane-Fox) and the hon. Member for South Leeds (Mr. Middlebrook) spoke on that occasion; and treated those of us who presented my view with respect, and therefore I do not think it would be right to go over the same ground again. I would, however, say that I must express my deep regret that the work of the Poor Law guardians in the West Riding has not been recognised as I should have wished in the framing of this Bill. There may have been some difficulties, but at the same time there are chairmen of boards of guardians and clerks of distinguished ability who have had as much experience in the treatment of lunatics as any persons in the country can have had, and their services and experience have not been utilised by giving them representation on the Board. I wish to protest against legislation on this subject proceeding on those lines, assuming that the guardians are people who have failed, and consequently ought not to have any representation. Some indications have been given of future legislation on the Poor Law, and that must embrace the treatment of pauper lunatics. I hope when the House approaches this question again there will be a little more sympathy shown to the guardians and the officials of Poor Law unions, who are experts on this matter are now serving the public in an excellent way. It will be a pity if legislation continues to proceed on these lines without these people receiving some consideration, and without them being invited to help the State in this larger sphere.
    I will content myself by making my protest in this way. I cannot believe that the county councils and the county borough councils have really lost confidence in other public authorities, and I do not believe for a moment that they do not appreciate the work of the guardians,

    2369
    although this Bill entirely ignores them. My own Constituency is a small and humble one, but it is an ancient part of the West Riding, and although my own board of guardians feel very strongly on this matter, we cannot hope to carry our policy against the larger towns and the county council itself—in fact, we are like lambs at the mercy of wolves. At the same time I am conscious that if I went into the Lobby I might not get another hon. Member representing the West Riding to vote with me, although to a certain extent I have the sympathy of some of them. Nevertheless my own opinion has not changed. I may say that if I had chosen to exhaust the forms of the House I do not think this Bill could have passed before the holidays, but I do not think it would be fair upon private legislation to allow myself to be guilty of adopting what I might call indirect methods of defeating a Bill. At any rate, I am not one who would introduce those practices into private Bill conduct. This is the only opportunity I shall have of expressing my regret that guardians are not recognised in this matter and their work fully appreciated. I hope when the House comes to pass future legislation on this subject we shall give credit where credit is due, and call to the assistance of the State men who have done such excellent public service.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: I am glad the hon. Member for Pontefract has withdrawn his opposition to this measure. The hon Member has suggested that this Bill contained a direct attack upon the character of boards of guardians, but it does nothing of the sort. The work of the guardians has been fully recognised, and there is nothing to suggest that they are not capable of doing their work or have not done it well in the past. The only reasons why the guardians were not given direct representation on the new Asylums Board set in motion by this Bill was that it was found perfectly impossible to give representation to all the various bodies in different parts of the constituency. It is obvious that the boards of guardians could not have had the same representation as other bodies without giving them complete control of the whole thing. This claim for representation of the guardians was made before the Committee in another place, and it was abandoned because it was found to be absolutely impossible, and the question really ought not to have been raised again in view of that fact. I wish to state that the county council have no
    2370
    desir whatever to cast any slur upon the board of guardians in the West Riding. We wish to have their co-operation in the future, and there is nothing in this Bill which in any way reflects upon them.
    Sir JOHN SPEAR: I wish to support the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract. Although there may have been no intention of discouragement to the guardians yet the establishment of this board is in direct opposition to their appeal, and I think in opposition to the sound principle of representation that those who contribute to the expenditure should be represented. Out of the thirty-eight boards of guardians in the West Riding thirty-one appealed against the establishment of this board, and they represent a population of 2,983,228 out of a total population of 3,045,749. Those who appealed against it represent a rateable value of £15,000,000 out of a total of £15,435,000. The point is this: The guardians contribute £150,000 per annum to the cost of lunatics in the West Riding, and yet under the Bill they will not have any reperesentation or any voice in the expenditure of that money. We feel, as representatives of boards of guardians, it is an unsound and unfair principle that while the guardians, through the rates, contribute this large sum of £150,000 per annum, they should have no power whatever to compel the board to make the necessary provision for the patients they will have to send. I join in the protest of the hon. Member for Pontefract.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPRO-PRIATION) BILL.
    Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Question again proposed, Debate resumed.

    PORT OF LONDON (STRIKE).
    Mr. W. THORNE: I desire to support my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), and to plead with the Home Secretary to give us an inquiry into the charges that have been raised in consequence of the attitude of the police yesterday at 12.45. I should say that at the present moment we have

    2371
    in the borough of West Ham more people with broken heads, bruised limbs, and black eyes than there are in any other Division in the country. On 31st May, when a deputation from the Strike Committee waited upon the Home Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and others, we entered our emphatic protest against the attitude taken up by the police in different parts of South and North London, and from that day until yesterday we have made many complaints inside and outside this House. My hon. Friend the Member for East Leeds (Mr. O'Grady) has raised the question on one occasion, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) has also raised the question of the brutal way in which the police have dealt with the men out on strike during the past ten weeks. I am very anxious to hear what the Home Secretary has to say, because, if we can be assured an Inquiry will be given. I think that will satisfy the whole of the Members of the Labour party, and I am quite sure it will give a great deal of satisfaction to the bulk of my Constituents. Last night a small deputation waited on the Home Secretary, and I think he was very much impressed by the statements made. Two of the deputation were foremen working for a particular line of boats. They were ordered by the firm to go out to take men on outside the Victoria Dock, and to their very great surprise, about 12.45 yesterday, for some reason or other best known to himself, Inspector Boxall brought a very large number of mounted police from Connaught Road up the Victoria Dock Road, and he marched them past Freemasons Road, ordered them to block up one side of the road, and then marched them down again in order to block up the other side. If there had been any trouble, one could have understood the inspector giving the word to charge, but those men, about 500 stevedores, were standing on a stand which has been given to them and which has been sanctioned by the Chief Commissioner of Police, and there was no trouble of any kind.
    9.0 P.M.
    It is quite true the Chief Commissioner has removed them from the stand on two or three occasions for the convenience of the public, and the men have acquiesced in that, and have been satisfied so long as they have had a stand; but they have had this particular stand for nine years, and during the twenty-seven years I have lived in the borough the stevedores have always been
    2372
    taken on at this particular spot. There were yesterday 500 men standing there waiting. Foremen Lewis and Wicks came out to take the men on for the ship that was to be unloaded, and five minutes before the men were supposed to start work the order was given for the police to charge, with the result that a great number of men, women, and children were severely injured. There were about fifteen men locked up altogether, and one man was charged this morning at the West Ham Police Court. I heard the whole of the trial, and the stipendiary magistrate, who has not been very partial towards the strikers, dealing, in fact, in some cases very severely with them, in consequence of the evidence given by the man Read and his witnesses, clearly showing there were unprovoked assaults committed by the police, dismissed the case. That goes to prove there is some justification for asking for an inquiry. An inquiry was given not long ago in connection with some little trouble at Bermondsey. This case is far more glaring, because, whilst in that case it was proved on evidence there was some little trouble before the police commenced to clear the road, in this case there was no trouble of any kind.
    It may be said the police cleared the road in consequence of what happened early yesterday morning at the Albert Docks and at Silvertown. I was in the Court and heard the Silvertown case, where a man was charged with shooting another one. The place where the shooting occurred was at least a mile away from where the charge by the police was made yesterday. I am not in a position to say whether the police were seeking revenge or not. The deputation last night asked for some protection, and we were led to understand that some protection would be given this morning. A man who was on the stand—Foreman Wicks—came and saw me this morning, and he swears that at about ten minutes to seven, ten minutes before the men were to be taken on, the police, for some reason or other, came along, and, although they did not use the same forcible methods as they used yesterday, they, at any rate, used sufficient force to clear the men out. The men did not want to be beaten a second time, and the result was they walked away. The result was instead of eight gangs of men being taken on to unload this particular ship, when it was found that the men were not forthcoming others were employed in their place. I hope an inquiry will be granted. The Home Secretary may, of course,

    2373
    suggest that, as ten of the cases stand adjourned until next Thursday, he cannot announce a definite decision. But I reply that, in view of the evidence given this morning, as the result of which a particular individual was discharged, there is primâ facie ground for an inquiry. If the right hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance that if anything like a reasonable ground for inquiry is made out in this particular case, I will not press for a general inquiry into the conduct of the police. I hope also we shall have some assurance that when these men appear on the stand again tomorrow, a stand which they have been allowed to occupy for the last nine years, they will not be scattered by the police. If the right hon. Gentleman will give that assurance, it will be some little satisfaction to the men. Let it be remembered that if they are not allowed to use this stand they have no other stand to go to.
    Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich): One would imagine from the speeches we have heard from hon. Members opposite that there can be no blame whatever attaching to the strikers, and that it is the non-union men who have set out to assault the strikers. We have heard this sort of statement before, and I cannot help thinking that the House will feel that it is not the non-union men who are to blame for the trouble that has taken place. That may appear to be a bold statement, but I make it after a clear contemplation of the various matters connected with this unfortunate dock strike. It must be admitted, after all, it is a great pity that the men were called out on such a flimsy excuse—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must confine himself to matters under the control of the Home Secretary. He cannot discuss questions outside.
    Mr. F. HALL: I submit that these are matters within the jurisdiction of the Home Secretary, and that he, to a very large extent, is to blame for the continuance of the strike. The right hon. Gentleman may smile, but I think the facts I can quote are sufficiently plain to show that the reason for the strike continuing in the way it has done is to be found in the lack of strength and force displayed by the Home Secretary. The Prime Minister laid it down distinctly that protection should be given to all men who were desirous of working. Did the Home Secretary carry out that desire? I say he did not, and had not the Prime Minister returned at the time he did to the House of Commons in all probability there
    2374
    would have been many more broken heads than there have been. I do not propose to deal with the position of the stand which these men took up yesterday, but I wish to point out that the Home Secretary, during the whole of these troubles, has gone out of his way to support in every possible manner the strikers, and wherever protection has been required for non-union men he has shown entire sympathy with those who left their work and were more or less annoyed that free labour should take their place. We have had an expression from the right hon. Gentleman that never before has been used by any right hon. Gentleman occupying his important position in the State. We had a term used in regard to these men of, to my mind, a most opprobious nature—one which certainly ought not to be used to free labour, or to any man who is entitled to sell his labour for what he may consider its value. It ill becomes any right, hon. Gentleman to use the form "blackleg" towards free labour.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): Will the hon. Gentleman quote?
    Mr. F. HALL: I am not in a position to quote, but I will ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can deny that he used that particular expression in reply to a question I placed plainly before him. I say he used the phrase, and it is a phrase which no one occupying his high position should use under any circumstances, towards free labour.
    Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Member cannot quote the exact words will he name the occasion when, as he says, I used the term "blackleg"? I notice he has himself used it.
    Mr. F. HALL: I used the word "blackleg" in order to make my point clear against the right hon. Gentleman. I used the word, but I simply quoted it as the expression used by him. The right hon. Gentleman has challenged me to produce the exact reply he gave. If I am not making a correct statement he can say he has not been able to trace that he used any such expression in reply to any question I put to him, but, although he is looking particularly innocent in this matter, I think he cannot fail to remember that I drew his attention to it at the time, although I was unfortunately not able to do it so closely in the presence of hon. Members as I am doing at the present moment. If the right hon. Gentleman's memory

    2375
    happens to be so very bad, perhaps he will, under the circumstances, kindly look at the questions I have put to him and the answers he has given. He will find that the expression I referred to was used by him in reply to a question put by me. With regard to these unfortunate free labourers, they are men who are desirous of working and providing food and raiment for their wives and children. [Laughter.] We must, be surprised at hon. Members below the Gangway opposite smiling at my speaking of the wives and families of free labourers.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: We were thinking of Belfast.
    Mr. F. HALL: I shall perhaps be able to answer the hon. Member by referring to the attention paid by the Chief Secretary of Ireland to matters in Belfast, and perhaps he will not then be in so much of a hurry to challenge me on that point. I was discussing the question of the wives and children of the free labourers. They require the same care and attention as do the wives and children of the strikers. It is just as necessary that their mouths should be filled as it is that the mouths of the wives and children of the strikers should be filled. I hope that the lesson which has been taught by this unfortunate ten weeks' struggle will bear good fruit, and that many a long day may come before we are thrown into such troublesome times again. I do not know whether the House realises to what extent these labour troubles demoralise the entire trade of this country. Those who know anything with regard to the shipping industry and the ships coming to this country should fully appreciate that in many cases business is lost.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This Debate is raised in order to criticise the Home Secretary's action in respect to the dock strike. The hon. Member must not enter into its general merits.
    Mr. F. HALL: I am sorry you have found it necessary to call me to Order again. Unfortunately I have not had an opportunity of bringing many of these matters before the House. I shall bow to your ruling, but, under the circumstances, I shall be prohibited from bringing many important points before the House which I was desirous of doing. I hope I may be permitted to mention the unfortunate disturbances which occurred yesterday. The hon. Member for South-West Ham (Mr.
    2376
    W. Thorne) boasted that there were more broken heads in West Ham than in any other constituency throughout the country. I should like to ask whose are the broken heads—are they the heads of the strikers?
    Mr. W. THORNE: Yes.
    Mr. F. HALL: Or are they the heads of those who unfortunately were surrounded by the strikers when they were on their way to endeavour to earn their living?
    Mr. W. THORNE: The heads I was referring to were the heads broken by the police.
    Mr. F. HALL: This is the first time we have had that plainly placed before us.
    Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—
    Mr. F. HALL: I am glad that the hon. Member has made it plain who he blames for these broken heads. I think it is rather unfair to charge the police with it, although we are in the habit of hearing charges brought in this House against the police. I think the hon. Member would have been better advised if he had not blamed the police for these unfortunate accidents. As the Home Secretary quite rightly agreed that an inquiry should be made into the case of Rotherhithe, I can quite understand the hon. Member asking for a similar inquiry now. I believe that if a clear, open, and free inquiry is held, from my knowledge of the manner in which the police generally discharge their duties they will come out of it with perfectly clean hands. I desire to refer to the firm with whom this trouble arose, the firm of Houlder Bros. The right hon. Gentleman spoke in a very vindictive manner with regard to that firm at the outset. I must say I was a little surprised at the Home Secretary, when the trouble first started, and when he was questioned as to whether he was prepared to find sufficient police to protect the labourers at Grays, saying, as soon as the name was mentioned, "Yes, we know Houlder's." That is hardly a remark which should have been forthcoming at that juncture from the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that in the discussions which may take place in future he will not be in such a hurry, whatever his own opinions may be, to ventilate them with the freedom he did at that time. A question was raised just now with regard to the trouble at Belfast. It seems to me

    2377
    that if there is any interference or kicking or bludgeoning in Belfast the Chief Secretary promptly deals with it in a manner that is advisable; and if the Home Secretary had adopted the same attitude when these troubles first transpired; if he had shown a certain amount of tenacity; if he had shown a force of character with regard to these matters, an enormous amount of this suffering would never have taken place. I trust that in future the right hon. Gentleman will make himself acquainted with the whole facts before he discusses the matter in the House, and I hope he will have the courage of his own convictions to deal with these matters in a way that the country itself will appreciate.
    Mr. CROOKS: The hon. Member has made out rather a poor case for the ship-owners. There would have been no such trouble as happened yesterday if the ship-owners had had the good sense to see that the men were taken on in the proper manner, and not driven about as they were. Instead of being condemned the right hon. Gentleman ought to be praised by the shipowners' representatives. He has given protection so great and so successful from their standpoint that he was able to keep London going, and to keep a good many thousand men out in the meantime. We say that more than adequate protection was given, and I do not know exactly what it is that the shipowners really wanted. If it had not been for the personal interference of more than one Labour Member there would have been some serious rioting going on in the last nine or ten weeks. Let the House imagine, if it can, what happened a fortnight ago. We know the men were hungry and were exasperated. A raid was made upon a rectory in the East End. I was asked to go and say a few words to calm the men down. I went and said a kindly word and got them laughing. The women had refused to accept food because the men could not share in it. So you had women and men very angry at the administration of the relief. With that multitude of people demanding food, in came a convoy with nearly a hundred police, forty or fifty of them mounted. Had the people a right to assemble in the streets at all? The men were anxiously waiting for an opportunity of feeding their wives and children and they were laughed at and scorned by a convoy protected by the Home Secretary, the man you now condemn, who gave
    2378
    you everything you wanted and the man you ought to have, from your standpoint. There ought to be the same fair play given to the strikers as to the men who blacklegged. With all this exasperation going on you insist on the very last ounce out of the men who are standing out The hon. Member says that the strike would have ended long ago if proper protection had been given. On the contrary. These are men that you would not want to keep for twenty-four hours when you can get your proper people in—these wonderful men with their starving wives and families.
    Mr. F. HALL: Under these circumstances, does not the hon. Member agree with the attitude of the Prime Minister, that full protection should be given to all men who were desirous of working?
    Mr. CROOKS: Yes, and your men were getting the protection and not our men at all. That is what we complain about. Your men were getting the full and adequate and proper protection to the exasperation of men, women and children whom your protection starved in the meantime. If the shipowners had not got all the protection they demanded they would have been bound to concede the men's demands long ago. It was that very action that kept them out. We had yesterday broken heads, and they were not the broken heads of the blacklegs, but of the men who had been on strike. The hon. Member says, look after these free and independent citizens who desire to sell their labour as they think fit, and undersell their poor, half-starved brothers at the best of times. I have seen these men. You would not own them if you saw them yourself, but they wore convenient tools. They were housed in the docks and kept there. They armed themselves with revolvers, and had the police to protect them in addition. Yesterday the stevedores were taken on from the corner of the street at a place allocated by the Metropolitan Police. A stand has been given, and when it has been inconvenient to stand at one, corner the police have asked them to remove to another, and they have marked it off as their stand for being called on. The average London docker is not the kind of man you will find in other parts of the country. He is a kindly, genial, good-tempered, humorous fellow: a kindly word, and you may do anything with him. I have been

    2379
    in the most violent crowds, and, after all, they have not always been on my side. I have had to stand up to opposition, and pretty stiff, too; but I have always found that a kindly word simply swept them off their feet. I have known London policemen who have had to grapple with crowds in the street with this kind of thing: "Now, Jack, do you want to get me into trouble, and have me reported in the House of Commons?" "No, governor, that is all right," and he clears off. No such thing happened yesterday. The crowd was broken up, and all sorts of people were trampled on who had nothing to do with it. They even raided shops, and one fellow was dragged out from behind a jeweller's shop, where he had gone, not to thieve anything, but only to protect himself. Surely we have a right to say to the authority which represents the police in London, "How was it these men lost their heads, and what compensation are these poor people to get?" All we can get is, "You give inadequate protection." You give too much protection for the wrong people.
    This strike has been prolonged owing to too much police protection, and the shipowners knew that perfectly well. They knew they had their goods on the move: barges in the river manned by blacklegs, and vans coming up Commercial Road with plenty of food and plenty of everything. What need they care? They knew they only had to keep on long enough. They had the police on their side, and law and order protecting some people's starving children. You ought to see these men. I should be surprised if the vast majority of them had wives and children whom they were responsible for at all. We are entitled to protest against being told we are not doing our duty to them when we seem to have done too much, and we have a right to complain that someone yesterday did not use his discretion. If they wanted to remove these men from the street they might have done it in a gentle manner. I wonder what would be said in Piccadilly when respectable citizens of the British Empire are turning out from the Hippodrome and stopping the traffic, and my Lord Tomnoddy's motor-car is being called for. Does the policeman say, "Now then, out of it. Charge. Clear them out"? Not a bit. "Pass along gentlemen, please." There is no "Pass along" for these dockers. It is "Charge them." Then you ask for liberty, justice, freedom, and fair
    2380
    play all round. That is all we have been asking for.
    Mr. McKENNA: Before I turn to the serious matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), I must say a word in reply to the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Fred Hall). For many weeks now the hon. Member has been seeking an opportunity to attack me with regard to my action in connection with the strike. He has put innumerable questions to me. His attack, so far, had been by innuendo and insinuation. Tonight his opportunity has come, and the House has heard what he has to say. He has made two specific charges, and only two, against me. I do not refer to his abuse, and I do not intend to answer that abuse. The first specific charge was that I had used the term "blackleg" in this House. That is a serious charge against me. I asked him to quote, and he could not quote. I wanted him to quote, because if he had done so, it would have clearly appeared in what sense I used the word.
    Mr. F. HALL: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's challenge, and if he will allow me to show it to him to-morrow, I will do so. I made a perfectly open and fair charge.
    Mr. McKENNA: If he had quoted, it would have become clear that I used the word precisely in the way he used it himself, that is to say, by quoting it as used by somebody else. It is perfectly proper for him to use the word in quoting; but apparently it is perfectly improper if I use it in answering an hon. Member who used the word. He tells me now that he will quote it to-morrow. Let me remind the hon. Member of what happened last week. In a supplementary question in this House he alleged that I had said that there had been no intimidation in the strike. I challenged him to quote my words, and he replied, "I have not them here, but the hon. Member shall have them to-morrow."
    Mr. F. HALL: I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to show any report to that effect—any report of these words.
    Mr. McKENNA: I am still waiting for that quotation. I even thought of writing to the hon. Gentleman for it, but, after all, I thought it was hardly worth while. So much for this specific charge. I should not have used the word "blackleg" myself in the House, not that I think it an objectionable term—
    Mr. F. HALL: Oh!
    Mr. McKENNA: Nor a term that might not in many circumstances be most properly used; but I did not wish to use a term that raises an unnecessary amount of friction, and therefore I avoided it. That is what I have to say about the first charge. The second specific charge was with reference to the case of Mr. Houlder. The hon. Member alleged that all the trouble yesterday was due to my treatment of Mr. Houlder. First of all, let me say that the trouble of Mr. Houlder was at the East India Dock. The trouble we have, been dealing with to-night was at the Victoria Dock. That is a little matter of geography. In regard to Mr. Houlder and the East India Dock, I have to state that yesterday Mr. Houlder called at the Home Office at a quarter-past ten. Within five minutes of calling he was seen by my private secretary, and within a quarter of an hour he was seen by the Permanent Under-Secretary. Within half an hour of the time he called at the Home Office policemen had been sent by the chief constable to the East India Dock. They were not sent on the request of Mr. Houlder. They were sent on the request of the Port of London Authority, which was the proper authority to request police, and the number sent was forty, which was the number asked for by the Port of London Authority. When Mr. Houlder comes down to the House of Commons, or writes to the "Times" saying that I refused to see him, I reply that I refused to see him because I was busy elsewhere, and that the purport of Mr. Houlder's visit to me had already been dealt with seven hours before by the Chief Commissioner of Police, who had transacted business with the Port of London Authority, which was the right authority to deal with in the matter. These are the hon. Gentleman's two charges against me. After ten weeks that is all the evidence he can accumulate. [An HON. MEMBER: "Leave him alone."] I had an interview with the Chief Commissioner of Police this afternoon, and it bears out what my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks) has said. I asked him whether in the whole course of this strike any single application for protection had been refused, and he told me that not in a single instance had it been refused. That is why the hon. Member has no evidence to bring before the House. He wanted the truth out, and that is the answer. I now turn to the more serious matter referred to by my hon. Friend the Member
    2382
    for Leicester, who brought the case before the House in a very fair speech. He also gave me the advantage of notice in advance of the precise circumstances which he proposed to raise. I must at the outset say in connection with the disturbance which took place at the Victoria Dock yesterday about one o'clock that twelve arrests were made. In one case the person accused has been discharged. In a number of other cases the prisoners have been remanded.
    Mr. W. THORNE: That was not done yesterday.
    Mr. McKENNA: I am not entering into that. I wish to make clear to the House that the facts of this case are all at present sub judice, and that it is, therefore, most undesirable to enter into the circumstances in a controversial spirit. I recognise that what I say in reply to the hon. Member is an ex parte statement, and must not be taken as prejudicing the position of the men who have still to come up for trial. But the charge is made against the police of harsh conduct, and it is necessary, at any rate, so far as I can go while the case is still sub judice, that a statement should be made by me in order to remove any impression hon. Members might have that there was no answer to the charge. What happened yesterday at the Victoria Dock must not be taken as an isolated fact. Between six and seven in the morning there had been a most serious disturbance at the same dock. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was right in the dock."] I must explain the locale so far as I can. The Victoria Dock Road runs along the length of the dock wall. At a point not far from the Custom House Station there is a bridge at the corner of the road into the dock. Early yesterday morning, after the non-union men were at work inside the dock, a rush was made from the Victoria Dock Road over this bridge, and undoubtedly a very severe attack was made upon a number of young men working on a ship called the "City of Colombo."
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the shipowners were insisting upon the men being taken on in the dock and that the men were going over the bridge into the dock for that purpose?
    Mr. McKENNA: Whatever their intention in crossing the bridge, when they got inside the dock undoubtedly there was a

    2383
    serious disturbance. Shots were fired on both sides, one striker was wounded by a bullet and two non-union men were wounded by bullets, and eventually the union men were driven back over the bridge and down Victoria Dock Road.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Is the right hon. Gentleman informed that a rush took place across the bridge, or is his statement that the bridge was used for communicating between the road and the dock in the ordinary business way?
    Mr. McKENNA: It is impossible for me to know the intention in every man's mind in crossing the bridge. All I know is that a large number of men did cross the bridge, and, being on the other side of the bridge and inside the dock, did make an attack upon the non-union men who were working on board the "City of Colombo." I cannot say that they had any intention of attacking anyone before they crossed the bridge, but undoubtedly they did make an attack after they crossed the bridge.
    Mr. CROOKS: They went in to be taken on.
    Mr. McKENNA: I am quite aware that they may have crossed the bridge with a perfectly innocent purpose, but being on the other side and seeing non-union men at work they attacked them, but their innocent intention could not be known to anybody else. All that morning there was a contingent of police stationed at the entrance from the Victoria Dock Road to this bridge to prevent any further trouble. The number of police—this is very material—stationed at the foot of this bridge was thirty men on foot and six mounted policemen and one inspector, or thirty-seven in all. That was on the Victoria Dock Road side of the bridge, to protect the entrance to the bridge and prevent any further people crossing the bridge or any further fighting inside the dock. About midday the non-union men came out of the dock and crossed the bridge to go to dinner. A number of them, therefore, at that time were in the shops or public-houses in the neighbourhood of Victoria Dock Road. About that time a crowd began to assemble on Victoria Dock Road. Here again the innocent purpose of the assembly is a matter which could only be known to the persons who assembled, but to the police who had already seen one very violent disturbance in the morning when revolver shots were
    2384
    fired, the appearance when a large crowd assembled and blocked the road, not merely on the side of the path, but blocked the road, and a crowd of the very same length as appeared at the dock in the morning, certainly presented elements which might lead them to the conclusion that there might be further trouble unless the crowd was dispersed.
    Of course, the House will understand that in my desire to say nothing which may prejudice the trial of the men, I am anxious to put the case merely as a statement of fact without any suggestion of motive. Therefore, I am merely saying what was in the minds of the police at the moment. I have stated that the total number of police at the foot of the bridge was thirty-seven in all. At that time a superintendent arrived with fourteen more mounted policemen, and he too surveyed the scene, which to him appeared to present considerable disorder, and an order was given to clear the road. The total number of police engaged from beginning to end was fifty-two, one superintendent, one inspector, twenty mounted police and thirty foot police, and the crowd with which they dealt is estimated variously from 1,200 to 2,000. I may take a middle figure of 1,500. I want to bring these facts and figures to the minds of hon. Members in order that we may clearly understand that there could not have been any such lining up and blocking of roads and picketing the side streets as was reported to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester. It would be a physical impossibility with fifty men to block up the edges of the street, to block up the side streets, to have pickets down the street, and still to have such a number of men left as would enable them to charge a crowd of 1,200 to 2,000 men and clear the road. There was, as I am informed, no blocking of streets. There was an order given to clear the roads. I am informed there was no order given to take out truncheons and no order was given to use them, but the road was cleared, and in order to clear the road undoubtedly the police went into shops on one side of the road, in order not to leave the crowd behind them to come out from the shops behind them as they passed down. The injuries done, I am informed, are not serious, except possibly in one case, and even that is not very serious. I understand that there was one man named Taylor, who was an ex-prize-fighter, and should be able to take care of himself.
    Mr. W. THORNE: They fetched him home out of the ladies' lavatory. He had nowhere else to go.
    Mr. McKENNA: I understand that he received a rather severe blow on the head, but with that exception I understand that no serious damage was done in any case, so that the use of truncheons cannot have been either general or brutal.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman admit that the police used their truncheons?
    Mr. McKENNA: In some cases they did, but it was not general. Inasmuch as there was not more than this one case of a head materially injured the use of the truncheon could not have been general. Those are the facts which I have stated to the House as fully and as fairly as I can—the facts as they have been reported to me. So long as the case is sub judice I think that we cannot gain any serious advantage by discussing it here. If, as a result of the trial before the magistrates, facts are disclosed which would justify me in promising an inquiry, I can assure my hon. Friend that I should no more hesitate to give an inquiry in this case, than I did in the case of the Rotherhithe disturbance, but before I make any promise of that kind I think that we should be acquainted with all sides as sworn to before the magistrate, and I hope that my hon. Friend will rest assured that if the circumstances disclosed are sufficient to justify an inquiry I shall have no hesitation in ordering one.
    Mr. W. THORNE: What about the stand that was taken this morning?
    Mr. McKENNA: I think that is the only one of the points put by my hon. Friend to which I have not referred. The difficulty about the stand was it was very close to the bridge and running up to the bridge, on the same side of the road as that over which the non-union men were going into the dock.
    Mr. W. THORNE: If you will send an inspector I will prove it is 150 yards away.
    Mr. McKENNA: If my hon. Friend states that, there is not much between us. I have seen the Chief Commissioner upon this point. This morning union men were not cleared out of the road. What happened was that they were pushed back 100 yards from this bridge, and the police had laid down, in the interests of order, that
    2386
    they should not be allowed to take up their stand nearer than 100 yards to the opening of the bridge. If my hon. Friend says they do not want to go nearer than 150 yards, then there is nothing in it. On the whole, certainly having regard to the feeling between union men and non-union men, to my mind the crowd should not take up its stand immediately adjoining the bridge. If my hon. Friends say they do not want to be nearer than 150 yards, and the police regulation is that they should not go nearer than 100 yards, then it is a regulation which can be considered satisfactory.

    CATTLE TESTING STATION (SURREY).
    10.0 P.M.
    MACMASTER: I wish to call the attention of the House and the Minister for Agriculture to the seriousness of the proposal of establishing what is called a testing station in that part of Surrey which I myself represent. The section of the county where it is proposed to establish this testing station to ascertain whether or not cattle are diseased is of a highly agricultural character. The people there are intimately connected with farming and other occupations of that kind, and to establish a station of the description to which I refered in a thickly settled portion of the country would apply not merely to the area immediately surrounding it, but to the military station at Aldershot to the great open market of Guildford, as well as to the supply of milk and butter and cheese to that market, is a matter of very serious import. There is more than one consideration to be borne in mind in this connection. In the first place, if it is necessary to establish a testing station, surely the last place in which to put it is in a section of the country so central, so densely populated and so intimately connected with agriculture as is that portion of Surrey where it is proposed to place it. It is suggested that one of the objects of this station is to secure certificates for healthy cattle to be exported to foreign countries and to British Dominions overseas. It is further suggested, and a representation has been made on the subject, that arrangements will be made for examining every animal admitted, and the most stringent precautions will be taken to prevent any possible spread of disease. This at once suggests that in a station of this kind disease will necessarily be found, and when discovered the cattle will be isolated there. That being the case, the effect must be very disastrous to the surrounding country and to the occupations of the

    2387
    people there. A large portion of the area is devoted to grazing as well as to agriculture, and the numerous herds which are now being grazed would have to be removed, so that those who devote themselves to the occupation of cattle-grazing would suffer correspondingly. There is another aspect of the subject. If it is necessary to have a station of that kind, surely it should be established in some remote part of the country which is not thickly settled, and which is not used for cattle-grazing or agriculture. I do not suppose that such an institution would be particularly desirable in any part of the United Kingdom, but if it is a necessity it seems to me that it should be established in some sparsely-settled area. If it is to be used for the certification of cattle for export when healthy, then, surely, instead of being put in a central portion of the South of England, it should be placed near some seaport, so that when the cattle had been examined and certified to be healthy and free from disease, they could be conveniently conveyed to the ships for the purpose of being sent abroad. I have had occasion to ask one or two questions of the President of the Board of Agriculture with regard to the advisability or inadvisability of establishing this institution where it is proposed, and the answers which I have received seem to suggest the neighbourhood of a common. But there are various farms and roads which abut upon a common, and therefore there is obvious danger of the spread of disease, more especially where the common is devoted to the purpose of grazing. I also asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would make some further local inquiry, and I have here a letter from the Department, which states—
    "No useful purpose would be served by the institution of a local inquiry or by a conference of local sanitary authorities. The Board do not propose to take any steps for that purpose."
    It seems to me, not merely from the point of view of the local industry, but from the point of view of general health and from the fact that there are large consignments of milk, butter and cheese from this community in Surrey to the small neighbouring towns and villages, to Guildford and Woking, and to the markets of the Metropolis, that the local sanitary authorities should be consulted as being very competent authorities in regard to a matter of this kind. If disease should be further spread in the neighbourhood from that
    2388
    station, it would affect the whole surrounding country, which is so largely devoted to cattle-grazing. It would also affect Guildford, which has a large cattle market. A great meeting was recently held in that portion of the country, when representatives came from miles around, and a resolution was unanimously adopted condemnatory of this proposal. In that meeting people of different political opinions participated, and there was uniform opinion as to the danger and inadvisability of this station. Some of the gentlemen who spoke are large cattle breeders, possessing large herds, and Mr. Selous, the distinguished African traveller and hunter, spoke of the danger of rinderpest and of disease overleaping the most careful boundaries which might be set about it. For my own part my experience in regard to these matters is limited, but from the information given to me it seems that the proposal is fraught with great danger, and that sufficient precaution has not been taken, and sufficient inquiry has not been made. Furthermore, it appears to me that it would be more suitable to establish such a station somewhere convenient to a port, where the difficulties could be more easily coped with, than in the centre of an agricultural country, where it is proposed to place it. I believe the subject is not only of local but of general interest, and I ask for it the attention of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Sir JOHN SPEAR: I ask the indulgence of the House while I—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member wish to speak on the same point?
    Sir J. SPEAR: No, I rose to speak on the question of the inadequacy of the Grant.
    Mr. SPEAKER: We had better dispose of this topic first.
    Mr. CAVE: I desire to ask the President of the Board to give an answer to my hon. Friend. The matter is one no doubt of local interest, but also, I think, of general interest, and of real importance. I gather that the object of the station in question is to test the cattle with a view to ascertaining whether they are subject to disease of a certain kind. It must follow that they are in some sense suspect, and that there is a probability of disease being found. If so, I do not understand why a testing station has been established, or is proposed to be established, in the midst of an agricultural country near a highway,

    2389
    and near other farms where there is pasture, and near other cattle; and in a position in which it might possibly be a centre from which disease might spread. It seems to me my hon. Friend is quite right in saying that if there must be—and I daresay there must be—a station of this kind, that it ought to be established at some point as near as possible to the coast, and as far as possible from other farms; and in such a place that the risk of spreading this great plague of cattle-disease is as little as possible. Clearly the place chosen is not a place of that kind. The proposal is condemned by the district council, as I understand, or, at all events, by those in the neighbourhood, as likely to lead to serious danger. I think, therefore, the House is entitled to an answer from the Board of Agriculture to the very serious complaint made.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): I can quite understand the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member who preceded him presenting this question on the information which they have apparently at their disposal; but I doubt whether either they or their constituents need be in the least nervous about the proposal which has actually been made by the Board of Agriculture. To begin with, they are associating now in their minds this testing station with the present epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease, with which it has absolutely no connection whatever. From the very first I have resisted every proposal to have anywhere in the United Kingdom or in the British Isles a station where foot-and-mouth disease could be the subject of experiment. That is one of the reasons why I declined at the Board of Agriculture to have any scientific investigation conducted within these Islands on foot-and-mouth disease. I felt that to have any experimental station might be dangerous, and would certainly lead to a great deal of uneasiness, and would not enable me to give what is most necessary for the cattle export trade, a clean bill of health to this country. There is no suggestion whatever that any animals that will ever pass through this testing station can, or will be, tested for foot-and-mouth disease. As a matter of fact, if they had foot-and-mouth disease it would be discovered long before they got there. There is no lack of tests for that disease, and it is known at once. The object of this station is entirely different, however much that appears to have entered into the
    2390
    minds of those in the neighbourhood of Guildford and those who organised and attended the meeting to which the hon. Member drew my attention.
    May I point out exactly what a testing station of this kind is for? As everyone who is connected with the cattle export trade knows, a number of animals go out every year, when our ports are open, and they are not open at present, owing to the existing epidemic; when they are open a number of animals of very high value go out to all countries which receive English stock. When foreign breeders want to get the best bulls or the best rams, they come to this country for them, and they pay very high prices for them. One of the great obstacles to the export trade is that sometimes those animals, having passed a veterinary test in this country as being absolutely sound, have, on reaching the port of arrival in other parts of the world, been very often rejected on a second veterinary inspection or examination. There have been grave misgivings about this second veterinary examination, and in some cases rejection of the animals at the port of arrival has led to considerable loss, and has involved the breeders and the exporters, not only in considerable loss, but has damaged the reputation of their herds. It was a suggestion of the Committee which sat on the export trade in cattle that there should be a test on this side which would be accepted by foreign buyers, or foreign governments. We have already received assurances from one or two foreign governments and from one or two of the Colonial Governments that a test applied under our supervision would be accepted by them as sufficient. But it was not with respect to foot-and-mouth disease, or cattle plague, or pleuropneumonia, or rinderpest, or any other of the phrases which are used quite indiscriminately with regard to the present outbreak, it was purely with regard to tuberculosis and other individual diseases which are not supposed to be of an epidemic character.
    Then there is another side of the question. We have been conducting at our laboratories, in very inadequate quarters, the work of an immunisation station. A largo number of valuable animals are bought every year for the Colonies. In South Africa, for instance, there is an immense number of bulls of the highest class and of the second class taken out by breeders as well as by the Government, and when they have got there the mortality quite recently from red water fever

    2391
    has been enormous. Almost whole herds have been swept, and unfortunately the highest grade animals are those which have suffered most. Owing to discoveries which have been made over here, English veterinary scientists have found means of securing animals against the risk of red water fever. In our immunisation station, under difficult circumstances, we are immunising every week large numbers of animals for the Colonies—animals bred in England, sold by English exporters, and going out to the Colonies. There, once they have been immunised, they live much longer and more useful lives. Our stalls are crowded. We never have a vacancy. If we had ten times the number of stalls, we could have them occupied. But a necessity for this station is not only that we should have a sufficient number of stalls, and the immunisation be done under Government control, but also that the station itself should be removed from the risk of diseases not in the station, but around the station. When the hon. and learned Member speaks of the risk of disease being spread by the station, I would in reply say that our anxiety is not that disease may go out from the station, but that disease outside may come into the station, which would, of course, destroy not only the work of the station itself, but bring disease into some of the most valuable animals in the world. That is the reason why we have tried to obtain a spot which is comparatively isolated. The hon. and learned Gentleman reminds me that, although the farm to which reference has been made is almost isolated, it is not entirely so. It is difficult to find anywhere a place that is completely isolated. I have had particulars of a large number of farms in various parts of the country, but I have found none better suited for the purposes of a testing station. I regret that it should start with any undue unpopularity in the district, as there is not the least ground for it.
    I may point out how little risk there is by stating that this station will be used, not by unhealthy or tuberculous animals brought there to be cured, but by the healthiest animals. In fact, they are the only animals that can go abroad. They will be tested there in order that our certificates may be sufficient for the purposes of foreign Governments. These very diseases for which the animals will be immunised are not diseases which can be spread or would be spread by mere asso-
    2392
    ciation, however intimate. They will be micro-organismal diseases, which cannot be spread directly by affected animals. It is only when the animals are of a very healthy and very valuable character that there would be any object in their owners sending them there. The owners will have to pay for the immunisation. It is not to be done free of cost, and naturally they will not incur that expense unless they have very good reason to believe that the animals will be accepted by the purchasers on the other side. I think that the whole misapprehension has arisen from the fact that an impression got abroad that we were going to have an animals' hospital. We never intended anything of the kind. I believe that the station will not be a source of danger to anyone near. The suggestion is made that we ought to have planted it near a port. I must draw the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman to the fact that the veterinary officers who have to do this work have also a great deal of administrative work to do, so that they must be within reach of London, and able to travel backwards and forwards as rapidly as possible. If it be said that we had here a station further away than the present place—well, that is far enough away for the convenience of our staff; and no one need be under any apprehension in the matter.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: I can quite understand that there are a great number of people who were naturally nervous when they first heard of this proposal. I myself was one. But, having heard the closing observations of the right hon. Gentleman—not being able to be present earlier—I am bound to say that he has made a good defence of the case for which Alperton Lodge should be used. Of course it is obvious to everyone that if the Lodge was used for purposes in connection with foot-and-mouth and other diseases, people acquainted with the subject would have been exceedingly anxious, and they would have taken steps to bring that anxiety to the notice of the Board of Agriculture. But we have specific assurances from the right hon. Gentleman that foot-and-mouth disease is a question on which there need be no apprehension, nor rinderpest, which we had for a great number of years, and I sincerely trust that we may never suffer from it again. Then, in respect to the other diseases that were mentioned, I did not hear exactly, and I am not quite sure whether the experiments were limited specifically to tuberculosis or not. Is that so?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, tuberculosis is one of the things which gives the inspectors trouble, because the tuberculosis test tried here is not accepted on the other side. Arrangements have been made with one or two foreign and Colonial governments to accept the tubercular test certificate of the Government.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: But experiments are to be made in other diseases?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Immunisation against red-water fever.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: These two things alone?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Principally.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: At all events the right hon. Gentleman gave us an assurance that the place would not be used for the purpose of dealing with diseases of a contagious character. That being so, and some of these criticisms have been disposed of by the right hon. Gentleman, undoubtedly there are purposes to which the Lodge is to be put which would be most useful. I can only say, so far as I am concerned, and perhaps for some others on this side of the House, that my apprehensions have disappeared. I believe that the work in which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to engage may be exceedingly useful.

    COAL MINES (MINIMUM WAGE) ACT.
    Mr. W. E. HARVEY: On Monday last the question of the Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Act was brought to the notice of the House by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil), and he was desirous, as I understood him, that the House should have some information as to how the Act was working in the various mining districts, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply, said we might deal with the question on the Appropriation Bill. The Noble Lord rather invited some information on the working of the Act, and we became deeply interested in the reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. The hon. Gentleman said he could not give a complete answer to the question put to him, but he said his information was that the Act was working fairly well. Whoever supplied the Under-Secretary or the Board of Trade with that information could not be well informed. I do not know who gave that information and I am not going to say a word about them; but the information must have come
    2394
    from one of the counties where there is not much trouble or from a corner where there is no trouble. I am here to-night to say that in the great mining counties of Yorkshire and Derbyshire, and those which are producing the greatest quantities of coal and employing the larger numbers of men there is nothing but dissatisfaction, and that dissatisfaction is growing every day. We had a statement in the "Sheffield Telegraph" yesterday, and hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House will accept that statement, headed "Gloomy Outlook: Ballot to be Taken." As soon as ever I saw that heading I became alarmed, because we in Derbyshire are very closely joined with Yorkshire, and I know if there is to be trouble there, and that if there is going to be a ballot, and if you cannot get the trouble rectified, then I know it means trouble for us in Derbyshire, and if it means trouble for Yorkshire and Derbyshire it means trouble for the Mining Federation all over Great Britain. Let me read one or two statements with regard to this matter.
    "At a meeting of the council of the Yorkshire Miners' Association held at Barnsley, yesterday, Mr. Herbert Smith, the president, denounced the owners for their attitude with reference to the minimum wage. Mr. Smith said, 'For years there had not been so many cases of notices being given, men giving notice of victimisation, and applications for permission to take a ballot. All this went to show that in West Yorkshire particularly the owners were determined not to carry out the award. The officials would take no responsibility for whatever might be done if owners are going to adopt this attitude. Though the awards were given in South Yorkshire on 22nd May, and in West Yorkshire on 10th June, although the men have been working since this injustice to men and boys continues, and it was no wonder there was so much unrest in the labour world if employers treated their men as men in the Yorkshire coalfield were being treated.'"
    This has become a very serious question indeed. A large number of men and boys are on notice for inefficiency, according to the employers, but there has been a rule set up to the effect that before a man can be charged with inefficiency, or his minimum wage refused, it must go before the Board with representatives on each side, and they must decide whether the man is inefficient. It is not left to the owner or the management, because under the rules set up by the Minimum Wage Act the point must be proved before the Board, and when it is proved there it becomes satisfactory to those concerned. But these men claim that they are not inefficient. In some cases these men are refused the minimum wage without a hearing before a thoroughly constitutional board set up in accordance with the Act of Parliament. These men are being refused this minimum wage, and

    2395
    they are being asked to sign certificates contracting themselves out of the Act. I am going to read to the House what these men have been asked to sign by the employers, and I am going to give the employer's solicitor and the letter he has sent. We have a Minimum Wage Act, and here is the letter sent out by the solicitor to the West Yorkshire owners:—
    "4, Central Bank Chambers, Leeds,
    "21st June, 1912.
    "Minimum Wage Act.
    "Dear Sir,—At most collieries there will doubtless be a number of men who although not actually coming within the definition 'aged' or 'infirm' under the district rules, are yet according to their own admission, either inefficient workmen or otherwise undesirous of making the necessary efforts to earn the minimum wage. In order to meet cases of this nature I have prepared a second form of certificate to be signed by such workmen and the colliery official. Enclosed are 100 copies of the second form of certificate for use at your colliery, and if you should require further copies please let me know and they shall be forwarded. You will observe I have addressed this letter to you as 'personal,' and you will appreciate my object in so doing.—Your faithfully,'
    BEN DAY."
    Here is the form they are asked to sign:—
    "Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Act, 1912.
    "Joint District Board for West Yorkshire.
    "Name of Colliery
    "It is agreed and hereby certified that under the West Yorkshire District rules now in force, as provided by the above Act of is excluded from the right to wages at the minimum rate.
    "Dated day of
    "Signature of workman
    "Signature of colliery official"
    And to-day while we are sitting in this House there are hundreds of men under notice in Yorkshire because they refuse to sign the agreement which has been drawn up to contract out of the Minimum Wage Act. Some of my colleagues suggest there are thousands, but I would rather understate than overstate it; and it is sufficient for my purpose to say there are hundreds of men in Yorkshire to-day who are under notice or out of work because they refuse to contract out of this Act. I have been associated with the coal trade the whole of my life, and I am going to give something now which is the most startling thing I have ever known in that trade. There are ten firms in West Yorkshire, representing thirty pits, employing 12,500 men and boys, who have been offered advances in wages ranging from 3d. per ton to 15 per cent. in order to induce them to contract out of the Minimum Wage Act. The position is becoming intolerable. Employers will not carry out the awards, will not pay the arrears, and will not work the Act in a fair way. Of course, as I said when discussing the Bill, there are employers and employers, and
    2396
    there are some who are honourably carrying out the Act and paying every penny due to the men under it. It is not to them my remarks are addressed, but to those who have taken part in the Minimum Wage Boards with a judge, appointed by the Board of Trade, in the chair, who have sat there and discussed the rules and conditions, who have made both the judge and ourselves believe they intended to carry out the Act, and who now in many cases refuse to do so. There is in my opinion justification for unrest at the present time. There are evident signs that something will have to be done. We have hoped, and I venture to say this House had hoped, this Minimum Wage Act would have settled this question once and for all. The Act distinctly states that the minimum wage should be paid from the day the pits commenced to work, that it should be retrospective, and that the arrears due under it, according to the awards of the chairmen of the Minimum Wage Board should be paid. There are thousands due in Great Britain to the miners which are not being paid. How do they try and get out of it? They say the rules also date back to the commencement of work, and the rules say there must be proof that there has been some difficulties either in the shape of shortness of trucks or facilities to get coal from the face, or of bad roofs, or of water in the mine. There might have been water or some other difficulty in the mine when the Act began to operate, but that has all been removed, and practical men know you cannot trace it back. I am glad to say there are owners who have recognised that and had paid from the day the pits began to work. Many companies have done it; others have refused to do it; they have refused to make up the minimum wage.
    One other matter I must touch upon. The Miners' Federation of Great Britain never asked the Government to interfere in this dispute; it may be the colliery owners also never invited interference. We have always dreaded that if you fix a minimum wage the standard of wages will suffer and be brought down to the minimum wage. That is exactly what they are trying to do. The Act is very clear—nothing could be more clear—that the present standard rate of wages is not to be interfered with. I put a question to the President of the Board of Trade on that point. I gave a concrete case of an agreement and asked if the Minimum Wage Act

    2397
    would interfere with it. The right hon. Gentleman said distinctly that the present rates of wages would not be interfered with, yet in North Wales they are making the minimum wage the standard rate for loaders, and are thereby reducing the wage 1s. 1d. per week. The men will not consent to that, and there will certainly be trouble if it is insisted upon. The men have accepted the findings and awards of the judges and they want them carried out honourably by both sides.
    I have always been for keeping agreements. It can never be alleged against our Board of Concilation that any agreements entered into were not carried out. If owners refuse to carry out what has been fixed on by the Board they must expect their men to be uneasy. The men will take some keeping in check, and I ask the President of the Board of Trade, who brought in this Act and piloted it through the House, to give us a clear statement to-night that will help us bring about peace. I do not ask him to do it on party lines, but on just lines. All we want is that the awards made by the judges shall be honourably carried out by owners as well as men, and that the arrears should be paid up. If we can only get the spirit which I believe will be shown in the speech of the President of the Board of Trade to prevail, we shall have peace. If not, we shall have war. You may make Acts of Parliament and agreements, but if these are broken it will take more power than my colleagues and I possess to make the men keep at work. That is why we appeal to the Board of Trade to bring about peace where there is war, and satisfaction where there is dissatisfaction.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I listened with great interest to what my hon. Friend has said. I was glad to hear from him, and I feel sure that he was speaking on behalf of the men, that for his part, as representing the Federation, he accepted the findings and awards of the judges, and that they intended, so far as they were concerned, to carry out those findings and awards in the spirit and in the letter. That feeling, one hopes, will equally actuate the owners on the other side. In regard to the administration of an Act of Parliament affecting some 600,000 men and nearly 1,000 owners, especially at the beginning, there is bound to be a certain amount of friction and misunderstanding, but if that spirit be displayed by both sides, I see no reason to fear that this Act will not be carried out in
    2398
    a way satisfactory to both sides. My hon. Friend asked me, as representing the Board of Trade, to express an opinion in regard to various points which he brought before the House. May I remind him that this Act was passed in order, so far as possible, that these questions should be settled locally rather than by the Board of Trade or by Parliament. One of the reasons for the Act was that the Prime Minister and the Government had found, on going into the matter—after they had endeavoured to settle these questions between the two parties across the table—that the intricacies of the question were so great that it was not possible, either round a table or in this House, to settle the various questions that arose. It was because it was felt that these matters could best be settled locally that this Act was passed. Therefore I do not think my hon. Friend will desire for a moment that the Board of Trade or the Government should form a sort of Court of Appeal to retry the various cases which have been settled locally by the District Boards. I understand him to ask me one or two specific questions, in which he alleges that there have been breaches of the Act. He alleges, in the first place, that in certain cases the owners, or some of them—I believe he is only dealing with a certain number of them, and that, taking them as a whole, he has no complaint against them—have what he called "contracted out" of the Act, and are forcing their men and boys to deal with them outside and apart from the Act, and forcing them to accept conditions and wages other than those settled by these District Boards under their chairmen. I have no knowledge of these facts. I do not speak as a lawyer; but, reading this Act as a layman, and as one of those who were interested in its passage, I have no hesitation whatever in saying that this House, on both sides and all sections of it, did understand that if the Act was passed this minimum wage should be, as the Act says
    "an implied term of every contract for the employment of a workman underground"
    Everyone will admit it was clear that it was intended that there should be no contracting out of the Act. It is really a simple point. If there has been, as my hon. Friend alleges—I have no means of judging; he has given me no particulars, and I have not had an opportunity of considering them—a case of an employer who has contracted out of the Act, his very

    2399
    powerful trade union has a very simple remedy. He has merely to bring the employer before the county court and there can be no question whatever as to the decision.
    His second point, I understand, is the question of arrears—arrears that have arisen in this way. The minimum rate of wage came into force on the passing of the Act, and it naturally took in all cases some time, and in some cases a considerable time to come to a decision as to what the minimum wage should be. In that interval the workman naturally was not paid the minimum wage, but when it was fixed, if he had been paid less than that figure he was entitled to the balance for the whole period. I understand my hon. Friend to say that in some cases these arrears have not been paid. I should have thought these are cases which would have been dealt with under the rules of the Joint Board created under Sub-section (2) of Section 1, and that these rules would have applied so clearly and specifically to these cases of arrears that there could be no question in regard to them. But if there has been any difficulty in regard to these arrears, I should have thought—I am speaking, of course, as a layman—that the first step for the men or the federation to take would be to apply to the Joint Board for an inquiry and decision on the matter, and, failing that, again they have a full opportunity of taking the matter to the county court. These are the two chief causes of friction at present, and what I have said may enable my hon. Friend to feel that there is a simple method of obtaining justice, if there has been injustice, and of obtaining compensation.
    May I add also that I understand these Joint Boards have worked well and satisfactorily from the general point of view. Those are the bodies to which I am sure the House intended, as far as possible, these misunderstandings and causes of friction should, in the first instance, be referred. May I express the strong hope, which I am sure will be re-echoed by a very large majority of the owners on the one hand and I am sure by the large majority of the men on the other, that though there must be, at the time of putting into force an Act of this sort, a certain amount of misunderstanding and friction, there will be a desire on both sides to carry the Act out in the spirit and in the letter. One of the things that struck us most in
    2400
    the long negotiations which we had with both sides, and in a very large number of cases with the two sides together, was that in the long and severe contest which went on, and which, of course, led to a great difference of opinion, the attitude and the relations between the two parties were of the most friendly description. I am sure we should all, on both sides, desire to continue those friendly relations. I think my hon. Friend was perfectly justified in raising this Debate, and if anything I have said will tend towards the smoother working of the Act, then the time occupied in discussing the matter will not have been wasted. I hope I have answered my hon. Friend in the spirit he desires. He will understand that the Board of Trade will have no statutory power to interfere. These matters are laid down in the Statute, and if the Statute is broken on either side there is a simple remedy. I am sure it is the desire that both sides should come into accord in order to make the Act as great a success as possible.
    Mr. WALSH: I only take part in the Debate in order to supplement what my hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Harvey) has said. We should be guilty of a very serious dereliction of duty to this House and the nation if we were not to lay before the House the condition of things prevailing at present. I would ask the House to direct its attention to what took place a month or two ago. We had the most terrible condition of things this nation has ever seen. Certain action was taken by this House in good faith, and an Act was passed. Of its merits or demerits I will not say one word. It had the effect, however, of bringing to an end a situation which at the moment was almost intolerable. We all hoped that both sides would act in good faith, and inasmuch as there will be no opportunity until about October we might very well have been accused of a serious breach of faith to the House and the nation if we did not tell directly what was the position of affairs. It is all very well for the President of a State Department to say, "Your remedy is this or that," but that is not the way at all in which this terrible discontent can be met. Replies in that sense do not meet the case at all. To say to a poor man who is never more than, a week ahead of the workhouse that his remedy is to go to the County Court if employers of labour fail to observe the conditions laid down in an Act

    2401
    of Parliament is to trifle with the whole question.
    Mr. BUXTON: I said, as everybody knows, that, the most powerful trade union in the country is the Miners' Federation representing nearly the whole of the miners. That is, the body to which I referred, and not the individual. It is quite clear that that trade union will take cognisance of the grievances of the men.
    11.0 P.M.
    Mr. WALSH: Here again I really wonder at the way answers are given in this House. First of all, there are tens of thousands of people not in the organisation. This House passed the Minimum Wage Act to apply to every underground worker whether in the Federation or not. You did not put a single word in the Minimum Wage Act about the Miners' Federation. That federation has no status in a County Court. The poor man or boy himself must take his own action. He must enter his own pleadings and must go into the box and give evidence against the particular employer upon whom he is dependent for a living. This prevents tens of thousands of people taking the only effective method of making this Act the real success that the House desires it to be. I am not going to infuse passion into this Debate. Everyone of us on this side of the House most earnestly desires that a repetition of the horrible disaster of a few months ago shall never recur, but we do ask the House to pay attention to the facts of the case. There are tens of thousands of people who have not got their earnings. There are tens of thousands of efficient workmen who are being deprived of the minimum wage, which is their inherent right under this Act. There are men who are being compelled to forego their rights or else forego their employment. Of course, it is perfectly true that many employers, fine employers, are doing their best and are observing, as decent citizens should towards this House and towards the nation, the requirement that the people who work underground, under conditions which I need not animadvert upon, and are losing their lives every day or are being maimed by the thousand every year, shall have at least, a decent minimum wage. If by October next events have so focussed themselves that the nation was once again faced with a repetition of the horrible occurrence of a few months ago every man in this House would have the right to say that we on
    2402
    those benches would have been guilty of a grave dereliction of duty if we had not in-formed the House of this fact. We do want the Board of Trade to recognise that there is something more necessary than the mere reply that the boys or men can go to the county court. We do not want the Board of Trade, or whatever authority is the proper authority, to recognise that this House has said that the conditions of coal mining are unique. The conditions of coal mining are such that every man and boy engaged in it ought to be guaranteed the minimum wage. We want the House to recognise its responsibility, and say that no connivance, no unfair pressure which is exercised shall deprive men and boys of the right to which this House says they are entitled. That is the main question. To say to us, "Go to Court" is no answer at all. This House either means what it says or it does not. If we come back once again, three or four months later, with a terrible situation, it will be no answer to the national needs to say, "Why did you not take your case into Court?" We want the pressure of this House to be brought to bear on both parties. We do not put this statement as an ex parte statement. We are perfectly content, when the conditions are not met by our men to take whatever follows. But we do say that this House shall bring the necessary pressure to bear upon the employers and see to it that there is, at least, a fair administration of the Act in the sense which this House desires. That is all we have got to say. We are thankful that an opportunity has been given to ventilate the matter, because we have been enabled to relieve ourselves of what we felt to be a serious responsibility. None of us would have felt easy had something happened during the Recess, and this House had not had its attention drawn to the matter. We want this House to know that while the principle of the Minimum Wage Act is probably as great and as fine as any which pervades any measure this House has ever passed, yet in its administration grave troubles are being caused, and we want this House and the nation to be cognisant of that fact.
    Mr. McKENNArose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, now put." "That the Question be now put."
    The House divided: Ayes, 243; Noes, 127.

    Division No. 184.]

    AYES.

    [11.10 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Hancock, J. G.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Alden, Percy

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

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

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Armitage, R.

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Arnold, Sydney

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Dowd, John

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Grady, James

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Hayward, Evan

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

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    O'Malley, William

    Barnes, G. N.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

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

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

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

    O'Shee, James John

    Bentham G. J.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Black, Arthur W.

    Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Boland, John Plus

    Higham, John Sharp

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hinds, John

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

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Pointer, Joseph

    Brace, William

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hudson, Walter

    Radford, G. H.

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Hughes, S. L.

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    John, Edward Thomas

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Reddy, Michael

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

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Jowett, F. W.

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Joyce, Michael

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Keating, Matthew

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Kelly, Edward

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Clough, William

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    King, J. (Somerset, North)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

    Cotton, William Francis

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Crooks, William

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

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

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Sheehy, David

    Cullinan, John

    Lundon, Thomas

    Shortt, Edward

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    Dawes, J. A.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Delany, William

    McGhee, Richard

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Maclean, Donald

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Sutherland, John E.

    Dickinson, W. H.

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Sutton, John E.

    Dillon, John

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Tennant, Harold John

    Duffy, William J.

    McCallum, Sir John M.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Wadsworth, John

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Manfield, Harry

    Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Wardle, George J.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Falconer, James

    Meagher, Michael

    Webb, H.

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Molloy, Michael

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Molteno, Percy Alport

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

    Field, William

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Wiles, Thomas

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Mooney, John J.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Gill, A. H.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Morrell, Philip

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

    Glanville, H. J.

    Morison, Hector

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Muldoon, John

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Greig, Col. J. W.

    Munro, R.

    Young, William (Perthshire, E.)

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

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

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

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Hackett, John

    Neilson, Francis

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    2404

    2405

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fester, Philip Staveley

    Newman, John R. P.

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

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

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gretton, John

    Pirie, Duncan Vernon

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Barnston, Harry

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Bigland, Alfred

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Royds, Edmund

    Boyton, James

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

    Rutherford, John (Lanes., Darwen)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hills, John Waller

    Sandys, G. J.

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hogge, James Myles

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Cassel, Felix

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Stanier, Beville

    Cave, George

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

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

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

    Swift, Rigby

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

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

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

    Dixon, C. H.

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

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

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Macmaster, Donald

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Duke, Henry Edward

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Yate, Col. C E.

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

    Yerburgh, Robert

    Fell, Arthur

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Younger, Sir George

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    R Gwynne and Mr. G. Lloyd.

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

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

    Question put accordingly, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Friday).

    FINANCE BILL.
    Considered in Committee. [Progress, 26th July.]
    [MR. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

    CLAUSE 2.—(Income Tax for 1912–13).
    (1) Income Tax for the year beginning on the sixth day of April nineteen hundred and twelve shall be charged at the rate of one shilling and twopence, and the same Super-tax shall be charged, levied, and paid for that year as was charged for the year beginning on the sixth day of April nineteen hundred and eleven.

    (2) All such enactments relating to Income Tax (including Super-tax) as were in force with respect to duties of Income Tax granted for the year beginning on the sixth day of April nineteen hundred and
    2406
    eleven shall have full force and effect with respect to any duties of Income Tax hereby granted.

    (3) The annual value of any property which has been adopted for the purpose either of Income Tax under Schedules A and B in the Income Tax Act, 1853, or of Inhabited House Duty, during the year ending on the fifth day of April nineteen hundred and twelve, shall be taken as the annual value of such property for the same purpose during the next subsequent year; provided that this Sub-section—

    (a) so far as respects the duty on inhabited houses in Scotland, shall be construed with the substitution of the twenty-fourth day of May for the fifth day of April; and

    (b) shall not apply to the metropolis as denned by the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869.

    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

    2407
    The consideration of the Finance Bill has been delayed this Session until a date which would have been considered quite abnormally and scandalously late under any Government but the present, and they have set an unhappy precedent for delaying it still further. But their past misdeeds are no excuse for the perpetration of a further misdemeanour at the present time. I observe that we are discussing the Finance Bill in the absence of any representative of the Treasury. [At this point the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury entered the House.] I see no occasion to qualify what I said or to make any apology at all. Others of us have to wait in attendance until a Bill is brought forward or make arrangements to be in the House when it is called on. I am not aware that there is any reason why the representatives of the Treasury should not have taken the same course.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): I went out as the right hon. Gentleman rose, in order to inform the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I suppose the right hon. Gentleman had to go out, as he says, as I rose, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not think it necessary to be here. I said we have been asked to discuss this Bill at a period of the Session which under any other Government would have been considered abnormally and scandalously late. That is not all. We have had half a day for the consideration of the Committee stage, and we are now asked to resume consideration of the Committee stage at twenty minutes past eleven o'clock. No Government before the present has ever treated finance in that way. It would be a scandal and a crime against the financial power of the House of Commons if we had had adequate opportunities for discusing the last two Budgets. But the last Budget but one was closured. The last Budget was disposed of in the closing days of a Session which lasted till December, and its discussion was then brought to a rapid and abrupt termination by an understanding between the two sides of the House in connection with other business and what I think I may almost say was a misunderstanding—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh,"]—a perfectly honest misunderstanding, but a misunderstanding of which the Government had the advantage. There was therefore the most
    2408
    limited discussion on the Budget. This is an outrage on Parliamentary procedure. It is a perfect mockery of Parliamentary control over our finances to ask us to resume discussion on the Committee stage of the Budget, after a single half day, at this late hour. As a protest against this procedure, and in the hope that the Government will not proceed in the course which they have pursued, I make my Motion.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The right hon. Gentleman has complained that there was no representative of the Treasury present when the Finance Bill was called. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Masterman) has corrected him on that point. He was present at the time. I was in my room discussing financial business and was ready to come in when summoned. The right hon. Gentleman has complained that we are taking the Bill late. He knows perfectly well that we had half a day on Friday—we had five hours.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Half a day in the Standing Orders.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We had five hours, and that is, as a matter of fact, more than half a day. He says we are taking it at half-past eleven o'clock. We had five hours. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] The only point I want to make is we are not beginning the Committee stage of the Finance Bill late at night. We began it in the day-time, when it was discussed for three, four or five hours.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: We did not have five hours on Friday. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that he moved a Resolution in Ways and Means which took up about an hour or an hour and a quarter in my recollection, and perhaps more. I did not complain he was commencing the Committee stage at night. I twice stated we began it on Friday. I said we had a half-day's sitting to consider it in Committee, and that we are now asked to resume after only a half-day's sitting at twenty minutes after eleven o'clock.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman is now treating a discussion we had on a Resolution as if it was not part of the whole discussion in regard to the Finance Bill. As he knows very well that was a preliminary Resolution to the Committee of the Finance Bill, and if the

    2409
    arrangement which he and his colleagues on the Front Bench opposite us were quite willing to enter into had been assented to it would have become part of the Finance Bill.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Not of the Committee stage of the Finance Bill?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Part of the Finance Bill. It just happened that an hon. Gentleman behind the right hon. Gentleman did not take his view of the Resolution, otherwise it would have become part of the proceedings of the Finance Bill. Now the right hon. Gentleman complains we are resuming the Committee state at this late hour after eleven o'clock. He knows the Finance Bill suspends the eleven o'clock rule. I recollect a case in which the right hon. Gentleman took the Finance Bill at an all-night sitting.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: On how many occasions?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I could give two occasions at any rate, and one of these occasions the House sat all night. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman, in spite of repeated Motions, proceeded right through the night up to half-past two or three the following day in order to get his Committee stage. Was that treating finance respectfully?
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: How many days had that Bill been in Committee?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman now seems to think that discussing finance at a late hour of the night—and I am only dealing with that point—is not treating the finances of this country with great respect. On two occasions, that is my recollection, and if I am wrong I will accept the right hon. Gentleman's recollection—I had the privilege of sitting here until a late hour discussing the Finance Bill. That was at the time when we had the Coal Duties and important duties of that character to discuss. We discussed the Coal Duty at ten or eleven in the morning, after being at it all night. If we are treating finance disrespectfully, who taught us to do so? The right hon. Gentleman had only three Budgets and I am certain in two out of the three we had all-night sittings—one of them a very late sitting and the other projected into the next day. It was a very late sitting. After all, the right hon. Gentleman knows
    2410
    that Finance Bills are taken very late at night, especially those which do not contain any new proposals for taxation. There are no new proposals for taxation in this Bill, and we are simply renewing the Income Tax and the Tea Duty. There are certain proposals for remissions and alterations, but they occur in every Budget, and they have occurred in Budgets which have been discussed until the early hours of the morning many a time. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion is. My suggestion is that we should proceed as far as we can with the Finance Bill, and if we find that we cannot complete it, then at a reasonable hour we can report progress and proceed with the Bill to-morrow. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman has treated this matter somewhat prematurely, because eleven-twenty is not a very late hour for the consideration of the Finance Bill, having regard to the rules of the House, which place no limit to the discussion of Finance Bills. When the right hon. Gentleman feels that we are going on too long that will be the time for considering a Motion to report progress. I suggest that we should go on for some time and consider later on at what time progress should be reported.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not think that I am actuated by a hostile spirit towards himself in what I am going to say. On the contrary, I have always been one of his admirers, and when he used to sit at this corner I watched his proceedings and I may say that I learned a lot from him. Next to the great Mr. Caldwell I consider the right hon. Gentleman to be in the first rank of my Parliamentary instructors. I should like to congratulate him upon the agility with which he gets out of one difficulty after another. When he finds that he cannot support himself on one leg he goes about pirouetting on the other with all the agility and grace of Mile. Pavlova. The right hon. Gentleman said that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire had two all-night sittings, and that it is in accordance with the usual practice to have late sittings on finance. It is quite true that we used to have late sittings and in Lord St. Aldwyn's time we used to sit after eleven o'clock, but we never began after eleven o'clock. It is a scandal to ask us to discuss these important questions after eleven o'clock. This is not at all in accordance with precedent. Although this is a Budget in

    2411
    which there are no proposals for new taxation it must be remembered that the whole duty of Parliament is to revise existing taxation, to see where the shoe pinches and find out whether people are being subjected to undue burdens. It is the business of hon. Members when our faculties are not benumbed by long vigil to discuss these things in a rational and proper spirit. I have had some experience of late sittings, and I may inform the right hon. Gentleman that if he presses this matter and keeps us up it will not expedite the business of the Government. I trust, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will make some proposal for a reasonable compromise.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman complained that I had offered no suggestion. I will state my remedy before I sit down. But I first wish to refer to the right hon. Gentleman's precedents. What is it of which I have complained? That, having had very inadequate time for the discussion of the Budget both last year and the year before, having had such inadequate time allowed us, on both occasions in the autumn of the year instead of at the usual time, the Budget this year is brought to its present stage only at the beginning of August, in what would be the last days of a normal Session, but what are, in fact, the last days of this part of the Session. And the Budget, having been so introduced, we are allowed a portion of a Friday sitting in Committee, and then are asked to resume the Committee stage after eleven o'clock at night. There is no precedent for that that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can find in any Budget, at any rate in the twenty years I have sat in this House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that when I filled his office I twice kept the House at night sittings, and then he modified the statement by describing them as very late sittings.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: One was an all-night sitting.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken, but as I have been unable to look the matter up I will not insist on the accuracy of my memory. I believe the only one occasion on which I kept the House up very late was when we sat from three o'clock one day till four o'clock the next afternoon, and I have very good
    2412
    reason for remembering that. But what were the circumstances precedent to that long sitting? That Budget had been not merely opposed, but obstructed openly and grossly at every stage. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Hon. Members who contradict were probably not Members of the House at that time. I will undertake to say there is no Member of the party opposite who followed those discussions who can assert with his hand on his heart—I use that phrase because it is more polite than the terms of the oath in a Court of Law—that there had not been open and almost avowed obstruction at every stage of the Budget.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: What did you do in Ireland?
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It was the Budget concerning stripped tobacco. It may be said that was a new proposal. But does anyone suppose that the discussion or obstruction was limited to new proposals? Not a bit of it; every Clause of that Budget was obstructed. Scores of new Clauses were put down, and, obviously, the Coal Tax was not a new Clause. But all that is really immaterial. What is material is the time that should be given to the discussion of the Budget before the Government has a right to ask the House to sit all night. On the occasion of the Budget I am referring to, I cannot say the number of days given to the Resolutions or to the Second Reading, but I am sure it was much larger than the number devoted to those stages this year. There were five days given to the Committee stage—five normal days at a normal time of the year, and that is the precedent which the Chancellor of the Exchequer finds for asking us not to continue a discussion begun at a normal time or hour, but to begin a discussion after eleven o'clock when we have only had a half sitting to discuss the Committee stage of the Budget. That is a proceeding which I say is a scandal, and it is a scandal which is increased when it is remembered what has happened in connection with the last two Budgets. The right hon. Gentleman says I have made no suggestion, I did better than that, I made a Motion to report progress, so that we might resume this discussion not at near midnight but to-morrow at noon.
    Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 133; Noes, 247.

    Division No. 185.]

    AYES.

    [11.44 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Newman, John R. P.

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Norton-Griffiths, J.

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Gilmour, Captain J.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

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

    Balcarres, Lord

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Gretton, John

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Barnston, Harry

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Royds, Edmund

    Bigland, Alfred

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

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

    Boyton, James

    Heimsley, Viscount

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Burdett-Coutts, William

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

    Sandys, G. J.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Cassel, Felix

    Hills, J. W.

    Stanier, Beville

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Cave, George E.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Swift, Rigby

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

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Clyde, James Avon

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Lloyd, George Ambrose

    Winterton, Earl

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Dixon, Charles Harvey

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

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. G. (Droitwich)

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Macmaster, Donald

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

    Yerburgh, Robert

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Malcolm, Ian

    Younger, Sir George

    Fell, Arthur

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Pike Pease and Mr. Eyres-Monsell.

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

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

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary)

    Alden, Percy

    Byles, Sir Wiliam Pollard

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Falconer, James

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Armitage, Robert

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Arnold, Sydney

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Ffrench, Peter

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Clough, William

    Field, William

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Cotton, William Francis

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Barnes, G. N.

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Gill, A. H.

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Crooks, William

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

    Crumley, Patrick

    Glanville, Harold James

    Bentham, G. J.

    Cullinan, John

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

    Greig, Col. James William

    Boland, John Pius

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Delany, William

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

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Hackett, John

    Brace, William

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Dillon, John

    Hancock, John George

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Rossendale)

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Duffy, William J.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Bryce, J, Annan

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    2414

    2415

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    McCallum, Sir John M.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Reddy, Michael

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Manfield, Harry

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Hayward, Evan

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

    Meagher, Michael

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Molloy, Michael

    Roch, Walter F. Pembroke

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

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

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

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

    Henry, Sir Charles S.

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Hon. S.)

    Mooney, John J.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Higham, John Sharp

    Morgan, George Hay

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Hinds, John

    Morrell, Philip

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

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Morison, Hector (Hackney, S.)

    Sheehy, David

    Hogge, James Myles

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Shortt, Edward

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Muldoon, John

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Munro, R.

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Neilson, Francis

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

    Hudson, Walter

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Sutherland, John E.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Nolan, Joseph

    Sutton, John E.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    John, Edward Thomas

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Tennant, Harold John

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B. (Swansea)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Wadsworth, J.

    Jowett, Frederick William

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Dowd, John

    Wardle, George J.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    O'Grady, James

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Kelly, Edward

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

    Webb, H.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Kilbride, Denis

    O'Malley, William

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

    King, Joseph

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

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

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    O'Shee, James John

    Wiles, Thomas

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Wilkie, Alexander

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

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

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

    Lundon, Thomas

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Lyell, C. H.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    McGhee, Richard

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. T. J.

    Radford, George Heynes

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Raffan, Peter William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Amount proposed [36th July]: At the beginning of the Clause, insert the words, "After the commencement of this Act.'
    Mr. POLLOCK: I desire to conclude my remarks on the Amendment I was moving last week, the object of which is to make it perfectly clear that the Act was the legal authority and the only legal authority under which this House imposes taxation, and also to enforce a reversion to the old practice under which the Act containing the finances of the year was passed at a time when the taxes were falling due, and not to create some interval during which there is no legal authority for the purpose of collecting the tax. I have observed that our own practice as laid down in the Standing Orders emphasises the fact that the Resolution is no legal authority for the purpose of collecting any tax, and I drew
    2416
    attention to what happened in 1901, when under the opinion of the Law Officers the Comptroller and Auditor-General felt that he was not authorised to pay out money by virtue of a Resolution, because the Act which made the Resolution into a law had not been passed at the time. The Law Officers gave the opinion that the true view was that there was no legal authority for the purpose of paying out money before the Act had been passed.
    I desire to meet the argument, which could possibly be made, that if you were to emphasise the fact that the Act and the Act only imposes this legislation, you might be creating a difficulty. It may, perhaps, be interesting, after the Motion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), to recall

    2417
    to the Committee the history of the Income Tax and the method by which it has been imposed. The Committee will remember that until the year 1862 each tax was imposed by means of a separate Bill, and, therefore, Bills were often passed very rapidly after the Resolutions had been passed in Committee of Ways and Means. I have been at some pains to get information as to the way in which the Income Tax used to be imposed—the plan which was adopted in order to avoid the difficulty which now appears. It stands in this way: The first Act of 1842 imposed the Income Tax for three years. That was passed on 22nd June; in 1845, after the Resolution had been obtained, the Act was passed on 5th April and imposed the tax for three years. When we are told that it is necessary to levy the Income Tax without any legal authority, standing by the Resolution only, I desire to affirm the old principle which was to pass the Act at such time that there could be legal authority for the collection of the tax.
    In 1848 the Act was passed on 13th April, and again the tax was granted for three years. In 1852 the Act was passed on 28th May, and the tax was granted for one year. In 1860 the Act was passed on 3rd April, and again the tax was granted for one year. You will find that down to 1862 there were hardly any cases where so long delay took place as at present. In 1862 an unfortunate practice was established when the House was dealing with a particular purpose. In 1861 the House of Lords had refused to pass a Bill for the purpose of repealing the Paper Duties, and this House in order to prevent the House of Lords from interfering in that way with finance thereupon put all the taxes in one Bill. That made it much more difficult to pass the Act at the right time for the purpose of she legal collection of the taxes. That change was made for a purpose which has no longer any weight or force. I find that Lord Morley in his "Life of Gladstone" says:—
    "The abiding feature of constitutional interest in the Budget of 1861, was this inclusion of the various financial proposals in a single Bill, so that the Lords must either accept the whole of them or try the impossible performance of rejecting the whole of them. Until now the practice had been to make different taxes the subject of as many different Bills. By including all the taxes in a single Finance Bill, the power of the Lords to override the other House was effectually arrested."
    That power no longer exists, and I think we might ask the Government to revert to the old practice of passing the statute authorising the Income Tax at such an early period as will enable its collection
    2418
    to be carried out legally, and not to continue the present irregular system. That it is irregular there can be no question or doubt. That was put very clearly in the early days of the Income Tax. In 1862 the Income Tax Resolution was passed on 7th April, but the Act itself was not passed until 3rd June. According to our modern notions that is a very small delay—rather less than two months—but inasmuch as there had been that delay the Act contained a Clause to meet the difficulty.
    12.0 M.
    It provides that, "Whereas since the 5th day of April now last past and before the passing of this Act divers dividends "and so on," directed by the Act relating to Income Tax to be assessed and payable by reason of the expiration of the said Acts before the passing of this Act, have not been assessed and charged with the said tax, and it is expedient to provide for the assessment thereof and for the collection of the sums assessed"; and then it was enacted that certain provisions should have effect, making it perfectly clear that the House of Commons in those days thought it was not fair to the nation at large to continue to collect taxes which had no legal basis, and this Act was passed within seven weeks of the passing of the Resolution in order to meet this want of legal authority which had existed in the interval. I have shown by the history of the case and the law applicable to it that we have got into a very bad practice at the present time, of collecting taxes without any authority whatever, month after month, until it happens to be convenient to the Government to pass a Finance Bill which sometimes is very late—last year it was Christmas week. This practice is so very bad that I desire to put these words into the Bill to emphasise the importance of having the Act passed at a proper time. If we were to go back to the old practice of passing one Act for the Income Tax especially in April no difficulty would arise, but while we are content to regard finance as an unimportant matter, and to cease to be efficient careful guardians of finance, the time must come when difficulties will arise and the system will be challenged. In the interests of a proper method of collecting taxes and to make quite clear what is our position in the matter I desire to move the addition of these words.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think that the hon. Member who moved

    2419
    this Amendment can possibly have considered its effect. Let me point out exactly what would happen. A great deal of the Income Tax is collected by way of deduction. All these deductions made before the passing of the Bill would be absolutely void, and would have to be returned as there would be no right to retain them, and then they would have to be collected again.
    Mr. POLLOCK: The right, hon. Gentleman really cannot have listened to my argument. I pointed out in the Statute which I read that special power was taken in the year 1862, and ought to be taken in this Act, if he wishes to make legal these deductions that have so far taken place. If the right hon. Gentleman does not do what was done in 1862, then he must rely on the method which I pointed out last week—which also he cannot have heard—in regard to the Act of 1890, which I specially referred to.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I heard everything that was said by the hon. and learned Gentleman, both last week and to-night, but the hon. and learned Gentleman's interpretation is different from that which my advisers put upon it, and he has not explained to the Committee what would be the effect of his Amendment. I think he is quite inaccurate in his view, and that the result of his proposal would be to render null and void any reductions made up to the present. The hon. and learned Gentleman said it would have to be supplemented by some other provision, but I do not see the object of the provision, and the Amendment would have no effect at all. If it were supplemented by the Amendment which the hon. and learned Member foreshadows, what would be the effect next year? The effect would be that unless the Budget went through by the 6th April—and no one except the hon. and learned Member ever suggested that it could be got through both Houses by the 6th April—these deductions would be absolutely null and void in future. There is a way of dealing with the difficulty which the hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, but I cannot enter into that now. That is the view taken by my advisers who have more experience in these matters than the hon. and learned Gentleman. Unless the Budget went through by the 6th April these deductions would be absolutely void, and that would be destructive of the Income Tax machine.
    2420
    The hon. and learned Gentleman said that we have had two Budgets discussed in December, but I proposed last year, in regard to a suggestion put before the House, that there should be an Amendment to meet this difficulty, the Budget being put through by a certain date in August. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will not press his Amendment.
    Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer appreciates the argument of my hon. and learned Friend, or, if he does, he has not answered it. His argument is that until authorised by Act of Parliament the raising of any taxation in this country is in itself illegal. I do not think anyone will be found who really questions that statement. What we are discussing is the legalising of taxation, while not interfering with the convenience of the Treasury as regards the collection of Income Tax. The hon. and learned Member pointed out that as far as the deduction is concerned it can be done in the Act itself in accordance with what was done in 1862, or under the provisions of the Act of 1390.
    I cannot think that there would be the least difficulty in introducing into this Act or any other Act, a provision which would specifically deal with the difficulty to which reference was made by the right hon. Gentleman. We are really dealing with a wider question than that. Everyone paying Income Tax could go to the Courts in order to ascertain the deductions or payments and whether they are legalised or not, but I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would desire that. I think all the difficulties which he has raised would immediately come to the front. If this matter was discussed in the law courts, I have very little doubt where you are dealing with a claim for Income Tax and deductions that there is no legal authority whatever until an Act of Parliament has been passed. That is what we have got to meet. Under those circumstances is not the Amendment the first step not only to legalise this collection but to put the Treasury in the position in which it ought to be and of not being attacked for raising taxation in an illegal manner. All those objections exist at the present time and this Amendment would be the first step to other Amendments, so that in accordance with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said was the convenience of the Treasury, we might have Income Tax levied in a legal way, and not merely by Resolution of this House,

    2421
    which would give no legal sanction whatever to its collection.
    Sir J. D. REES: The right hon. Gentleman in his remarks said that my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment would be destructive of the Income Tax as a machine. I submit it is not my hon. and learned Friend, but the action of the Chancellor which has already made the machine creak in every joint. If the right hon. Gentleman did not treat the poor Income Taxpayer as a kind of criminal and hold him up on public platforms to public odium these difficulties would not arise. He says that no Chancellor could get a Budget through by 6th April. That may be so, but he could get it through before 6th December. Surely there is so much more behind the Amendment than has been actually put into my hon. and learned Friend's argument that he was entitled to more respectful consideration at the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer than he received. The real fact is that it is because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made finance in general and the Income Tax in particular, the plaything of party politics that the machine creaks at every joint and is being destroyed.
    It is because the Chancellor of the Exchequer is cornered in the
    Law Courts that this question now arises. If the people who pay Income Tax, and, more particularly, Supertax, while they are paying and contributing in this manner to the expenses of the country have by their own industry and prudence enabled themselves to pay these taxes, surely the right hon. Gentleman—[Laughter.]—Hon. Gentlemen who regard that as a matter for laughter illustrate most admirably the point of view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which I am endeavouring to state. I put it to the House that this question is entitled to more respectful consideration. If those who pay Income Tax and Super-tax are called wicked monopolists, surely it is obvious the conditions under which they pay must be more carefully scrutinised in future, and there must be some return to the earlier ideals to which my hon. and learned Friend referred when finance was regarded as the greatest function of this House and the taxpayer regarded as a person to be cherished and respected, and not held up to odium on every public platform, and merely treated with simulated respect from the Front Bench.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 129; Noes, 239.

    Division No. 186.]

    AYES.

    [12.16 a.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    DJ Cros, Arthur Philip

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Jackson, Sir John

    Ashley, W. W.

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Fell, Arthur

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton)

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Lowe, Sir F. (Edgbaston)

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Malcolm, Ian

    Boyton, James

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Burdett-Coutts, William

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Gretton, John

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

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

    Cassel, Felix

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Newman, John R. p.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Cave, George

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Parkes, Ebenezer

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

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

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

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Clyde, James Avon

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Hills, John Waller

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Royds, Edmund

    Dixon, Charles Harvey

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

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

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Swift, Rigby

    Winterton, Earl of

    Sanders, Robert

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

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

    Sandys, G. J.

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Sasscon, Sir Philip

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Valentia, Viscount

    Younger, Sir George

    Stanier, Beville

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Pollock and Sir Alfred Cripps.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Glanville, Harold James

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Meagher, Michael

    Allen, A. Acland (Dumbarton)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Greig, Col. J. W.

    Molloy, Michael

    Armitage, Robert

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Arnold, Sydney

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

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

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

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Hackett, John

    Morgan, George Hay

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Morison, Hector

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Hancock, John George

    Morrell, Philip

    Barnes, George N.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Muldoon, John

    Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Munro, Robert

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

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

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

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Neilson, Francis

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Nicholson, Sir Charles (Doncaster)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Nolan, Joseph

    Boland, John Pius

    Hayward, Evan

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Nuttall, Harry

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Brace, William

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

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

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Herbert, Col, Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Bryce, John Annan

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Dowd, John

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Hinds, John

    O'Grady, James

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Malley, William

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh)

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

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hudson, Walter

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

    Clough, William

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    John, Edward Thomas

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Cotton, William Francis

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Radford, G. H.

    Crooks, William

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Crumley, Patrick

    Joyce, Michael

    Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

    Cullinan, John

    Keating, Matthew

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Kelly, Edward

    Reddy, M.

    Dawes, J. A.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Delany, William

    King, J.

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Dillon, John

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

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Duffy, William J.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

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

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

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

    Falconer, J.

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Sheehy, David

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Shortt, Edward

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Ffrench, Peter

    McCallum, Sir John M.

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Field, William

    McGhee, Richard

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Sutherland, John E.

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Manfield, Harry

    Sutton, John E.

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    2424

    2425

    Tennant, Harold John

    Webb, H.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs.,N.)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Wedgwood, Josiah

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    White, J. Dun das (Glas., Tradeston)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

    Verney, Sir Harry

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

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Wadsworth, John

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Wiles, Thomas

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Wardle, G. J.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

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

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

    Mr. PETOhad the following Amendments on the Order Paper:—
    In Sub-section (1), after the word "Tax" ["Income Tax for the year"] insert the words, "in respect of the annual value of real property or the occupation thereof, and upon profits or gains actually received or accruing during the calendar year immediately preceding the year of assessment."
    After the word "twelve" ["nineteen hundred and twelve"] insert the words, "on all profits derived from land after deduction of all sums properly expended and necessary to maintain the property, and on all other profits as defined by the Income Tax Acts after deduction therefrom of full allowance for depreciation of all capital consisting of wasting assets, and Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1910, so far as it is inconsistent, is hereby repealed."
    After the word "twelve" ["nineteen hundred and twelve"] insert the words, "on all profits as defined by the Income Tax Acts after deduction therefrom of full allowance for the depreciation of all capital employed consisting of wasting assets."
    The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) is not in order, because it involves a charge on some taxpayers, and therefore cannot be proposed without a Resolution.
    Mr. PETO: On a point of Order. Would it not be impossible to reduce any tax under that ruling, because the reduction of any tax may require the collection of some other tax to make up the loss. I cannot understand in what way this Amendment, if carried, would involve any other additional tax. I only wish to define what are the profits on which Income Tax should be paid. The title of the Act of 1842 sets out that "it is to amend the laws relating to the land and assessed taxes, and also the laws relating to the duties on profits arising from property, professions, trades, and offices." The question I want to raise is that Income
    2426
    Tax is not now collected upon profits, but in a perfectly arbitrary manner, and upon sums which the taxpayer has not received in the form of profits. I submit this is not a question of imposing a burden upon anybody, but is rather a just method of collecting taxes upon real property and the profits of professions and industries according to the title of the original Act.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I should like, Mr. Whitley, to point out that this is a limiting Amendment. The words Income Tax, as I understand it, implies a tax upon incomes of above a certain annual value; this Amendment would limit that and restrict the raising of the tax to a certain proportion of incomes, and therefore does not impose a new tax.
    The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the point that this Amendment would but slightly reduce taxation on the subject, that is not the objection I raise to it. It is not competent for any Member to propose an Amendment which, although it will reduce taxation on some persons, will increase taxation upon other persons. The point is not because the money will have to be made up by other taxes, but that this very proposal itself would have the effect of increasing the taxes upon other persons. As I read this Amendment if it was intended to convey what the hon. Member urged it is badly drafted. The effect of this Amendment clearly is to abolish what is known as the three years' average and to assess Income Tax "upon profits or gains received or actually accruing during the calendar year immediately preceding the year of assessment." At present assessment is based upon the three years' average. Therefore this Amendment would raise the taxes upon some persons and therefore it cannot be moved. The second Amendment in the hon. Member's name covers two questions. I take the second half of it first, which would repeal Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1910. That, of course, must be moved in the form of a new Clause, and the hon. Member's third Amendment, dealing with the subject of wasting assets, is not in order, as that also should come up as a new Clause. I observe the hon. Member

    2427
    for Warwick and Leamington has down a new Clause dealing with this matter and that is the correct form.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I do not understand which part of your ruling touched the first part of the second Amendment of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto). Would it be in order to move the Amendment as far as the word "and"? ["necessary to maintain the property, and"]. Is not that part of the second Amendment in order?
    The CHAIRMAN: The subject, of course, is in order, but that should be a new Clause, because it is repealing Section 69 of the Act of 1010. The Noble Lord will observe that several of his friends have that down in the right form as a new Clause.
    Mr. PETO: On the third Amendment, may I call your attention to the fact that this was moved in identical words on 8th July, 1910, by Mr. Gibson Bowles, who was then Member for King's Lynn and a supporter of the Government? It was then allowed to be in order and was debated very fully. Even I myself was allowed an opportunity of speaking on that very occasion on this Amendment, which is now ruled out of order.
    The CHAIRMAN: In reply to that point, my recollection is that the Bill was not in Committee on the 8th July, 1910. My recollection is that the Committee stage of the Finance Bill of 1910 was taken in the month of December. I have looked up what the hon. Member referred to as taking place on the 8th July, and I find it was not the Committee stage of the Bill at all, but the Ways and Means Resolution.
    Captain CLIVE: With great respect, may I point out that the thirtieth day of the Committee on the Finance Bill was reached on the 23rd November?
    Mr. PETO: Am I to understand that it is in order on the Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means but out of order in Committee now?
    The CHAIRMAN: The occasion was different. I have no doubt it was in order on the Ways and Means Resolution. All I have said is that here it should come properly as a new Clause. The same thing applies to the next Amendment in the name of Mr. Charles Bathurst. The
    2428
    subject is in order, but it should brought in as a new Clause.
    The Amendment of Mr. Charles Bathurst was, in Clause 2, Sub-section (1), after the word "twopence" ["shall be charged at the rate of one shilling and twopence"], to insert the words, "but shall not be charged upon the income of any land upon which there has been grown and harvested during the current financial year a crop of wheat which remains in stack on the premises of its cultivator on the first day of February, nineteen hundred and thirteen."
    Mr. C. BATHURST: On a point of Order. This Amendment does not have the effect of creating a larger charge upon other taxpayers, which, I think, was the objection you made.
    The CHAIRMAN: If that had been so I should have ruled it out of order altogether. I only said it should come as a new Clause, and not as an Amendment to the Clause we are considering. The next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the Central Division of Sheffield (Mr. James Hope), I am afraid, falls because that requires a Money Resolution.
    The Amendment in the name of Mr. Hope was, in Clause 2, Sub-section (1), after the words "two pence" ["shall be charged at the rate of one shilling and two pence"] to insert the words "of which two pence shall be paid to a separate account and thereafter distributed among the local authorities of the United Kingdom in relief of rates in such manner and proportion and on such conditions as the Treasury may determine."
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: On a point of Order. May I call your attention to what took place on 24th May, 1905? The present Home Secretary moved an Amendment to the Sinking Fund Clause of the Finance Bill of that year. That Clause, which was passed into law, allotted £28,000,000 to the Sinking Fund. The present Home Secretary moved to increase that charge to £29,000,000, and at the same time he said that the extra £1,000,000 should be paid out of Estate Duty. Now the effect of that was to anticipate £1,000,000 of the Estate Duty, and it was paid to the Commissioners of National Debt. I contend that that Amendment was exactly on a par with the Amendment which I now submit, the only difference being that, whereas the present Home Secretary by his

    2429
    Amendment sought to anticipate the Estate Duty and apply it to the National Debt Commissioners, I seek to anticipate a portion of the Income Tax and apply it to the local authorities.
    The CHAIRMAN: I observed the case the hon. Member referred to which occurred on 24th May, 1905. It was in fact not a parallel case, as it was not proposed to distribute the money among local authorities. I have found a more recent precedent which much more closely conforms to the hon. Member's Amendment. In 1909 there was a proposal to distribute half the proceeds of the Land Taxes to the local authorities. That was a proposal brought in by the Government, and in order to do that the Government had to ask the House to pass a Money Resolution. If the Government had to ask for a Resolution, a private Member must certainly have to do so.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Was not that because it was an entirely new tax that year?
    The CHAIRMAN: No; it was because of the distribution of half the proceeds to local authorities.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I submit that the action of the Government on that occasion was what is known to theologians as supererogatory. It was no doubt advisable that they should do it to put themselves thoroughly in order before the House, but I do submit it is not necessary in this Amendment which, as a precedent shows, it can be done without a Resolution. I submit that the question whether it is in order or not does not depend whether the money is to go to the National Debt Commissioners or the local authorities. In each instance there is the proposal to anticipate money and devote it to a purpose.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think the Government is often accused of excessive virtue in the matter of finance. I am quite convinced they did not have two stages of finance procedure except for necessary reasons. The subject of the next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) is also in order but it should also be a new Clause. That in the name of the hon. Member for the Ross Division of Herefordshire (Captain Olive) should also be a new Clause, and I observe that he has put it down alternatively in that form. The Amendment of the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord
    2430
    Robert Cecil) proposes to abolish the three years' average, which entails an additional charge on the taxpayer.
    Mr. POLLOCK: This is only a different method of ascertaining in what proportion persons should pay the same amount, and it does not necessarily involve that the result will be different.
    The CHAIRMAN: It docs not necessarily result in the total receipts of the tax being different, but it obviously must increase the charge on some persons. I think it is a simple arithmetical proposition which must involve increased charge on some persons. The subject of the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) is also in order, but it must be brought up as a new Clause.
    The Amendment in the name of Mr. Cassel was, in Clause 2, at end of Subsection (1) to insert the words, "Provided always, and it is hereby expressly declared, that, in the case of any person dying during the year beginning on the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and twelve, Super-tax shall be apportioned and shall be only payable in respect of the period up to the death of the person so dying."
    Mr. CASSEL: I respectfully submit that this Amendment is in order in this place, but I am not quite sure whether you have appreciated one point in which it rather differs from the other Amendments, namely, that it is confined to the particular year of assessment. You have here a Sub-section which says all the enactments relating to Income Tax are to apply to this year of assessment. I wish to say that one of these enactments shall not apply. I wish to modify the provision that all the enactments relating to Income Tax should apply to the year of assessment. I do not see any other place in which I can do that. If, instead of that, I referred to other years, I could have understood the force of the observation of the Chairman that it should come in as a new Clause, but it is simply relating to the general provision that all the enactments relating to Income Tax should apply to this particular year, and I wish to exclude one tax. As far as I can see, the only way in which I could do that now would be to move to omit the Subsection altogether. If I could do that, surely I can move to modify the Subsection which says that all the enactments relating to income are to apply, so that

    2431
    it shall not apply to one tax. I submit that the Amendment is specifically limited to the particular year, and is correct in form, and that this is the right place to put it in upon the Section which says that it shall apply to all. I cannot see on what principle this is out of order. If it related to future years, I would agree that it ought to be a new Clause, but as I have limited it to the particular year of assessment, I submit that it ought to be put here.
    The CHAIRMAN: I see that on page 48 of the Order Paper the hon. Member himself has put down a new Clause on this subject.
    Mr. CASSEL: As some doubt had arisen, I did that merely as a safeguard. I was in doubt how it ought to be put down. But private Members are ruled out of order on a good many points in bringing forward Amendments, and I respectfully submit that a private Member has a right when the Government say that all the enactments are to apply on a particular year, to say that in a particular case they shall not apply.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not say that the hon. Member did not act wisely in putting down his Amendment and also a Clause as an alternative, but I do say that this Amendment is not in the right place. It ought to be a new Clause. I do not think that the point that he confines it to a particular year would cause me to alter the decision I have already given.
    Mr. CASSEL: In that case, I beg to move to omit Sub-section (2). The reason why I do that is because the Sub-section includes a very unjust provision with regard to the Super-tax. That provision is that in the case of a person who dies in the middle of the year of assessment, he has to pay a full year.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not wish to make any suggestion to the hon. Member, but I would point out that the new Clause is in the correct form for what he wants to do, and he may actually block that by raising the subject here.
    Mr. CASSEL: The difficulty I feel with regard to the new Clause is that I am afraid it may not be reached. I must, therefore, take any opportunity whilst I can. It is an unfortunate thing that I should have to do it in this way, because
    2432
    I have to move something which goes further than I really wish to go. The point which I desire to raise, and which I am afraid I shall be shut out from raising unless I do so now, is a point of real substance and of grievious injustice to taxpayers. I think those who pay Super-tax have not on the whole complained much about it, but they do say that if it is to be imposed at all it ought to be fairly imposed as between man and man, and I say that in a case where a man dies in the middle of the year it is an injustice to make him pay for a whole year. The Act was never intended to be retrospective. It does not say in words that it is retrospective. But the Government is now trying to enforce it in a manner which is making it retrospective. Whether they have the power to do that or not is a point of legal doubt, and I ask here that that legal doubt should be resolved by a Clause making it perfectly clear that if a man dies in the middle of the year of assessment he shall only be assessed for a proportionate part of the tax for that year.
    Sir W. P. BYLES: Has any question been put from the Chair, and if so, what?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is moving to leave out the Sub-section.
    Mr. CASSEL: My point is this, Supertax was first payable for the year which began on the 6th April, 1909, and ended on the 5th April, 1910, and it was payable for the income of the previous year. It was assumed that a man's income for the year beginning 6th April, 1909, and ending 5th April, 1910, was in fact the income of the previous year, and that was the first year on which he would have to pay it. Then he pays for the year 1910–11, and again for the year 1911–12. I assume that he does on the 10th April, 1912. He has paid for the full three years, and what the Treasury are seeking to do is because he has lived three days into the fourth year they will make him pay for the whole of that year. I do not think that such a grevious injustice ought to be left as it is, and therefore I raise it now instead of waiting until we come to the new Clauses later on. The first view of the Treasury, I understand, was that if a man had made a return, then he was liable to the Supertax, but if he had not made a return, then he was not. That is a most unintelligible theory. Because a man has been prompt to comply with an obligation under a statute, is he or his executors for that

    2433
    reason to be subject to a liability which otherwise would not have fallen upon them? I think I am right in saying that the injustice of that course was so gross and so manifest that when the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) raised the point on an earlier occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he so far recognised the injustice of any proceeding of that kind that sooner than allow it to be fought in the Law Courts he himself would look into it and introduce an Amendment to rectify it.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No.
    Mr. CASSEL: That is my recollection of what he said. It was something to that effect. He said he would look into it. Perhaps I am overstating the case. He said, as it struck him at the moment, that sooner than allow it to be fought in the Law Courts, a new Clause ought to be put in. As to the theory that it makes any difference whether a man has made a return or not, I do not know on what it is founded. It is manifestly unjust, apart from that, that a man who has paid the full tax for three years should have to pay the fourth year because he has lived three or four days into the fourth year, and that he should have to pay another full year for that reason. Take the case of the ordinary Income Tax. There is there an express provision that if a man dies in the course of the year, then a just proportion shall be returned to his estate. In other words the Act provides that there is in those circumstances to be an apportionment in the case of the ordinary Income Tax. The right hon. Gentleman may say to me: "This is the income of the previous year." That is perfectly true; but you assume that the income of this year is the income of the previous year. Similarly in the case of the ordinary Income Tax, it is not the actual income of the year that you deal with, but the average income for the previous three years. When, as in the case of the Super-tax, you make the assumption that last year's income is this year's income and deal with this year's income in that way, you should, at any rate, deal with it fairly if a man lives only for a portion of the year for which he is charged. I am sorry to have to move the proposal in a form which makes me go really further than I wish to go. But I must raise the question at a time when I am able to do so in the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell the Committee what has been the result of his cogitations since
    2434
    the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) raised the point. I propose now to move that the words "including Super-tax" be omitted.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As the hon. and learned Gentleman has fairly admitted his Amendment goes very much further than the proposal upon which he really wishes to take the judgment of the Committee. The omission of the words he proposes to leave out would have the effect of destroying all the machinery of the Super-tax. The hon. and learned Gentleman himself admitted that the Super-tax is a fair tax and he said there was no complaint on the part of those who are subjected to it. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] I understood him to say that they did not complain of the Super-tax.
    Mr. CASSEL: I did say that no complaint was made with reference to the Super-tax itself, but I complained of this particular injustice.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is what I meant. I understand the hon. and learned Member is simply moving the Amendment in this form in order to obtain the judgment of the Committee on that particular grievance. He is perfectly correct in saying that I promised to give the matter my attention. I did not promise to introduce an Amendment, but I did promise that if I found the grievance was exactly as stated the Government would meet that grievance. The hon. and learned Member, however, has simply stated the case of the taxpayer. There is also a case so far as revenue is concerned, and that must be considered when we are dealing with the matter. This matter cannot be remedied except by means of a Resolution. In some cases it would undoubtedly let off the subject, but in other cases it would involve a charge. The practice has, I think, been quite fairly stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman. If a return is made before the date of the death then the Super-tax undoubtedly is paid for the whole of that year, but if there is no return then there is no claim.
    Therefore, if the grievance is to be redressed at all it must be redressed all round. That would mean that the strictly fair thing possibly might be—there is a consideration against this—to charge the proportion up to the date of the death; but then that ought to be done all round. That is exactly what I want to point out and what I hope the Committee will

    2435
    realise. It means that the estate of a person who has not made a return before death must be liable to pay Super-tax up to the date of death in the same way as if there had been a return. I cannot redress this grievance in an equitable manner—in a manner, that is to say, equitable to the Exchequer as well as to the subject—without having a Resolution. That I cannot do at the present moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It is impossible. I am not sure that it could be done even by consent. If it would be possible to do it by consent I would offer no objection so long as it is made perfectly clear that the revenue gets the advantage of cases where it is now losing, or rather getting no payment, because a return has not been made. I cannot, however, agree to the one-sided proposal made by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: There is one point, and one only, I think, which has been omitted in the discussion. It is this. The right hon. Gentleman said the Super-tax was paid when a return had been made. I do not think that statement was perfectly correct. The duty is not paid. True it is claimed, but that is a very different thing. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will admit it is a very doubtful point of law.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I said so.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say the duty was paid.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I simply put that point rather in favour of the hon. and learned Gentleman, because unless it is paid there is no grievance so far as the taxpayer is concerned. I am only assuming that in favour of the hon. Gentleman.
    1.0 A.M.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer always appears to me to take the attitude that it is no possible hardship to the subject to make a claim on him and take him into a court of law where he has to defend his resistance to the claim. The grievance of the taxpayer begins, not when the duty is paid, but when the duty is claimed. I do not wish to make this point in an aggressive way at all, because I was going on to add that the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to me a perfectly fair one,
    2436
    and I believe would be perfectly satisfactory to my hon. and learned Friend. But the point I wished to make on it was this, that, in view of the general agreement, that either this year, or if possible, next year, a Clause should be introduced to carry out the Chancellor's proposal. I will not waste time in repeating it, because everybody understood it. It would be a most unfortunate proceeding that these claims should now be pressed, and that expenses should be incurred in a Court of Law in fighting them, when an agreement has been reached here simply because of the pressure of business here, and of the conditions under which we are working now—which are certainly not the fault of the taxpayer. Therefore, I think we may reasonably ask that while we, on this side of the House, accept the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, he shall undertake to introduce it as soon as possible, and that in the meantime these claims shall not be pressed, and the taxpayer shall not be put to the expense of contesting them in the Courts of Law.
    Mr. CASSEL: The right hon. Gentleman has met very fairly the point which I put forward, but there are some difficulties. On the question as to whether a Resolution is necessary or not, I should submit that no Resolution would be necessary, because, so far as it is claimed by the Inland Revenue that it makes no difference whether you have or have not made a return, I cannot see on what that is based at all. Either you are liable, or you are not liable at all. I see the two Law Officers there; if they would explain on what the suggestion is based that it makes no difference whether a return is made or not, it might have a bearing on the question of whether a Resolution is necessary or not. My submission is that if the Act is capable of interpretation at all, that you can collect for the whole year, it is capable of that interpretation, whether a return is made or not, and it is in order to get rid of that that I proposed this Amendment, which, in every case is for the benefit of the subject. All that I want is, for the benefit of the subject, to reduce it in the case where a man dies in the middle of the year. The contention of the Inland Revenue, if it is any contention at all, must be that where a man dies in the middle of the year, he is liable for the whole year. My suggestion is that for such year he should only be liable for a proportionate part, and it is therefore a reduction for the benefit of the subject. I submit, although I speak on

    2437
    subjects of procedure in this House with very great diffidence, as a new Member, that no new Resolution is necessary.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the Chairman of the Committee is of opinion that an Amendment on the lines indicated by me would be in order without a Resolution, then I would proceed to draft it.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think, Sir, if I may say so, without trenching on your prerogative, this is a question of law before it becomes a question for the Chairman. The great thing is whether the hon. and learned Gentleman who last spoke is right as to the law. If the claim is what the Inland Revenue I believe have stated it to be—that a man is liable, if he has made a return, though he dies immediately afterwards, but is not liable, though he dies on the same date, if he has not yet made a return, then no doubt, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, while relieving some people, you would be placing a new charge on others. My hon. Friend disputes the legality, and contends that that is not the correct reading of the law, and on that, he really wanted the opinion of the Attorney-General. I do not want to disturb the harmony of the proceedings, which at the present time is remarkable, and I hope my remarks will not be taken in that sense by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it really is the question of law on which I think both the Committee and the Chair should have the guidance of the Attorney-General.
    If the view of the law taken by my hon. and learned Friend is disputed, and the contention of the Inland Revenue is maintained, that the fact of the return having been made or not having been made decides the liability, clearly the law—as agreed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—is both inequitable, and highly inexpedient. It becomes the interest of everyone who receives a claim for a return, to delay that return to the utmost possible limit, and even beyond the legal limit. That is highly inexpedient, and if the Government takes that view, then I do submit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might fairly do one of two things; either find the little time that is required for a Resolution to apportion the tax according to the length of time a man has lived, which meets the views of my hon. Friends; or, if under the circumstances in which we are discussing the subject, he cannot find time for a Resolution of that kind, then at least
    2438
    he should cease to commit the present injustice.
    He says he cannot afford to do justice to the people who are now over-taxed, because by an oversight, some other people have been under-taxed. Is that the real ground that either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or this Committee ought to take up? The matter cannot be a big one, financially, though perhaps the bigger it were, the greater the offence against justice. But in any individual case there might be a considerable hardship, and it is not too much to ask the Chancellor, if he cannot find time to right the whole thing now, with the general assent of the Committee, at least to right the actual thing that is wrong, and in his Budget next year to take the matter in time and do so.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would like to meet the right hon. Gentleman and his friends in this case, because there is a grievance. But I do not think that is a good way of doing it. I would rather that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cassel) should preserve his rights of moving his Amendment later on, by withdrawing it now. I should be inclined to consult the authorities of the House as to whether it is necessary that there should be a Resolution, and if it is, see if it is possible to do it. But it is much better that we should do it on an equitable basis if it can be done this year. I do recognise that this is a very real grievance. I need say only one word in reply to the hon. Gentleman. He has quite forgotten that I suggested that a test case should be fought at the expense of the Crown, not of the subject. I did not invite the subject to litigate at his own expense; on the contrary, I suggested it should be done at the expense of the Crown. I asked about it when the matter was first mentioned, but I heard nothing further about it. If the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Cassel) can see his way now to withdraw his proposal, without further discussion, then he will be able to preserve his right to move an Amendment later.
    The CHAIRMAN: It may be for the convenience of the Committee that I should say that to set up a Committee of Ways and Means would mean several days' delay—that is to say, if the case I have just heard argued is a correct one.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: May I ask your opinion on this: supposing we are advised

    2439
    by the Law Officers of the Crown that the law is doubtful, would it then be competent for the Government to move an Amendment on the lines I have indicated? In that case, the effect undoubtedly would be to reduce the charge on the subject.
    The CHAIRMAN: Of course, if the Government can show me that it would not increase the charge on any person during the current year I would accept it.
    Mr. POLLOCK: May I make a practical suggestion? I hold in my hand the ordinary document for Super-tax, which sets out the two sections under which the tax is collected, and gives the intelligent subject four pages of regulations under which he is to make his return. If it is a matter of doubt as to whether or not it can be collected—whether the subject or State ought to pay it or not—there is a power under Section 72 for the Commissioners to make regulations for the purpose of carrying this Section into effect. If it is a matter of doubt it is quite possible for the Commissioners to make clear what is doubtful, and under their regulations, prevent difficulty arising.
    The CHAIRMAN: Of course I cannot compete with hon. and learned Members on this point, but I think if they put their heads together they can find a way out, and I suggest under those circumstances the satisfactory method would be to bring up the matter at a later stage.
    Mr. CASSEL: After what the right hon. Gentleman has said I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment but I take it time will be found in which to discuss it at a later stage.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I desire to raise the point which I was precluded from raising in my Amendment. The clause of course re-enacts all the provisions of the Income Tax laws that are now in force, and among these is the three years' average. That average was originally enacted in 1842, and was extended under the Act of 1853. When it was enacted the machinery was that the taxpayer might in effect choose to pay the tax either on the three years' average or on the income for the actual year of assessment, because after having been taxed on the three years' average he could always say, "In point of fact, I have not been able to earn as much as the three years' average, and, therefore,
    2440
    I ask to be assessed upon my actual income." Gradually, by the action of Parliament, the alternative of being taxed on the actual profit of the year was taken away, and now the taxpayer is forced to be taxed on the three years' average. The effect of that is that while a man's income is increasing he pays less than what he would have to pay if he were paying on his actual income, but if for any reason his income begins to come down he has to pay a larger tax. I do submit that is a very unfavourable form of taxation. When a man's income is going up he can well afford to pay his tax, because his scale of expenditure is fixed upon his income as it was. He gets a little more next year, and he has a certain amount of money to spare, and is really able to meet his taxes with greater ease. If, on the other hand, his income goes down, it is quite plain the tax fails very much more heavily upon him than it would otherwise do, and in the case of a professional man—because my knowledge happens to extend more to professional men than to business men, and my Amendment is confined to professional men—it may be a very great hardship indeed.
    Take the case of a doctor in large practice. He falls into ill-health, or he may have to move, owing to the health of his family, from one town to another, losing his practice altogether. He may have to go on for the next three years paying on the basis of the income he was making before, and this is a very serious hardship indeed. The matter was considered by the Committee who sat in 1905. After considering the matter very elaborately in reference to business men, they said that the position of the professional men and of employés was somewhat different, and that the argument in favour of the average system applied to the one has not the same force when applied to the other. To most professional men who do not keep books, like a business firm, it might probably be an advantage to return the profit of one year rather than three years, and if an appeal were made it would involve less troublesome proof. It is worthy of consideration, therefore, whether in a case of employés and professional men the income should not be returned on the receipts of the previous year. They therefore reported substantially in favour of the proposition, that in the case of professional men at any rate—and my Amendment only deals with professional men—it would be desirable to substitute the last year's actual income instead of the average for the three years. Of course I quite admit

    2441
    that on Clause 2 I cannot do more than submit the matter to the consideration of the Committee and the Government. I trust I may receive an assurance from the Government—and I do not at this minute ask for more—that the matter will receive attention, and that if it is raised, as I suppose it ought to be, as a matter of Order on the Resolution of Ways and Means, the Government will be prepared to consider the matter with an open mind.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This is an old topic—I think a hardy annual. The Noble Lord will realise that from the point of view of the Exchequer at the present moment nothing would have suited better. I say that, because I believe the profits of last year were higher than the average of the preceding three years, and it would mean an increase probably of half-a-million in the Income Tax if charged upon profits of the previous year. I have no doubt that the same thing would apply to next year, because the profits seem to be very high in the present year. I am sure that the Noble Lord will recognise that by merely charging upon one year he does not avoid the difficulties which he has pointed out. A man's income may be going down, and he is charged upon the income of the preceding three years, whilst the income of the year has gone down considerably; but the same thing applies to charging him on the preceding year.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: It is only on the one year, the last year; that is better than the three years.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not sure that it may not be a good thing, in the case of the professional man, and the Noble Lord has confined himself to the professional man, but it certainly would not apply in the same way to traders. Take the case of the professional man; his income fluctuates a good deal, according to the trade in a particular district. In three years, you get something like a cycle, you might have it worse in one year and better in the other years. Take the case of an architect, the building trade might be prosperous in one year, and the income might be good, but next year down it goes, and the profits are very small. He has got to pay upon that what may be an exceptional year, whilst if you take the three years' average these things are equalised more or less. I am not sure that a good many professional men would not rather object
    2442
    to it. It would suit some perhaps. But I am sure the business men would object to it for that very reason, because the fluctuations are very considerable, and the three years' average works out better.
    If the Noble Lord will go into the figures he will find how it works out. There is a gradual increase. There is no great fluctuation, because you take the average of three years. Whereas, if you took it only for the preceding year you would get a very considerable income in one year, and if trade went down in the next year you would find a considerable depression. By taking the average of three years you will find there is a steady growth right through the years without any fluctuations. I think that suits the subject, and it certainly suits the revenue. The Noble Lord has appealed to the Government to take the matter into consideration so far only as the professional man is concerned. There is no doubt he has the Report of the Committee behind him. They considered the subject and they were on the whole inclined in favour of the alteration as regards professional men. That, coupled with the request of the Noble Lord that we should take the matter into account, is sufficient to justify me in pledging the Inland Revenue to give further consideration to the matter before the Budget is introduced in the coming year.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I desire to say a few words in reply. First, as to the point of fluctuations of trade. If a fluctuation gives a man a very large income in one year, I do not think he would feel it a very great hardship to have to pay on that in the next year. The average over the three years means that he may be taxed on an income which has almost vanished, and that is a hardship. I do not want to argue the matter, but I think, although I will not pledge myself, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer looks at the Reports he will find that the Commissioners did say that they did not think it would make any difference to the revenue one way or the other. The thing would average out in any case, whether three years or one year was taken. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find a statement of that kind.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give his consideration to another hardship which presses upon many people with regard to the method of assessing income

    2443
    for Income Tax. It presses especially upon those people who derive their income from hotels or boarding-houses or boarding-schools. In the Income Tax Act of 1842, Section 101 deals with a person who rents a dwelling-house and uses part of it for the purpose of his trade or profession, and it is provided that in computing the true income derived from such concern, business or profession, a sum may be deducted from the profits not exceeding two-thirds of the rental of the house. That limit of two-thirds is a very arbitrary one when we come to calculate the profits from hotels or boarding-houses or boarding-schools. Let me illustrate that by an extreme case.
    Suppose the Hotel Cecil belonged to a single individual, and that individual occupied a bedroom or sitting - room in the hotel. The Surveyor of Taxes, in calculating the profits derived from the Hotel Cecil, in these circumstances would deduct from the profits a sum not exceeding two-thirds of the total rent of the rooms and would then hold that the other one-third represented the value of the accommodation which was reserved by the proprietor for himself. Of course, that is quite a ridiculous proportion to preserve as representing the rent of the proprietor in such a case. A few surveyors have boldly grappled with the difficulty, and have tried to find a way out. They have held that a hotel or boarding-house, or boarding-school, in these circumstances is not a dwelling house at all, and that the proper way of dealing with it is to deduct from the profits the whole of the rent of the premises. But on the other hand there is added to the profits a sum equal to the value of the accommodation which is reserved by the proprietor for himself, the whole accommodation, whether including lodging, food or board. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."] I think hon. Gentlemen may well spend a few moments upon this subject. It is the only opportunity we have of calling attention to these matters. Only a very few Surveyors of Taxes have adopted the method which I have just described. The vast majority of the surveyors adhere to the letter of the law, and in order to secure relief for these people who suffer hardship from it, some alteration of the law is necessary. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take the matter into consideration with a view to practically dealing with it on some future occasion.
    Captain CLIVE: In view of the ruling which has been given, I wish to take this opportunity of calling attention to the point on which I proposed to amend the Clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows the point very well. It is the effect of Section 69 of the Finance Act of 1909–10, that all repairs that have been proved to have been executed—
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not mind the matter being discussed now. But there is a new Clause dealing with the proposal, and I should have thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman would have discussed it on the concrete proposal. I understand the Chairman has ruled that the new Clause is in order.
    The CHAIRMAN: I have already said that the new Clause is certainly in order, but of course it is not for me to advise the hon. Member.
    Captain CLIVE: In view of that suggestion I will wait for the new Clause.
    Clause 3 added to the Bill.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after what he said earlier in the evening, will now consent to report Progress. We have come to an end of the Clauses which stand in the Bill, and are now approaching the consideration of the new Clauses. The right hon. Gentleman expressed the intention of not sitting later than half-past one o'clock, and as we have to meet again at twelve o'clock to-day, I hope he will agree to report Progress now.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is one more Clause in the Bill—a formal Clause.
    Clause 4 added to the Bill.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In reference to what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, I do not want to take the responsibility of keeping the Committee sitting very late, but still, for a Finance Bill, this is really fairly early. I am not going to quote again the precedent of the right hon. Gentleman's own Budget; but I find that even in the case of his second Budget the Committee was kept sitting until after two o'clock in the morning. I hope therefore, that we may be able to make some progress to-night with the new Clauses. I am not going to keep the Committee very

    2445
    late, and like the right hon Gentleman, I have also in mind the fact that we have to meet at twelve o'clock to-day.

    NEW CLAUSE.—Exemption from Income Tax of funds under The National Insurance Act, 1911.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to move the Second Reading of the following new Clause:—
    An approved society within the meaning of Part I. of The National Insurance Act, 1911, and any branch of such a society, shall be entitled to exemption from Income Tax in respect of the income derived from any funds or credits of the society under that part of that Act or any investment thereof, and the Insurance Commissioners, the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, the Irish Insurance Commissioners, and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners shall be entitled to a similar exemption in respect of any income derived from any funds held by them, or under their control or management, under or for the purposes of that Act.
    (2) The exemption granted under this Section shall be claimed and allowed in the same manner as in the case of income applicable and applied to charitable purposes, and shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other exemption under any other Act.
    This Clause is purely an uncontroversial one. It is practically the inevitable result of passing the National Insurance Act of last year. Up to now the funds of registered friendly societies and trade unions have been exempt from Income Tax. This merely extends the exemption to all societies which become approved societies under the National Insurance Act. I may point out to the Committee that it only applies to funds which are comprised within the limits of the approved society, and not to any funds which exist outside. The result will be that any saving which is made by these funds, not being subject to Income Tax, will be applied entirely for the provision of benefits for the working class population who possess incomes of under £160 a year.
    Mr. CASSEL: I do not desire for a moment to oppose the Second Reading of this Clause, but I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman specifically whether it is intended that this exemption should apply to sections as well as to societies. If the right hon. Gentleman says so, or if the learned Attorney-General tells the
    2446
    Committee that in his view it does extend to sections, then I shall not press the point further, because I shall rely on the fact that if hereafter it were held that it did not so apply, the Government would amend the Clause so as to include sections. Obviously it is only fair, if you have companies forming sections, that those sections should, so far as Income Tax is concerned, be on the same footing as other approved societies. There is one other point which I should like to mention. In a sense it is perhaps anticipating the Amendment I have put down to the Clause, but only in the sense of ascertaining really whether the scope of the Clause will permit of my moving it. I quite recognise it is fair that all these societies should be put on the same footing. Previously, apart from this new Clause, only registered friendly societies, trades unions, and industrial provident societies would have been exempt from certain schedules of the Income Tax. I apprehend that the intention of this Clause is to exempt them from all schedules of the Income Tax. I should like to have the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, as to whether it exempts them from Schedule A. What I desire to say is, that this Clause still leaves inequalities. It leaves certain registered friendly societies at an advantage over other societies in respect to taxes other than Income Tax. Take, for instance, Land Duties. Under Section 37 of the Finance Act, 1909–10, registered friendly societies are exempted from the periodical valuation for Increment Value Duty, and are exempted—I agree it is not a very large exemption—from Reversion Duty and from Undeveloped Land Duty in respect of premises actually occupied by them. I say that exemption is not a very large one, but, such as it is, it ought to apply to all societies equally. If the State establishes a number of societies, carrying on precisely the same business, under precisely the same regulations, then I submit with regard to all matters of taxation, whether Income Tax or Land Taxes, it is fair that all should be put on the same footing. What justification can there be for exempting from the periodical valuation for Increment Duty registered friendly societies and not exempting from it an unregistered friendly society or section. If the Government treat them as equals, as regards Income Tax, they ought to carry out the same principle with regard to all the Land Taxes, and Stamp Duty as well. I do not know whether a

    2447
    Clause is limited by its marginal note, and I should submit that the proper marginal note for this new Clause ought to be—"Exemptions of funds under National Insurance Act, 1911, from taxation." If we have a marginal note of this kind, then I should be in order in moving an Amendment giving a similar equality in regard to other taxes. Marginal notes, I take it, do not affect the interpretation of a statute.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman has really been discussing his Amendment, rather than the Clause. I agree with him that the Clause is not governed by the marginal note, but, at the same time, the Amendment he has put on the Paper will not be in order on this Clause, though it would be in order as a separate Clause.
    Mr. CASSEL: In that case I would simply make these observations on the Second Reading. I should like a clear and distinct statement as to whether, in the view of the Government, this includes "sections" as well, and if it includes Schedule "A", as well as the other schedules? If I cannot move my Amendment to this Clause, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the point I put forward.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, I would remind him that he has again, and not for the first time, forgotten the existence of organisations known as "associations" or federations of societies. The Commissioners, in their recent circulars, have attempted to make the associations a body with a much stronger link than was originally intended before the Bill was before the House, and to constitute them into a federation of a much more substantial character having funds in their hands. The Commissioners say it will be desirable that these county federations of societies—of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has encouraged the formation—should have funds in their hands, and possibly should themselves hold the sums which, after the valuation, will have to be applied towards making good the deficiency of any of the societies that are in an unsatisfactory financial position. It is clear that this Clause if it is to be comprehensive, ought to include "associations" as well as the societies to which these words will refer.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I confess I do not feel quite so clear as some hon. Members that this is a desirable change in the law. As I understand the law at present, friendly societies, trades unions, and provident societies are all exempt from Income Tax. Substantially, the effect of this Amendment is to exempt the insurance companies acting as approved societies under this Act. I do not wish to say a word against the insurance companies, but, in point of fact, there is no doubt in the mind of anybody that though they are practically prohibited from making a profit by the operations under the Insurance Act, they unquestionably are going to make a very large profit—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO"]—by coming into the Act, otherwise they would not be coming in. We know, from the Secretary to the Treasury, that they have got the bulk of those new members who have come into Approved Societies under this Act. Therefore this would be a boon to the insurance companies who work the Act. I do not think it is quite right to give that boon to these companies I do not want to say a word against them but, after all, they are ordinary commercial companies, working for profit. On this particular part of their business they do not make a direct profit, but an indirect profit. That is to say that a company working for profit, if it is also doing work which is approved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day, is not to pay Income Tax. I do not think myself that that is so clear a proposition as it appears to be considered on the Treasury Bench, and in other parts of the House. I should like to have a very clear statement of the grounds which the Government have for thinking that the Prudential and the other insurance companies could be freed from any Income Tax because they are carrying out work under this Act.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I will not trouble the House with more than a few words. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked two questions, one of which was if this Clause included sections of approved societies.
    Mr. CASSEL: Sections of companies?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The other was whether we could accept his Amendment; or, if his Amendment were out of order, whether we would be prepared favourably to consider it if it were brought up as a new Clause. The section is the approved

    2449
    society under the National Insurance Act, and, therefore, every section, as an approved society, is exempted. But the company of which the section is the approved society is not exempt and that is my real answer to the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) who thought we should exempt great industrial companies.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Oh no, I never thought that.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No profit of any sort can be made by the approved society. All the results of the money which is paid, cither by the employer, the employee, or the State, must go for the benefit of the insurance of the people. Every farthing that is paid into an approved society must be kept absolutely separate. The other question I was asked was about associations and federations. If these two are approved societies, they will be exempted under the Clause. If they are not approved societies, their funds will come from approved societies which will have already obtained that exemption. This exemption applies to the funds and credits of the societies, and so far as we can see at present there will be no approved societies that will be holding land. That, I think, will be the answer to the hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel). But if, when his Amendment Is raised, he can give reasons to show that there will be legal power on approved societies to invest in land, I will gladly give his Amendment favourable consideration.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: The right hon. Gentleman has not appreciated my point. An asociation under Section 39 is an association of approved societies. Whatever new nicknames the Commissioners choose to invent, an association is an association of approved societies, and if money is paid by these societies to their association, and that association chooses to invest this money, I ask whether this Clause will apply to the invested money of the association or approved societies?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think there will be any money invested under those conditions except the investments of the approved societies which make up the association. If it is not an approved society, Income Tax will be already collected.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: But if it is invested by the association there will be nothing to prevent Income Tax on the income of
    2450
    these invested funds being paid over again?
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I would submit one point to my hon. Friend (Mr. Bathurst). It is, of course, perfectly true that these insurance companies are not taking up work under the National Health Insurance Act as a matter of pure philanthrophy, but as another part of their business, but is that a reason for taxing them when doing a business for which you do not tax other associations? As regards the money which is collected under the National Insurance Act, they cannot make any direct profit on that. Any profit that they make is indirect, in the growth of their other business. I do not think that because they get an indirect profit, on which they will pay Income Tax, they should be asked to pay Income Tax on something on which they cannot make a profit. I hope my Noble Friend will consider that, and perhaps not press his point.
    Mr. PETO: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman) if he will kindly explain what is the real reason for this Clause? If the Income Tax is, as it originally was proposed in the Act of 1842, a tax upon property, and if no approved societies could be a society trading for profit, I want to know where are the profits on an approved society which the right hon. Gentleman is going to exempt from Income Tax? That is the first point which I want to put. The second point is—taking the case of the Prudential, which is the case. Lord Robert Cecil was thinking of. What is the meaning and reason of a special Clause being brought in to say the Government will not charge Income Tax upon profits which cannot ex-hypothesi exist. It seems to me the most extraordinary proposal to put in a special Clause to exempt societies, which cannot make a profit, from a tax which is supposed to be a tax on profit.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I certainly do not desire to put the Committee to the trouble of a division, but the matter is very obscure and difficult to follow. I do not see myself what, on the face of it, is the real meaning of this Clause. I can understand very well that it may be convenient for a company working for a profit to have such a Clause to protect them from any enquiries made by the Revenue Officers, but the real point is that if you have a company working for profit, and give it a State

    2451
    subsidy, you get into all sorts of difficulties. It puts the company in a very difficult position. I am quite sure this is thoroughly unsound, and this discussion shows one of the respects in which the whole policy of the Government is unsound, and leads to very serious result. We shall have to raise the subject on a subsequent occasion, but I will not trouble the Committee to divide now.
    Mr. ROYDShad the following new Clauses on the paper:—Section 25, Sub-section (4) (b) of The Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, shall have effect, and shall be deemed always to have had effect as if the words "other than agriculture" had been omitted from such Sub-section, and any valuations made before the passing of this Act shall be amended accordingly.
    It is hereby declared that for the ascertainment of the full site value of agricultural land under Section 25, Subsection (2) of The Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, no regard shall be had to the presence of buildings suitable for agricultural occupation on other lands, such other lands being deemed to be divested of any such buildings and of any other structures (including fixed or attached machinery) on, in, or under the surface which are appurtenant to or used in connection with any such buildings, and of all growing timber, fruit trees, fruit bushes, and other things growing thereon.
    The CHAIRMAN: The next Clause increases the charge on some persons and therefore comes under the rule I have laid down. It appears to me that the effect of this Clause, while relieving some persons—that is to say lowering the taxation on those who have to pay under the Undeveloped Land Tax—it must at the same time increase the taxation of those who pay Increment Tax. I will hear what the hon. Member for Sleaford has to say as to whether these Amendments would not increase the charge on any one.
    Mr. ROYDS: My first Amendment has reference only to the valuation of the site value of agricultural land—the sum at which site value has to be assessed. My Amendment solely relates to agricultural land pure and simple, which is exempt from Increment Value Duty altogether, and
    2452
    which is also exempt under the Land Duty. Therefore, my Clause does not affect in any manner the payment of Increment Value Duty or Undeveloped Land Duty, but solely refers to the value placed on the site of agricultural land. Site value is not at present the subject of taxation under the provisions of the Budget, but it may be the subject of taxation in future. My Amendment has nothing to do with present taxes.
    The CHAIRMAN:I am afraid that part of the Clause is outside the scope of the Bill. The hon. Member has not quite answered the point I asked him to address himself to. Is it not the case that an Amendment which lowers the valuation would have the effect that when that land, although agricultural now, became building land in the future, or land of such value as came under the Undeveloped Land Tax, if taxation on some persons were reduced it must at the same time increase the tax on other persons who happen to become liable? Will the hon. Member keep himself to that Point of Order?
    Mr. ROYDS: It is quite true that if my new Clause is accepted it might have the effect of lowering the datum line on which Increment Value Duty is calculated on agricultural land, but if the datum line were lowered it would not have the effect of placing any new burdens on other persons. I must admit that it might have the effect of increasing Increment Value Duty in respect of this particular land.
    The CHAIRMAN: That exactly answers my point. In some cases it would increase the tax.
    2.0 A.M.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Would it not be possible to put in a proviso to the Clause stating that it shall not have effect in the case of Increment Duty? I think such a proviso could be moved and then added to the Clause. Would that be in order?
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think it would. If the hon. Member gave a little more thought to it he might achieve his object by dealing with the tax on collection by way of an additional deduction. He might deal with it in that way similarly to the case of Income Tax instead of on the valuation. As it stands, it comes under the Rule. The third Amendment is in order.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I think in considering the matter it should be borne in mind

    2453
    that the curious difficulty in which we find ourselves arises from the fact that the Government have included what were purely valuation Clauses in a Finance Bill. We find ourselves in the serious position that because of the action of the Government, which is contrary to precedent, so far as I am aware, we are unable either now or at any future time under the Standing Orders of the House to propose any Amendment in the valuation Clauses of the Bill. The matter is serious; it is of the greatest importance, and I think, Sir, if you will consider it from that point of view, you will see that my hon. Friend has a very strong case; because this possible increase of taxes, if it is possible, does not apply to the present taxpayer, it does not apply to the owner of the agricultural land, it relates possibly to the future. It appears to me that the ruling is stretching a point against my hon. Friend. If there is a matter of doubt, it should be given in favour of the House, especially in view of the peculiar circumstances in which we are placed, this being the only method in which this valuation question can be raised or an Amendment moved upon the subject. It is said that the effect of these two Amendments so far as they relate to agricultural land, or what is now called agricultural land, may be to increase the burden upon the subject. But it is only a remote contingency, when that land becomes at some future time building land. That is all that we are now considering, and if that strict view is taken it will absolutely preclude us from moving any Amendment upon the method of valuation. I think we have a right to ask you, sir, to take that matter into your consideration and see whether you cannot allow this Amendment to be moved.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I submit this point? During the passage of the 1909–10 Budget there were a number of Amendments moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by the hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House bearing upon the datum line. It was never suggested by anybody that these Amendments were out of order, which they would have been, if the suggested rule were applied which is to be acted upon now. I grant that the proposals might presumably increase in the far future the taxes which would be levied by a future House of Commons or future Chancellor of the Exchequer, upon the subject. But the very point which my hon. Friend
    2454
    wishes to raise was raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Amendments moved in Committee on the Budget I refer to. He then varied the level of the datum line.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I moved them to meet the case put by Members on that side of the House.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Probably so. But whether you vary it up or down you will have the possibility of an increase. You would either increase the Undeveloped Land Duty or the Increment Land Duty. If this ruling is to hold good, you could never vary the datum line, and if that be so, the Amendments to the Bill of 1910 were really all out of order.
    The CHAIRMAN: I may inform the Committee that I have given a good deal of careful consideration to this point. All my personal inclinations were in favour of allowing the moving of these Clauses, but I convinced myself that I could not do so, if I were to safeguard the well known rule of the House. The Noble Lord's point, the case he refers to, was one of the first which occurred to my mind. I remember the Debates which took place on that occasion, but the difference was that there you were working under a Committee of Ways and Means Resolution. I have looked up that Resolution, and I find that it was right in that case to allow the Amendment of the Valuation Clauses or of the datum line. That point was raised. In this case it is clear that if you diminish the tax on some persons it must involve an increased charge on others.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: It may—
    The CHAIRMAN: Over the whole country? I asked would the Amendment increase the charge or not, and the hon. Member admitted that it was so.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: It might.
    The CHAIRMAN: Even so. If it might, then my duty is clear.
    Mr. ROYDS: My Amendment would—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon Member must not debate the Clause on the point of Order. I listened to him at some length on the point of Order. I will see in a moment if there is any other point which is purely a point of Order.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I was reluctant to intervene until the general question which had been raised about the first Clauses was disposed of. What I wish to submit is that, accepting your ruling, as I understand it, against the first Clause, it does not apply to the second Clause. Perhaps you will hear my hon. Friend on that; it is a general point of Order.
    The CHAIRMAN: Yes, I will hear him upon the second point relating to the second Clause, if he wishes to say anything upon the point, whether it might not increase the charge upon some persons.
    Mr. ROYDS: I must apologise to the Committee. I have to read my Clause. The object is simply to provide that no regard shall be had to the presence of buildings on adjoining lands. I am speaking now of the second Clause.
    The CHAIRMAN: We are not now dealing with the first Clause. We will regard that as settled.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Before we leave the first Clause may I ask a question? I understand it is out of order to move this alteration. Would you be good enough to suggest, for the benefit of Members of this House, on what occasion and under what circumstances it is open to them to move any Amendment to the Budget altering the method by which Increment Duty is collected?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will find on the Paper several proposals which are in order. They alter or reduce the taxes without having the defect of raising anybody elses taxes. He will see that a number of these are in order.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: On what occasion can this point be raised. Where or when will we have a chance of discussing the point whether an alteration can be made in the method of valuation.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must move on a Resolution of Ways and Means.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Can a private Member move a Resolution? He cannot do so if it imposes a burden on the taxpayer.
    The CHAIRMAN: You would have to get the King's recommendation.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: It means that it cannot be done. When a tax like this
    2456
    is imposed, which, if the property increases, imposes a tax in one direction, and, if the property diminishes, imposes a tax in another direction, then it is absolutely impossible for any private Member of this House to move any Amendment to that tax in one direction or another. That is exactly the position here. Let the Committee consider. Here is a Valuation Clause, which is introduced in a Budget and can only be discussed on a Budget. The effect of altering that valuation up is to increase the tax in one direction, and the effect of altering the valuation down is, it may be, to increase the tax in another direction. What I submit is that we are, for the first time in the history of this House, in a position when no private Member of this House can, under the rules of the House, move to reduce a tax. It has always been, I believe, the first and highest privilege of this House, that any private Member here can raise a grievance, and surely the commonest form of grievance is the grievance of taxation. Here we have a tax imposed in a form in which it is impossible, and your ruling makes it impossible—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is going a little too far in arguing with me as if I introduced the Budget of 1909. He will understand that I am here solely to administer the rules of the House to the best of my ability, and I always endeavour to find, if I can, an opportunity in favour of the minority, as I conceive it to be my duty to do. May I once more put the point, and I think it will meet the hon. Member? Nothing that has been said could change my view of my duty. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has just said that you could not propose to reduce either of these taxes separately and individually.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The valuation.
    The CHAIRMAN: I want to point out that we are approaching other new Clauses on which it will be in order to deal with these taxes.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: That matter can be raised in some other manner. I agree absolutely that we can move to reduce, either the Increment Tax or the Undeveloped Land Tax in a sense. What I was complaining of, or pointing out, has resulted from your ruling, that no one can move any Amendment to the valuation, which is what we desire to alter, and not the tax. My hon. Friend pointed out that

    2457
    his object in moving the Amendment was not to affect either the Increment Duty or the Undeveloped Land Duty, but his sole object was to alter the valuation. The effect of your ruling is that because the two taxes exist, one of which is increased by raising the valuation and the other by lowering it, we cannot move any Amendment.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is quite correct. He has only been stating to me what is obviously the case with regard to valuation. As I have said, I did not make that rule. It is one which if I allowed it to be broken in one case, I must allow it in every ease. I should then be destroying one of the most important rules governing the whole finance of the House, namely, that an additional tax may not be imposed without a Resolution in Ways and Means.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask you a question with reference to the first Clause on the Paper. I am not going to dispute the ruling you have given, but I should like to know whether my hon. Friend would not be in order if he moved it in this form: "For the purposes of Undeveloped Land Duty, Section 25," and so on. On that he can raise his question as to what is a proper valuation, and, so limited, he could not raise any man's tax in the future.
    The CHAIRMAN: There would be two different valuations.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Two different dates.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think probably that would be in order, but it could not be moved at this point. If the hon. Gentleman had shown that it would not raise any man's tax it would be in order.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I desire to submit to you on the point of whether it would raise any man's tax that clearly the lower the valuation the less must be the Undeveloped Land Duty. If you lower the original date, no doubt you may considerably increase somebody's Increment Value Duty in the future. When you lower the datum line for the Undeveloped Land Duty you may lower some people's tax, but you cannot raise it to anyone. If that be so, why is it not possible to raise the new Clause in that amended form?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is perfectly clear that that does involve setting up two
    2458
    separate valuations. The Amendment outlined by the hon. Gentleman certainly does not do anything of the kind, because that involves setting up very elaborate machinery for the purpose, clearly showing that for the purpose of Undeveloped Land Duty something should be done which involves an additional charge, because it involves a new valuation.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: That is not a charge on the subject.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It involves separate machinery and a separate valuation. It is clear that valuations of agricultural land which have been made up to the present would have to be re-made. It would involve machinery and it would involve cost. At any rate an Amendment of that kind ought to be framed in such a way as to be practical. It does involve re-casting the valuation and having two valuations. There is no machinery in the Amendment outlined by the hon. Gentleman for the purpose of doing that. I submit, in the first instance, that the Amendment ought to contain machinery, otherwise it is an absurd Amendment. In the second place, I submit it cannot be done because it involves an additional cost on the State.
    The CHAIRMAN: In regard to the second point, I think it is an additional charge on the taxpayer. With regard to the other point, it seems to me to be a matter of merits, rather than of order. My impression is that it would be in order, and if it is brought up in that form I will give it consideration. My present impression is that it will be correct.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Cannot any hon. Member move a slight alteration to Amendments on the Paper?
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment can only be moved after the new Clause has been read a second time, and if the new Clause is out of order, it cannot be read a second time.
    Mr. ROYDS: On the point of Order. I was taken by surprise by this objection, and I am afraid I did not give quite the best explanation that I could. I can now give a very much better one. In no circumstances whatever could this new Clause, if introduced, have the effect either of increasing or diminishing any man's taxation. If I can prove that to your satisfaction, Sir, I gather that the Clause would be in order. This Clause has

    2459
    reference only to the period during which agricultural land remains agricultural land. After it ceases to be agricultural land, and becomes building land, then the Clause which I now propose to read relating to the period or time after which it becomes building land is provided for by the last part of Section 25 of the Finance Act. It is to this effect:—
    "Where any works executed or expenditure incurred for the purpose of improving the value of the land for agriculture have actually improved the value of the land as building land, or for the purpose of any business, trade, or industry, other than agriculture, the works or expenditure shall for the purpose of this provision be treated as having been executed or incurred also for the latter purposes"
    agricultural land must be treated as having teen excepted. After that land has became building land, this Clause covers the whole of the points which I wish to provide for in my new Clause. After it becomes building land, there is no difficulty at all. All these improvements are entitled to be deducted under that Clause; it is only while it remains agricultural land that it is necessary for me to ask for this new Clause, and during that period neither Undeveloped Land Duty nor Increment Duty could possibly be payable. Therefore, my Clause has no reference whatever either to the increasing or diminishing of any duty.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am still convinced that it would result in an increased charge.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Is it impossible that the hon. Member can move this Clause with some other words added now?
    The CHAIRMAN: I said if it could be brought up in a form which would meet the points, then of course I would consider it. As it stands it is out of order, and cannot be moved.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Is it not in order for an hon. Member to alter his Clause on the Paper in such a sense as to bring it within the rules of order without seeking a new place on the Paper?
    The CHAIRMAN: Certainly, but not such a considerable alteration as this must be.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN:I understand, Sir, that the point of your ruling is
    2460
    that these Clauses are out of order because they may impose an additional charge upon some taxpayer. I submit that that is not the case of the second Clause. The effect of the second Clause would no doubt be to reduce the datum line in certain cases where the value of a farm is not dependent on its farm building, but for the purpose of valuation they are removed, and thrown into a neighbouring farm on one side or the other, and those farm buildings are then counted as if existing for the purposes of the farm. Closely followed the same process would be required in each farm in turn. Under these circumstances the datum line is kept much higher than it would be otherwise. The Clause would reduce the datum line, but when the property became taxable credit would have to be given to the owner for all the value created by his expenditure at any time—for all the value created by these buildings. Therefore it could not be an expense upon the taxpayer.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The point seems to be exactly the same as the one on which the Chairman ruled just now. The whole point deals, in this Clause, with reducing the datum line, and if the datum line is reduced, the consequence would be that if at a later stage there is occasion on which the Increment Duty would have to be paid it would necessarily follow that there would be an increased amount of Increment Duty to be paid. The right hon. Gentleman meets that point by saying that that would be met by the credit for the buildings. Let me point out how it stands in this very Clause 25 (4), in the paragraph after E. It reads:—
    "Where any works executed or expenditure incurred for the purpose of improving the value of the land for agriculture have actually improved the value of the land as building land, or for the purpose of any business, trade, or industry, other than agriculture, the works or expenditure shall, for the purpose of this provision, be treated as having been executed or incurred also for the latter purposes."
    The consequence of that must be, if you have reduced your datum line in the first instance, when you come to deal with it as building land you necessarily must put on it building value, and consequently you do impose a further charge on the tax-payer.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It does not follow at all. The right hon. Gentleman states that if the datum line is reduced

    2461
    the charge must be raised. My whole contention is that under this Clause the datum line could be reduced without the charge being raised.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think that is not quite doing justice to what I did say. I said if the land is subsequently built upon then there must be increment.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Suppose it is not.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That is an old point and was dealt with just now by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Then the right hon. Gentleman cannot say that it does not rise if the land is not built on. His contention is that it must rise if the land is built on. It is not rendered less valuable by already having a habitable dwelling upon it.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: May I point out that the Clause says "such other lands being deemed to be divested of any such buildings"? I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman means it to be other lands.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I think it is perfectly clear that the valuation affected is the valuation of the buildings which are on the land and not the value of the buildings on other lands.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The buildings with which this deals are not the buildings on land which is considered to be divested of buildings. It is a very difficult matter to explain as a point of order. It is much easier to argue as a point of justice. My point is this: It does deal with the buildings on other land—not on the land which is valued. The buildings on the land which is being valued at the moment are dealt with under the original Act. They are divested, but, by assuming the buildings on other lands to remain, you give a fictitious value to the land you are actually valuing, and which you are divesting. Therefore, it does directly concern the valuation of the land which is being valued and not of any other, but inasmuch as the person is entitled to the credit of the value of those buildings or any value they give to the land, I still submit there can be no new charge on the subject under this Clause.
    The CHAIRMAN: Then I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point to be
    2462
    that, whereas it lowers low value, it to the same extent must lower the upper value, and therefore the amount of the tax cannot be increased.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is so.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The situation is really quite simple, if I may say so, to those who have been considering the matter. The right hon. Gentleman quite frankly admits this lowers the datum line on the original valuation. It is impossible that other buildings which have raised the value as agricultural land on the original site value can increase the value of the land as building land when the occasion arises. Where the land is sold as building land, or is actually built upon as occasion arises, then the subject will have to pay a greater amount of Increment Tax than he would have to pay if this Clause were not in.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: The whole thing appears to be governed by Sub-section (d) of Section 2 of the principal Act which draws attention to the deductions desired to be made on the occasion. I submit that the contention that the presence of the neighbouring buildings cannot affect the value on the occasion is not accurate, and that if these buildings affect the original value the same buildings must also affect the value when the occasion arises—in fact, it may have the effect of diminishing the charge, and I think that is the effect it would have.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must say it does seem to me that a different case is made out as compared with the preceding Clause, and although, if I had to give a verdict at the moment, it would be that this Clause has the same effect, I confess after the discussion I have some doubt in my mind, and in that case I think I must give the benefit to the minority and allow the Clause to be moved.
    Mr. ROYDS: Section 26 of the Finance Act, 1910, requires a valuation to be made of all land in the United Kingdom, showing separately the total value and the site value respectively. Total value is more or less the market value. Site value is supposed to represent the value of the land in its unimproved state. Both those values are to be estimated as on the 30th April, 1909. All the valuations are to be presumed to have been made on the

    2463
    same day. Section 25 of the Act defines the different values. Full site value is supposed to represent the gross value of the land if divested of buildings and other structures. The point to which I wish to draw attention is this: it is the practice of the valuers in valuing a farm or agricultural holding for the purpose of ascertaining the site value to divest the particular farm—the unit of valuation—but not to divest the buildings on the adjoining farm, although the Act provides that all those valuations are presumed to be made at the same time and on the same day. The result of that is that the site value of every farm, the unit of value for the time being, includes the value attributed to buildings on adjoining sites.
    I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer understands and appreciates the point, because I cannot suppose it can be otherwise after the repeated assurances he gave to the House whilst this Act was the subject of discussion, that it was the intention and desire of the Government only to tax the unimproved value of the site, and that the fullest credit should be given to the owner of all land, agricultural or otherwise, for all improvements, on, in, and under the surface, and for all farm buildings, works of reclamation, etc. In valuing these sites, the site value as at present arrived at includes value attributable to buildings on adjoining sites, with the result that the site value of a particular farm, which is the unit of valuation, is increased. I cannot do better than mention the case of a particular farm which I mentioned some weeks ago. It is a simple straightforward case of typical valuation which may apply to any farm in the United Kingdom. We had in that case a farm valued at something under £5,000, total value—it was about 200 acres—and on this was a farmhouse and buildings worth about £2,000. It is worthy of note that in the case of that farm it was fen land which had been drained at great expense, about £10 per acre. We have that £10 an acre, which came to £l,790, and the buildings were worth something like £2,000, which was something like £4,000 altogether. Some other deductions had to be made. The total deductions ought to have been about £4,300, and the sum actually allowed was £540. The reason for that low sum of £540 was that no allowance was made for the cost of drainage or reclamation works.
    2464
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House that the Clause 25 which he introduced would satisfy the agricultural interest, and on that occasion numerous Amendments by agricultural representatives were withdrawn. He stated over and over again that agricultural owners would have the fullest credit, whether the land was used for agricultural purposes or not, for all expenditure on reclamation works, sluices, drains, and works of that character, as well as buildings. That is not the actual case. No credit is given, in spite of the remonstrances that have been made. I attempted to move a Clause to deal with one part of it, and it was ruled out of order, but I am at liberty to make a few remarks upon it by way of illustrating my present argument. The intention of Parliament was to ascertain the true site value, and no value attributable to the presence of buildings, whether on the unit of valuation, or on adjoining farms, should be taken into consideration. The true unimproved site value of the land should be ascertained. Under the present practice, a wholly fictitious site value is arrived at. The object of my Amendment is merely to remove that anomaly and to assist valuers, to enable them or to compel them to value the unimproved site without taking into consideration the existence of buildings upon adjoining farms. This practice has arrested building and other improvements upon agricultural estates.
    The owner of an estate has a farm, say of 300 acres, for which he receives £1 an acre rent, that is £300 a year, and he proposes to cut that farm up into small holdings. He divides it into five farms of about sixty acres each, and erects five houses and necessary buildings. If the cost of each set of buildings was £500 the total would be £2,500. He now lets that land, for which he had been receiving £300 a year, for £1 10s. or £1 15s. an acre instead of £1, not because he is charging more rent for the land, but merely to provide interest at a moderate rate upon his outlay upon buildings. These buildings having been erected, we next come to the periodical valuation of the site. The valuers come round and say: This land which was rented at £1 an acre is now bringing in £1 10s or £1 15s. They value these small holdings separately. Small holding No. 1 is now let at £1 10s. an acre. They divest that small holding of the buildings upon it, but they say that in consequence of the erection by the

    2465
    owner of buildings on these four other sites, each of the tenants of the small holdings would be quite ready to take between them sixty acres more at the same rent as tenant No. 1 now pays, and up goes the site value in consequence of the rent being raised from £1 to £1 10s. or £1 15s., and thus a charge is made wholly upon the owner's own improvements in an attempt to establish small holdings.
    I put forward that case as a practical illustration of what comes of taking into consideration value which is attributable to adjoining sites. It comes to this, that every single building which is erected on an agricultural estate improves the site value of the adjoining land, because although the adjoining land, which is the subject of the valuation, is presumed to be divested of the buildings upon it, yet that adjoining land is supposed to get the value of these adjoining buildings, and in some way is supposed to be entitled to make use of that value, whether it belongs to the same owner or to some one else. It is difficult to make the matter clearer. It is easy to arrive at the site value of agricultural land if you adopt the proper method. There is one class of land, intermingled with agricultural estates, which for years past has been assessed and valued by most competent persons, local persons, on its unimproved value. I refer to woodlands. Woodlands, when they are assessed at their unimproved value, are only assessed at 2s. 6d. an acre. That represents what I believe to be, in the opinion of these local assessors, the unimproved value of the land. Site value is supposed to be the unimproved value of the land. The woodlands are assessed for unimproved value and valued at 2s. 6d. an acre. Owing to the present extraordinary method of valuation, agricultural land is practically valued at something approaching its market value. If credit were given for the improvements of the owner, and if in valuing the land no value was attributable to or derived from adjoining buildings, instead of the site value and the agricultural value approaching one another they would be as wide apart as the Poles. The practice in England seems to be to over value the site value and the practice in Scotland seems to be to value site values at minus quantities. In this Amendment I am proposing to remove one of the present anomalies and to assist the valuers to arrive at the true site value.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Gentleman has made quite clear to the Com-
    2466
    mittee what his intention is both in this Clause and in the Clause ruled out of order to which he has made allusion. He has repeated arguments used in previous debates in connection with the Inland Revenue Vote and Land Valuation. He is not in the least concerned with the present taxation of land. What he has in his mind is that the Government intend to put some kind of tax or rate in the future upon some kind of State valuation of land, and he is very anxious that the site value established in the valuation should be altered, not in view of the present taxation, but in view of some future taxation which he fears. Sufficient unto the day be the good or evil thereof. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman should wait until these proposals, if any, in due time are submitted and then consider whether they propose an equitable method of taxation on an equitable definition of site value. What he proposes to do is to take away the relief put in the Bill in order to give, some help and assistance to those who own agricultural land.
    What is the actual proposal? We propose to continue the valuation as it is going on at present; that is to find the full real site value of the land—the value of a unit of land with the value removed from it which is attributable to the buildings on it. We are ascertaining, in other words, what would be the value at which the land would be sold if there were no buildings on it. What the hon. Gentleman is asking us to do is to put into our site valuation a value which is not the true site value of the land, but the site value of the land, as if there were no buildings suitable for agricultural occupation in the whole of the country, and when you have divested it of all trees, etc. That is not true site value. It is a site value which would be practically impossible, if not entirely impossible, to arrive at, and, if you did arrive at it, it would be practically useless for any purpose. What we are doing is to ascertain the actual site value of the land divested of buildings on the 30th April, 1909. Whether we should adopt this or any other system of valuation if we adopted some other system of taxation is not for the Committee to consider at the present time.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: We have just heard an amazing statement from the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary to the Treasury. What have we been told by him and his

    2467
    Friends in the last few weeks? What we have been told is that when they propose some future tax, that would be the time to begin the valuation on which that taxation was to be based, whereas we have been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I never said anything of the kind. What I meant to say was this. It is no use on the present Finance Bill our discussing a unit of valuation which is being used now in the light of a purely hypothetical possibility of what it may be used for under other circumstances which have nothing whatever to do with this Bill.
    Mr. PRETYMAN:What the right hon. Gentleman says now practically amounts to the same thing. What I was about to remark when I was interrupted was that I did not think the right hon. Gentleman would have said it if his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been present at the time. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows perfectly well that there is no practical defence against this Amendment. He is never tired of telling the House and the country—it is with him a constant theme—that the object of this valuation is a future great purpose of taxation. What the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury tells us is that the valuation can be dealt with when the future great purpose of taxation is realised, and that it is no use discussing this valuation now at all except with reference to existing taxation. Then, when we complain of the enormous cost and ridiculous yield of the present taxes, why tell us that, the valuation is not to be considered in reference to the present taxes, but in reference to a great future proposal of which we continually receive hints from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side. When we take the Chancellor of the Exchequer at his word and say we will move an Amendment which is not concerned with present taxes, but only has reference to this future purpose of the right hon. Gentleman whatever it may be, then we are told we are all wrong.
    3.0 A.M.
    You cannot ride two horses at once. If this valuation is not concerned with a greater purpose, why are you valuing the agricultural land at all? It is perfectly obvious. Now let us take up a practical issue. Does the Secretary for the Treasury mean to tell the farmers and landowners of this
    2468
    country that this is what has happened? I am glad to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer here and I ask him whether this is the way in which he considers the agricultural value of the land of this-country should be ascertained—that is to say, the true value of the agricultural land. There is nothing in the Act, and I defy him to point to any single word in it which justifies this proceeding. What they are doing, and what the Secretary to the Treasury has to try to justify, is this: When the valuers go over a farm they divest in imagination that farm of the buildings, and then all the buildings on the adjoining farm are imagined to be standing. You go to the owner of the land and say, "Here is a piece of land worth £3,000. It is quite true you spend £1,000 on building on it, but if these buildings are taken down, the occupier of the adjoining buildings will be willing to farm this land; and therefore these buildings do not really affect the value of the land at all." Then you pass to the adjoining farm and re-erect the buildings you have previously divested yourself of in imagination, and divest yourself of the buildings you have previously counted in. By that process you actually do in practice eliminate the whole value of the buildings in the country.
    Does the right hon. Gentleman tell the agricultural industry in this country—because they know something about this—there are a great many Members of this House who do not really understand what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing; I am sure there is not a single right thinking Member of the House who will get up and defend this when he understands it—that what he is doing is to obtain a real value of agricultural land in this country? He is doing nothing of the kind. He is, in practice, divesting agricultural land of all the buildings. He takes off one building at a time, and he uses the other buildings for the bit of land on which the previous building was. Then he comes and takes off a new building, and uses the other other building for that. By that means he actually eliminates the whole value of improvements and buildings from agricultural land. Has he any right to do that? I claim that this Amendment does not alter the law, because nobody can maintain, until this matter has been fought out in the Courts of Law—and I am sure the Attorney-General will not venture to say so—that it is perfectly clear in the Act of Parliament that that procedure is the right procedure, and that you have the right,

    2469
    by that means, to deprive every owner of land of the value of the buildings which he has erected.
    If that is the law, it is not clear. It ought not to be the law, and it is the duty of the Committee to see it is not the law, and that by this side-wind, and—if I may say so without offence—by this underhand means, owners are to be deprived of the value of buildings which they have erected. One point which hon. Gentlemen opposite are never tired of pointing out is the desirability of small holdings. It is quite obvious that where you have small holdings—or, rather, where small farms exist which are not technically small holdings, but which are from sixty, eighty, to 100 acres and are a very desirable size—in that case you absolutely eliminate the whole value of the buildings, because there are always other buildings close by from which that land can be farmed on. Therefore, technically, under this procedure, the value of the land with buildings is identical with the value of the land without buildings. If you come to large farms, of anything up to 800 or 1,000 acres, then it is clear that two such large farms could not be thrown together and all farmed from one set of buildings without a great reduction in the value of the land. Therefore the effect of this procedure is directly proportionate to the size of the holding. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are very keen on erecting houses for the agricultural labourers. These are all included; they are all agricultural buildings, and all affect the value of the land. They are all divested, and the more buildings and cottages you erect the more you will be rated under this procedure. I should like to hear some better reasons from the Front Bench opposite than the ridiculous reasons given by the Financial Secretary, and perhaps the Chancellor will kindly tell the House how he justifies this procedure which is being carried out by the Valuation Department.
    Mr. CASSEL: I have been quite amazed to hear that the valuers are valuing property, because quite apart from this I wonder if the Attorney-General thinks them justified under the Act as it stands. What you have to value is a statutory unit of occupation, and for the purpose of that valuation you must assume that it becomes a statutory unit. You have not got the right to assume that a farm next door is joined on to another unit of occupation. You have to take that one unit and value
    2470
    it as a separate unit, quite irrespective of what the owner of the piece of land adjoining would do. As long as you keep it as a separate unit it is perfectly obvious that it must be unjust, first to deprive one farm of its buildings and to say to the man next door "we will take that piece of land, put it together with your farm, and then reverse the operation." That could not be intended by the Act, even as it stands, because it provides for the valuation of separate units of occupation. If that were open to doubt I think the right hon. Gentleman himself, if he considered it, would see that the law ought to be amended in that respect.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: The tone of the Financial Secretary in answering to this subject is rather unfortunate, and that only shows how very bad it is for this House to discuss this question at this hour. It would have been far better if Progress had been reported some time ago. It is unfortunate we should have to discuss these questions when the representatives of the Government are, if I may say so, in a state of nerves. If the right hon. Gentleman had refreshed himself a little more as to the utterances of his colleagues he would not have made the speech he did. He need not be surprised that we are anxious that the valuations made under the Finance Act of 1909–10 should be the correct valuations, and that they should approximate to some of those statements which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has constantly made about it in the past. What we are anxious to avoid is that there should be a fictitious valuation put on agricultural land for a great variety of reasons. I think I shall have the Committee with me when I call attention to the fact that the threats of using this valuaion for new kinds of taxation are not so dim and distant as the representative of the Treasury would have us believe. I have here in my hand a very interesting document. It is a paper, I believe, circulated by the Land Values Group. At all events, it is called "Land Values." It is a very interesting account of the dinner given the other day to an hon. Member who advocated the taxation of land values. The dinner was attended by the Lord Advocate, and it would be interesting to hear what are the Lord Advocate's views as to whether this new valuation is to be used for the purpose of altering the existing system of taxation. He said many other things. He gave this bit of advice. "Be clear, be simple, be explicit, be direct.

    2471
    Express your minds frankly and freely, and give the reason for the faith that is in you in language intelligible to the meanest intelligence." He also said he observed that this movement had caused consternation—
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not see what this has to do with the Finance Bill.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: It has to do with the speech of the Secretary of the Treasury, who has often called in question the desire of Members on this side to get the true valuation of the land on the hypothetical basis that that valuation was to be used for other purposes, and it is in answer to this observation that I call attention to certain statements which go to show that Members of the Government have other views in mind, although they are not following the advice of the Lord Advocate in being either clear or explicit as to what their intentions are. We are still more justified because I saw a letter on this occasion was received from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education who I suppose speaks with a certain amount of Government sympathy. At all events, it has not been brought to our knowledge that the Government repudiated what he said.
    The CHAIRMAN: We must not discuss the question of future proposals.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I think if you will allow me to proceed you will see it is very strictly concerned with these proposals. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education said that the land valuation was in order to enable a new basis of taxation to be established. North-West Norfolk and Hanley, he said, showed how rapidly opinion was maturing in different parts of England. Unfortunately at that time he had not the opportunity of mentioning Crewe. At all events that shows that hon. Members on this side, when utterances of that kind are made by Members holding responsible positions in the Government, are well within their rights in saying that the Government have ulterior motives in this valuation.
    Therefore I think we ought to take every opportunity to point out to the Government the very unfair methods their valuers and themselves have adopted in arriving at this hypothetical valuation of land. In the first place, as regards this particular question, it does seem to be very absurd to say you
    2472
    must value each bit of land as if all the rest of the land in the country were standing exactly as it is, with the buildings upon it. It seems to me that if you are going to arrive at the site value—the prairie value of the land on a certain occasion—you ought to do it as if the buildings on the adjoining land did not have any effect on the value. If you wish to arrive at the site value, which is a purely hypothetical value, that is the way you should do it. Of course, what the landtaxers want to do is to scoop into what they are pleased to call the site value all the value which has been due to improvements, because they have sufficient glimmerings of common sense to realise that unless they do scoop in a good many things that legitimately should be called improvements, they have nothing left to tax. I think it is well known to a great many Members on both sides of the House that, as a matter of fact, the prairie value of land is non-existent at the present moment, and land has very little site value. The whole rental derived from land in the majority of cases represents but a very low interest. On these grounds I support the Amendment.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Really we must have some expression of opinion more authoritative on these proposals than we have had so far. Apart from all ulterior motives and ulterior proposals, and anything else hypothetical in that way, I do submit that the present system of valuation betrays an ineptitude verging on imbecility. Take two plots of land—A and B. In valuing A, divested of all buildings, growing crops, improvements, and the like, there, has to enter into the corner of your eye the buildings on B. When you come to B you have to divest it of all buildings, etc., but to remember there are buildings on A, so that A neutralises B, and B neutralises A. The two things are mutually destructive.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that when the Budget was passed some such system as this would be adopted in regard to agricultural land. I have looked through the Amendments proposing to alter the definition. The right hon. Gentleman has not exactly carried out what he indicated. I asked him then why he had departed from the definition Clause in the Land Values (Scotland) Bill twice passed in this House by his own Government. I suggested he departed from it

    2473
    because he knew that no values would be left to tax at all. That definition has been adhered to, and yet it is the definition of the apostles of this movement, Mr. Shaw, who was then Lord Advocate, and the present Lord Advocate. They were there on that bench when the Member for the City of London got that definition arranged and agreed to. The right hon. Gentleman has learned more wisdom, and he now thinks that is the real inference to be drawn from that definition.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Hon. Gentlemen who have brought forward this particular proposal agree that what they want is the real site value. Do they lay down anything approaching real site value by this Amendment? What is their claim? You have got to treat these two units, not merely divested of the buildings on one, but on the adjoining farms; that they shall also be stripped of fruit trees and crops. You have to presuppose a unit, a farm without any building situated in a desert. That does not give you the real site value. There are to be no adjoining farms, no cultivated farms anywhere near, no buildings anywhere near, no cottages for agricultural labourers anywhere near.
    An HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There you are. He accepts that. Does he really mean to say that would give you the market value?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The site value.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The market value of the site.
    HON. MEMBERS: No, no.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: That is not the site value.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am trying to get at the real site value.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: It is a statutory conception.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: When you come to value tenements in a town—
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Site value.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am examining the case of hon. Gentlemen not because I think it is necessary, but in response to an invitation from them. If I am to do so I must be allowed to proceed. That is what it comes to. Suppose you are valuing a house, you are to suppose that it stands absolutely alone there; no other house
    2474
    near it, no shops, no streets; you are to value that house and that site and to suppose there is no other building anywhere near. Does the hon. Member mean to say that the site value of a particular object is obtained in that way. It is a perfectly absurd proposition. I ask the hon. Gentleman does he agree with his followers. I ask that because the hon. Member behind him admitted that that was what it did mean.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Site value. That is not market value.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If you want to get real site value, you would get it by presupposing that there are no buildings anywhere near. Is that the proposition? No cultivation, no hedges, no fruit trees; no anything else. That is not inconsistent with saying you must divest that particular plot of buildings before you can ascertain its site value. That is what the hon. Gentleman calls an insane proposition. It is an insane proposition which has been working well in New South Wales and New Zealand almost in the same words as those of this Act of Parliament. I only spoke in response to an invitation from those who create all these difficulties.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is responsible for the introduction of site value and he is responsible for all these difficulties. We are not responsible for them, but we are responsible for our suggestions to meet them.
    An HON. MEMBER: There is no difference.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: He has pointed out one difference in his speech. He pointed out that we should not arrive at the true site value. Is that what your valuers were trying to arrive at. Before the Referee, counsel for the Commissioners argued that it was a statutory site value, that it had nothing to do with true site value. It was a statutory conception on which the tax was to be based. But we have to do with true site value in this House. The House has to do with the methods of valuation that are being adopted, and the results of that valuation to the taxpayer on the present and the future. The right hon. Gentleman is very wise to bring the matter on at three o'clock in the morning when no report is issued and he hopes the agricultural industry will not get to know of this Debate. We are perfectly satisfied with the explanation, in this respect, that we desire that the

    2475
    agricultural industry, those engaged in it, who are practical people, should know the difference between the statutory conception of site value and true site value. They know what it costs to put buildings upon the land, and they understand the difference clearly. It has been made clear that the methods which have been adopted and have been supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary to the Treasury, the methods which are aimed at by this Amendment, are methods by which practically the whole of the money which is spent by owners of land in erecting agricultural buildings is to be disregarded and confiscated. Let it go forth that every owner of land who erects cottages, erects farm buildings, spends money upon repairs, changes the size of the holding, improves the equipment of the existing holding, is doing so at his peril.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGEexpressed dissent.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: He may shake his head, but that does not alter the facts. It is perfectly clear that anybody who spends any more money upon land in the future does so at his peril, and I for one am extremely glad the country will be enabled to understand that, and that these owners and occupiers will know exactly what the practical position is.
    Captain CLIVE: The Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to have in his mind a particular site value, which he and other hon. Members opposite have described as desert site value. If you divested agricultural land of all the improvements and buildings upon it it would be a desert; that is their case, but I do not agree with that. It would still have a certain value then and that is what we on this side understand by site value. He seems to have in his mind taxable site value. There is not enough to be got out of that, and therefore he talked of a site
    value which was to include the value of cottages. Even his Act did not suggest that. It said that from the site value of the land, buildings should be divested, trees and other improvements upon it. There is a great difference between town site value and country site value. In one case the site is in a street which has buildings upon it and it has a considerable value because of the neighbouring buildings. But when we come to a farm you cannot fairly include in site value, the value of the buildings upon it or the building upon an adjoining farm. That only gives a certain rateable value, a certain facility in being let because of the buildings adjoining. Surely the site value is that contained in the words of the Act, the pure value of the farm divested of buildings before any money had been spent upon it or upon the neighbourhood.
    Mr. CASSEL: The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the point. The Amendment does not express the real grievance. You have separate units in occupation, and you do not for the purpose of valuation continue to treat them as separate units; you assume that the houses and the buildings upon adjoining pieces of land give a value to that unit. That is what the valuers are doing.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is the Amendment.
    Mr. CASSEL: I say the Amendment does not deal with the real objection. It is the real grievance that they are valuing in this way. If the valuers are valuing in this way it is absolutely monstrous, and, moreover, it is absolutely contrary to the provisions of the Act itself. If they are, it is not attempted to be defended, and is in fact indefensible.
    Question put, "That the proposed I Clause be read a second time."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 68; Noes, 191.

    Division No. 187.]

    AYES.

    [3.32 a.m.

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

    Baird, Lawrence

    Cave, George

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Balcarres, Lord

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

    Goulding, E. A.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Clyde, James Avon

    Gretton, John

    Barnston, Harry

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts Wilton)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Dixon, Charles Harvey

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Boyton, James

    Fell, Arthur

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Hills, John Waller

    Cassel, Felix

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Hope, James Fitzaian (Sheffield)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Stanier, Beville

    Kyffin-Taylor, G. R.

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Lloyd, George Ambrose

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Malcolm, Ian,

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Younger, Sir George

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

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

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Newman, John R. P.

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Royds and Mr. Hicks Beach.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Hancock, John George

    Nolan, Joseph

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Lufon, Beds)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

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

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Armitage, Robert

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Havclock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Dowd, John

    Barnes, George N.

    Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

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

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Malley, William

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

    Henry, Sir Charles

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

    Bentham, G. J.

    Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., South)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Boland, John Pius

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hogge, James Myles

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph (Rotherham).

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Brace, William

    Hudson, Walter

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Pringle, Wm. M. R.

    Brunner, John F. L.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Radford, G. H.

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Jones, Edward R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Reddy, Michael

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Joyce, Michael

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Keating, Matthew

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Clancy, John J.

    Kelly, Edward

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Clough, William

    Kilbride, Denis

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    King, J.

    Roch, Walter, F. (Pembroke)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

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

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Crooks, William

    Lewis, John Herbert

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

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lundon, Thomas

    Sheehy, David

    Cullinan, John

    Lynch, A. A.

    Shortt, Edward

    Dawes, J. A.

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Delany, William

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Devlin, Joseph

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Dillon, John

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Sutton, John E.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Duffy, William J.

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Tennant, Harold John

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

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

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    M'Laren, H. D. (Leicester)

    Wadsworth, John

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Wardle, George J.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Webb, H.

    Falconer, James

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Meagher, Michael

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

    Ffrench, Peter

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Field, William

    Molloy, Michael

    Wiles, Thomas

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Morgan, George Hay

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Morison, Hector (Hackney, S.)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Morrell, Philip

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Muldoon, John

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

    Munro, Robert

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Hackett, J.

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think I promised when the right hon. Gentleman appealed to me about twenty minutes past

    2479
    eleven that we would not sit very late. Therefore, carrying out that promise, I am prepared to agree to the Motion now made by the right hon. Gentleman, especially as there are one or two more Orders which we have to get through after this.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Friday).

    ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
    Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
    SEAL FISHERIES (NORTH PACIFIC) BILL [Lords].
    Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
    PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [REMISSION].
    Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to authorise the Remission of a Debt due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to grant money for the purpose of certain Local Loans out of the Local Loans Fund, and for other purposes relating to Local Loans."
    PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
    Considered in Committee.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Grants for Public Works.)
    (1) For the purpose of local loans, there may be issued by the National Debt Commissioners the following sums, namely:—

    (a) For the purpose of loans by the Public Works Loan Commissioners, any sum or sums not exceeding in the whole the sum of six million pounds:

    (b) For the purpose of loans by the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, any sum or sums not exceeding in the whole the sum of six hundred thousand pounds.

    2480

    (2) The sums so issued shall be issued during a period ending on the day on which a further Act granting money for the purposes of those loans comes into operation and in accordance with the provisions of the National Debt and Local Loans Act, 1887.

    Mr. C. BATHURSTmoved, in Sub-section (1), after the word "loans" ["local loans"], to insert the words "other than for the provision of small holdings."
    My object in proposing this Amendment is to make the law conform, so far as possible, to what appears to be the practice. It is common knowledge that the Public Works Loans Commissioners are not wholly in accord with at least two public Departments—the Local Government Board and the Board of Agriculture—with regard to the systems of charging the sinking fund on loans for the purpose of small holdings upon the small holders themselves. A good many county councils, desiring to carry out what they are told by the President of the Board of Agriculture is the real meaning of the Small Holdings Act, have made application for loans for the purpose of small holdings to the Public Works Loans Commissioners. They have informed them that they are not prepared to make any loans for such purposes unless the whole of the sinking fund is charged upon the small holders, although, in fact, the small holders will never themselves be the owners of the property in respect of which they are being asked to pay the whole of the capital charge.
    The time has now come when, in the opinion of those who represent the county councils in this House, it is desirable that it should be made perfectly clear, whether or not, under the existing law, it is permissible to charge the sinking fund upon the small holders, or alternatively, to charge it upon the ratepayers of the county whose property these small holdings will eventually become. That is the whole case, and we know that at the present time there is this absurd difference of opinion between what I might almost call the Department and the Government—because, after all, the Public Works Loans Commissioners, under a Bill such as this, are set up for a definite purpose—to provide loans to local authorities—and the heads of two Departments in the State announce publicly, in this House and elsewhere, that they do not approve of the terms upon which these Commissioners are prepared to make these loans. I suggest that when right hon. Gentlemen

    2481
    sitting on the Government Bench tell the county councils that they cannot get loans from the Public Works Loans Commissioners on the terms that they desire, and they must go elsewhere to get, it, the real function of the Commissioners, so far as the local authorities are concerned, becomes little more than a farce. For that reason I desire to move this Amendment in order to make perfectly clear what the anomalous position of the Public Works Loans Commissioners is as regards the local authorities throughout the country.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I gather that the hon. Gentleman is moving his Amendment rather as a demonstration than from any desire to press it, because it would have a result quite the opposite to what he desires. If you are going to forbid the Public Works Loans Commissioners to advance any sums for small holdings, you very much hamper the small holdings movement, which the hon. Gentleman has in his mind. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Parliament did, definitely and deliberately, in the Act of 1873, relieve the Local Loan Commissioners from the pressure of Parliament as to the granting of loans. It was not done casually or by mistake, but deliberately, as was the removal of the Development Commission from the granting of funds out of the Development Fund. It was in order that pressure should not be put on the Commissioners by various interests, to benefit particular localities or interests, in the granting of loans, that Parliament—except under certain very small conditions in the variation of the terms under which loans could be given—has left that discretion entirely to the Commissioners. The Commissioners are exercising that discretion untrammelled by any pressure that either the Treasury or any other Government Department may put upon them. It might be that there are public purposes desirable in the opinion of the majority of Members of both sides; but the Commissioners might not see their way to respond to the desire of Parliament, and it might be under those circumstances that legislation might be desirable. Certainly that could not be done under the conditions under which the Public Works Loans Bill is going through at the present time. There are negotiations and discussions going on on this very subject, and I certainly hope that any reasonable request which may be made by the local authorities, and especially those Members of
    2482
    Parliament on both sides interested in the Small Holdings' Commission, offering a fair and satisfactory security for the loan, may be granted by the Local Loans Commissioners, but I certainly am not prepared to make any forced change in the system which has worked for over thirty years.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I must say I am glad to hear the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman. I was afraid it might be in a different sense. On the actual merits of the question as to who should pay the Sinking Fund, I am at present in agreement with my hon. Friend and in disagreement with the policy of the Commissioners; but the Commissioners were, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, created as an independent body in whom was vested a discretion which they were to exercise, and it would be certainly quite contrary to the practice of the past and to intentions in the creation of that body if a Government Department were to be able, or encouraged, to overrule it. If the policy of the Commissioners at any time diverges from the policy of Parliament, then I think it is for Parliament by a considered Act of legislation to give an express direction to the Commission; but I should be sorry to see anything done which took away the general discretion of the Commissioners which has been exercised undoubtedly to the great advantage of the public. They are a body of unpaid public servants. They are not members of the ordinary Civil Service, but a body of gentlemen who give their services freely to the country for that purpose. They have done so with great advantage, and it would be a disastrous thing if the administration of these local loans now in the hands of the Commissioners should be transferred from them to a Government Department which is open to all kinds of pressure to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I must say I am rather sorry the Government have pressed this Order to-night, because I understand that at Question Time, in reply to the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Lane-Fox), the Prime Minister indicated that he would not take this Order to-night. My hon. Friend must also have taken the Prime Minister's answer in that sense, or else he would have been here. In his absence I should like to say that it is all very well for the Government to take up this attitude of respecting the

    2483
    decision of the Commissioners and so forth, and not proposing to do anything, but there is a very practical difficulty at present, because I understand from my hon. Friend, who is a member of the West Biding County Council, that that council is finding itself in great difficulty now with the Commission. They are one of the few counties in England who have decided not to charge the small holder for payment of sinking fund for the purchase of land, and now that they desire to borrow money, the Commissioners decline to advance it so long as they persist in this policy. It is for the Government to find some way out, and I do not think the question is at all dealt with by the very airy answer of the Secretary to the Treasury. I think it is quite right that small holders should not be charged for the sinking fund. I agree it may be legitimate to charge the interest for the erection of the building, but I think by far the best way out would be for the Government to bring in a small amending Act to the Small Holdings Act, so that if the small holder is charged for sinking fund, the small holding would be vested in him. I do not think it could be said that this would be any hardship. It must be borne in mind that the credit is long, and that the sinking fund is spread over a great many years, and, therefore, it is not so much a matter of actual burden to the small holder as a point of justice, and it is obviously unfair to charge the small holder for the land when the land is ultimately going to be vested in the county council. What I suggest should be done is that the land should be vested in the small holder, and he should continue to make the same sinking fund payment as at present. That is the best way out of the difficulty, and it would solve the problem to a great extent. That is better than to take up a non possumus attitude and say we have no control over the Commission.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not in the least take up a non possumus attitude. We realise this is a serious matter and that it must be considered seriously. But this Bill, which must go through before the Recess, is not the occasion on which it should be done, because we are doing our best not to take controversial legislation in the remaining days of the Session.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say
    2484
    it needs consideration, but this is the only opportunity we have of raising it, and, moreover, the question was raised early in the Session. I raised it and so, I believe, did the hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Charles Bathurst), and the Government have had the whole of the spring and summer, and yet have done nothing in the matter. We have got to a crucial point, and they have no policy on the matter.
    Captain CLIVE: While the Government are considering the whole question of small holdings the matter is hung up in three counties. There is the anomalous position that a number of small holders get their farms at a comparatively low rent and others have to pay a comparatively high rent, with the result that there is discontent.
    4.0 A.M.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I wish to point out that, although the Government may have no control over these Commissioners, it is quite clear the Houses of Parliament have. It is quite clear we have; and it is now in our discretion to deal with this £6,000,000, and if we are dissatisfied with the conduct of the Government we can decline to pass the first Clause of the Bill. I do not think there can be two opinions either on the Treasury Bench or in any other part of the House that it is distinctly wrong to make a small holder pay something towards the capital value of the land, which he does in the sinking fund, although he has got no right or interest in the ownership of the land. Suppose he goes on for twenty or thirty years, not only paying interest, but paying sinking fund, it is obvious that at the end of that time he has nearly paid back not only the interest but the capital value of the land, and yet in the existing state of affairs he is to have no interest in respect to that sinking fund or any title or right of claim. It is distinctly unfair, and we did hope and expect that there would have been a short Clause in this Bill or something in the way of a proviso with regard to this money, that the Commissioners should exercise a reasonable discretion on the point, who they should lend money to and for what purpose. I suggest we should be in a position to tell the Commissioners to do what is right, and I think the Amendment is an exceptionally valuable one. I am quite convinced by the argument of the hon. Member who

    2485
    moved it that if we passed it it would carry out what we all evidently now intend.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: My object in bringing this matter before the House through the medium of this Amendment was to call attention to the extremely anomalous position in which the county councils find themselves owing to the different attitudes taken up by the Government on the one side and the Commissioners on the other. I do not want to find fault with the Commissioners in any way. I think the Commissioners have only done their duty, and that they have adopted the only possible interpretation of the Act of Parliament which up to six months ago was only interpreted in one way, and the only way in which lawyers could interpret it. It is the Government who have created this difficulty, and it is their business to remove it, and not to leave the local authorities in the anomalous position they now occupy in working the Small Holdings Acts. Having stated their views, I beg to ask the House for leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I have had a great deal of correspondence with the Commissioners, and I have got very little satisfaction. The Commissioners are a statutory body. They consist of seventeen gentlemen, fourteen of whom are bankers of the City of London and two landlords from the Government side of the House. But they are practically a conservative body, over whom the House has no control whatever. They have to deal with matters of great magnitude, yet they represent no one but the bankers, neither industrial interests or commercial classes of other kinds. We vote this money to be administered by these gentlemen. They have control of public loans for buildings, works and houses, but this Bill, once passed, is practically a dead letter. In Ireland, owing to pressure from hon. Gentlemen opposite who take an intelligent interest in all that affects their own country, they are able to get whatever money they wish. I do not know how many millions they have got for small holdings in Ireland. They have got six or seven millions for cottages.
    Mr. DILLON: No, no; not in this way.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I am talking of the Public Works Loans Commissioners. I am not talking of the money for the purchase of land. In that case they get the full value of the holdings advanced, and we can only get 50 per cent. at a rate of interest which yields a profit to the Treasury. I wanted money for the Public Works Loans Commissioners for the purpose of housing working men. I am unable to get that money, and it makes a difference to these people of 9d. per week on their rents. The Commissioners say, "We are the sole judges of who to and upon what we shall advance the money," and Parliament is absolutely powerless. They are a body who conduct their correspondence in a most extraordinary way. If anyone complains they say, "We are responsible to Parliament." When we come to Parliament, the Minister's answer is, "We have no power over these gentlemen; they are a statutory body."
    Nothing could be more unsatisfactory than the position of this House with regard to the matter. They take an arbitrary line and refuse to discuss matters in the case of some business; they refuse some and accept others as satisfactory. They are afraid that public money cannot be advanced for some business, yet the same business can get the money from the banks. I am not saying that they act in a dual capacity, but there is a strange coincidence. They say that certain business is not in the public interest, that they cannot lend money for certain purposes. I say it is not for the Commissioners, it is for this House, to say whether or not it is in the public interest to advance money for the housing of the working classes. It is not for them to take action in certain directions, and I do not think they are legally justified in preventing loans except they can object to the security which is offered to them. Their refusal is not on the ground of security, but on the ground that a certain scheme is not in the public interest I hope to deal with this question fully on the Third Reading, but I felt bound to make this brief protest.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Certain Debts not to be Reckoned as Assets of Local Loans Fund.)
    2. Whereas it is expedient that the principal of the several local loans specified in the Schedule to this Act should, to the extent specified in the last column of that Schedule, not be reckoned as assets of the local loans fund established under the

    2487
    National Debt and Local Loans Act, 1887; therefore, the principal of the said loans shall to that extent be written off from the assets of the local loans fund, and the provisions of Section fifteen of the said Act shall, so far as applicable, apply thereto.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I see that the parties who owe the money set forth in the first column of the Schedule are to be released of the sums set forth in the second column, I would like to ask how is it that all these gentlemen are Irishmen. There is not a single person or institution in England who is going to have a present of sixpence, whereas some gentleman in Scotland, the Eyemouth Harbour Trustees, are to get £200. All this money seems to be going to Ireland.
    Mr. LARDNER: Irish Tories.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I have not been able to go into the question of the political faith of these gentlemen, but I think it is a curious thing to pass a Bill to make a present to twenty-seven different people in Ireland and not to give sixpence in the way of release to anybody in this country. I would like to know from the representative of the Government whether any people in England have applied for remissions of this description and have been refused. It would also be interesting to hear how it is that all these moneys are going to be given to the Irish Gentlemen who are named.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As I have already explained on the Second Reading, Clause 2 gives no remission at all to anyone. The debts which remain in the Schedule, if they are debts to the Crown or to public bodies, remain as debts to the Crown or public bodies; if they can be recovered they will be recovered. All that Clause 2 does is to take them out of the scope of the local loans fund, and they will be repaid next year out of the Consolidated Fund by a Vote given by Parliament. The only remission given is given by Clause 3, and the White Paper which has been issued supplies the fullest possible particulars in each case. It is quite a normal condition, which occurs year after year, and year after year it includes persons and authorities from all four nations.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: It appears that there is a regular series of bad debts.
    2488
    Ireland apparently can make these bad debts with impunity, and there is not a single bad debt by England. May I call attention to what the White Papar says of one of these cases: "The borrower emigrated in 1886, leaving the land derelict and owing over £200 for rent," The Irish party—all praise to them—know the procedure of this House and how to extract the maximum advantages they are entitled to better than any section in the House of Commons. If they are able to get the money—
    Mr. DILLON: Not at all; it was never asked for.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: You have had large amounts out of the Exchequer for the Irish landlords.
    Mr. JOYCE: Not half as much as we are robbed of.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: What I want to point out is this: that when poor Englishmen want to borrow money for the housing of the working classes we are told by the Commissioners that the security is not good enough, whereas Ireland can get all it wanted.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, without amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow (Friday).

    ELEMENTAKY SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    CLAUSE 1.—(1) The rate of contribution under the Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as "the principal Act"), shall be fixed, in the case of a man, at three pounds twelve shillings and in the case of a woman at two pounds eight shillings a year, and accordingly in paragraph (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section one of the principal Act the words "three pounds twelve shillings" and "two pounds eight shillings" shall be substituted respectively for the words "three pounds" and "two-pounds," and in the same Sub-section the words "or at such increased rate as may for the time being be fixed by the Treasury in accordance with this Act," and Sub-sections (3) and (4) (which authorise the Treasury to vary the rate of contribution) shall be repealed.
    (2) Paragraph (d) of Sub-section (2) of Section one and paragraph (a) of Subsection (2) of Section five of the principal Act (which relate to the amount of superannuation allowances) shall, in their application to persons who attained the age of sixty-five years on or after the first day of April nineteen hundred and twelve, or who may hereafter attain that age, have effect, and be deemed as from the said date to have had effect, as if for the words "ten shillings" there were substituted the words "one pound."
    (3) Sub-section (1) of Section two of the principal Act (which relates to the amount of disablement allowances) shall, in its application to persons who have applied for a disablement allowance on or after the first day of April nineteen hundred and twelve, or who may hereafter apply for such an allowance, have effect and be deemed as from the said date to have had effect as if for the words "one pound" there were substituted the words "one pound ten shillings" and for the words "thirteen shillings and fourpence" there were substituted the words" one pound."
    Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOW: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "years" ["who attained the age of sixty-five years"], to insert the words "or whose certificate expired."
    This Bill proposes to extend the provisions of the Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1898, which is the parent Act. Under that Act teachers become entitled to superannuation allowance at one of two dates—either on attaining the age of sixty-five years, or if, as often happens in the case of teachers of pretty good standing, their certificate is extended, when their extended certificate expires. With regard to these two main dates, the present Bill proposes to increase the allowance payable by 10s., but unfortunately not in the case of both the classes of people affected by the main Act, which says that on the teacher attaining the age of sixty-five years, or any later date at which his certificate expires, he shall become entitled to the allowance. On the other hand the Bill says that the provisions of the principal Act "shall, in their application to persons who attained the age of sixty-five years on or after the first day of April, nineteen hundred and twelve, or who may hereafter attain that age, have effect, and be deemed as from the said date to have had effect, as if for the words 'ten shillings' there were substituted the words 'one
    2490
    pound.'" It only applies, therefore, as I have said, to one of the classes of persons dealt with by the main section. Let us see how it will work. I have in mind one very practical instance, and I am told there are many more in large areas in the North, where this kind of thing happens. Suppose a teacher has attained the age of sixty-five years, say in March or rather earlier in this year. This Bill is to come into force on 1st April, and consequently if you are only going to take one class of people, namely, those who attain the age of sixty-five on or after 1st April you will exclude from the benefits of the Bill another large class of teachers. But if you take, as you ought to do—this being an Amending Bill—both classes, then teachers who attained the age of sixty-five before 1st April, and have had their certificates extended, as is the case I know in one instance in Salford, would be entitled to their pensions. It is not a question of making this Bill apply to a whole class of new persons, and it is not fair to give the benefit to one class only. It is a matter which is causing a good deal of unrest and dissatisfaction in the North, but if my Amendment is carried, I think equal justice would be done to all parties.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): I am informed that this Bill applies to exactly the same class as the Bill of 1898. I am quite aware that the hon. Gentleman thinks it is a very hard case in regard to some of these teachers. I thoroughly admit it, and I admitted it on the Second Reading of the Bill. We are not sure, however, as to the extent to which the money which is available for the increased pensions will go, and this is one of the objects which will be taken into review by the Committee which I have set up to advise me in this matter. I would therefore press the hon. Gentleman not to put the House to the trouble of a Division on the matter, as it will be taken into review as soon as we have expert actuarial evidence in regard to the amount of money which we have available for many of these hard cases, of which this is only one.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain what is the position of teachers who have already been superannuated under the principal Act; whether they will reap the benefit of this?
    Mr. PEASE: All we are doing in this Bill is to double the benefits in regard to

    2491
    pensions, in so far as the State contributions are concerned. Instead of being 10s. for each year of recorded service, in future it will be £1 for each year of recorded service. With regard to the disablement allowance, the amount hitherto received from the contributions of the State and the teachers will be increased. There are several hard cases to which the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Barlow) has alluded, and when the Committee has ascertained, by actuarial researches, how much money is available to meet these cases, I can say how the balance will be expended. It is intended in the next Session of Parliament to bring in a Bill on the recommendations of that Committee.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The right hon. Gentleman commenced his observations by saying that this Bill is to oblige exactly the same class of persons as the original Act. He said he was not able to accept the Amendment, which would have applied to both classes. He did not express himself with that lucidity which he generally displays in pointing out that this Bill would include both these classes. I am the last person in the House in any way to prevent these very deserving persons from getting these pensions; it is extremely desirable that any class whatever of these teachers should get an increased
    pension as soon as possible, but there are two very hard cases which arise at once, and which will create an immense amount of dissatisfaction. One is as to the class of persons referred to in the Amendment now before the Committee. There are two dates at which an elementary school teacher may become entitled to a pension: one at sixty-five and the other on the expiry of the extended certificate. That is made perfectly clear in the original Act. The Bill now before us is to give an increased pension to those who attain the age of sixty-five, and not to give any increased pension whatever to those who become entitled to a pension on the expiry of the extended certificate. Another very hard case—referred to by the Noble Lord—is that of those people who have become entitled to pensions in the past—some probably the day before this Bill comes into operation—they are only to receive the old rate of pension. I certainly think, if the Government had intended seriously, justly, and properly to deal with this very important subject, whilst they were increasing the pensions to one class, they ought not to have left two other equally deserving classes out of the pension and on the old scale.
    Question put, "that those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 22; Noes, 133.

    Division No. 188.]

    AYES.

    [4.30 a.m.

    Ashley, W. W.

    Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Balcarres, Lord

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Malcolm, Ian

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, S.)

    Royds, Edmund

    Montague Barlow and Mr. Hills.

    Helmsley, Viscount

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

    NOES.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hackett, John

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Crooks, William

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Cullinan, John

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Barnes, George N.

    Dawes, James Arthur

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

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

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Donelan, Captain A,

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Boland, James Pius

    Duffy, William J.

    Hayward, Evan

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Falconer, James

    Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.>

    Brace, William

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Higham, John Sharp

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Hogge, James Myles

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Field, William

    Hudson, Walter

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Clough, William

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Joyce, Michael

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

    Keating, Matthew

    Kelly, Edward

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

    Kilbride, Denis

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Sheehy, David

    King, Joseph

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Shortt, Edward

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    O'Dowd, John

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

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

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    O'Malley, William

    Sutherland, John E.

    Lundon, Thomas

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

    Sutton, John E.

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Tennant, Harold John

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Macpherson, James Ian

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

    Verney, Sir Harry

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Wadsworth, John

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Webb, H.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Pringle, William M. R.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)>

    M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lines., Spalding)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

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

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Meagher, Michael

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Reddy, Michael

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Morison, Hector

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Munro, Robert

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

    LONDON INSTITUTION (TRANSFER) [MONEY].
    Resolution reported,
    "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of a sum for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the transfer to the Commissioners of Works of certain property of the London Institution for the purposes of a School of Oriental Studies, and for the dissolution of the Institution, and for purposes in connection therewith."
    Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I understand the effect of this Bill is to
    2494
    spend £25,000 upon the building in Finsbury Circus. I have taken the trouble to look at the building, which is an excellent building, and it seems to me that anything in the nature of £25,000 spent upon it would have the effect practically of it being pulled down and completely rebuilt.
    Mr. PEASE: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The Bill does not provide for the £25,000 at all. That question will be upon a Vote that will come before Parliament hereafter. All the Bill does is to spend a certain sum of money which has been got from the Treasury.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I understand we are not committing ourselves now to anything except the purchase of the site.
    Adjourned at Twenty-two minutes before Five o'clock a.m., Friday, 2nd August.

WOMEN CIVIL SERVANTS.
  NATIONAL INSUEANCE ACT.
  NATIONAL INSUEANCE ACT.
  LABOUR EXCHANGES (STAFF).
  LABOUR EXCHANGES (STAFF).
  SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
  SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
  MOTOR-CAR DRIVERS.
  MOTOR-CAR DRIVERS.
  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
  ALLEGED DEDUCTIONS FROM WAGES (LIVERPOOL)
  ALLEGED DEDUCTIONS FROM WAGES (LIVERPOOL)
  HOSPITAL NURSES (IRELAND).
  HOSPITAL NURSES (IRELAND).
  ONION-PEELERS.
  ONION-PEELERS.
  Customs and Excise.
  Customs and Excise.
  Licence Duty (Club).
  Licence Duty (Club).
  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Blackwater (Landing Stage).
  Blackwater (Landing Stage).
  Epizootic Disease (Trout).
  Epizootic Disease (Trout).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Prince of Wales Basin (Devonport).
  Prince of Wales Basin (Devonport).
  Trawling (South Devon).
  Trawling (South Devon).
  Cape Cadets.
  Cape Cadets.
  Naval Carpenters (Pay).
  Naval Carpenters (Pay).
  Special Reserve (Shortage).
  Special Reserve (Shortage).
  Accidents at Bisley and Budden Army Ranges.
  Accidents at Bisley and Budden Army Ranges.
  Territorial Force.
  Territorial Force.
  Ordnance Factories (Vaccination).
  Ordnance Factories (Vaccination).
  Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Bill.
  Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Bill.
  Public Elementary Schools (Instruction in Gardening).
  Public Elementary Schools (Instruction in Gardening).
  Victoria and Albert Museum,
  Victoria and Albert Museum,
  Mental Deficiency Bill.
  Mental Deficiency Bill.
  Coal Mines Act.
  Coal Mines Act.
  Prison Administration.
  Prison Administration.
  Potteries Regulations.
  Potteries Regulations.
  Vivisection (Experiments).
  Vivisection (Experiments).
  Suffragist Prisoner.
  Suffragist Prisoner.
  Tower Hill Assaults.
  Tower Hill Assaults.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Chaplains to Unions.
  Chaplains to Unions.
  Housing of Working Classes (Rural Districts).
  Housing of Working Classes (Rural Districts).
  Motor Cars Licensed (British and Foreign Manufacture).
  Motor Cars Licensed (British and Foreign Manufacture).
  Port of London (Charges and Wages).
  Port of London (Charges and Wages).
  Great Eastern Railway Steamers.
  Great Eastern Railway Steamers.
  Loss of Steamship "Titanic."
  Loss of Steamship "Titanic."
  Assurance Business (Lloyd's Underwriters).
  Assurance Business (Lloyd's Underwriters).
  Mails to New York.
  Mails to New York.
  Parcel Post Vans, Newcastle-on-Tyne.
  Parcel Post Vans, Newcastle-on-Tyne.
  Rosslare Harbour Station (Postal Facilities).
  Rosslare Harbour Station (Postal Facilities).
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Inshore Fisheries.
  Inshore Fisheries.
  Co-operative Credit Societies.
  Co-operative Credit Societies.
  Oat Sickness.
  Oat Sickness.
  Small Holdings (West Riding County Council).
  Small Holdings (West Riding County Council).
  Board of Agriculture (Fisheries Division).
  Board of Agriculture (Fisheries Division).
  Peasant Proprietors (France).
  Peasant Proprietors (France).
  Registration of Title (County of London).
  Registration of Title (County of London).
  Defective Small Arms.
  Defective Small Arms.
  Australian Commonwealth Act.
  Australian Commonwealth Act.
  Land Court Clerkship.
  Land Court Clerkship.
  Fishery Harbours (Scotland).
  Fishery Harbours (Scotland).
  Scottish Estimates.
  Scottish Estimates.