Sitting of 6 August 1912

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

PEIVATE BUSINESS.
North Killingholme (Admiralty Pier) Bill [Lords] (Standing Orders complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 2nd day of August, That, in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—
North Killingholme (Admiralty Pier) Bill [Lords].
Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Norfolk Fisheries Provisional Order Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday, 7th October.
Unlawful Gaining,
Petition from London and other places, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
Message from the Lords,
That they have agreed to,—
Amendments to—
Bordon and District Gas Bill [Lords],
Blyth Harbour Bill [Lords],
Midland Railway (London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Purchase) Bill [Lords],
"West Riding of Yorkshire Asylums Bill [Lords]
Woking District Gas Bill [Lords],
Lanark County Tramways Bill [Lords],
Manchester Royal Exchange Bill [Lords],
Nottingham Mechanics Institution Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Trustees of the Will of John Howard, deceased, to transfer
2886
to a company with limited liability to be hereafter formed the business of the testator and certain lands and premises held in connection therewith; and for other purposes." [Howard Estate Bill [Lords.]
Howard Estate Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

LONDON INSTITUTION (TRANSFER) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill, as amended, recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow, and to be printed.

AFRICA (No. 2, 1912).
Copy presented of Correspondence respecting Contract Labour in Portuguese West Africa [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVAL EXPENDITURE (PRINCIPAL NAVAL POWERS).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 9th May; Mr. Chiozza Money]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
MOTOR CAR ACTS.
Copy presented of Regulations made by the Local Government Board under the Acts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888.
Copies presented of Orders made under the Act by several County Councils and County Borough Councils and approved by the Local Government Board [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
PUBLIC HEALTH (REGULATIONS AS TO FOOD) ACT, 1907.
Copy presented of Regulations made by the Local Government Board under the Public Health (Regulations as to Food) Act, 1907, in relation to Milk and Cream [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
PUBLIC RECORDS (ROYAL COM-MISSION).
Copy presented of First Report of the Royal Commission on Public Records. Vol. I. Part I. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TRANSPORT STRIKE (PATIENTS TREATED).
Return presented relative thereto [Address 17th July; Sir John Bees]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
COUNTY COURTS (PLAINTS AND SITTINGS).
Return presented relative thereto [Address 5th August; Mr. Ellis Griffith]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (SCHEMES FOR REGULATION OF HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT, ETC., IN CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS).
Copy presented of Scheme approved by the Secretary of State in pursuance of Section 5 (2) (a) of The Factory and Workshop Act, 1907, for the Regulation of Hours of Employment, Intervals for Meals, and Holidays in respect of the Devon and Exeter Home of Refuge; in substitution for the Scheme approved for that Institution on the 30th July, 1908 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CON-DITIONAL LICENCE).
Copy presented of Licence granted to a Convict discharging her from Aylesbury Convict Prison on condition that she enters a home [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY PALATINE OF LANCASTER).
Copy presented of an Order made by the Council of the County Palatine of Lancaster, re-dividing the Southport Parliamentary Division into Polling Districts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
Copy presented of the Report of the Departmental Committee on Intercepting Traps in House Drains [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CENSUS OF ENGLAND AND WALES, 1911.
Copy presented of Census of England and Wales. Vol. IV. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BRITISH VESSELS.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 13th May; Mr. Bottomley]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
TRADE BOARDS ACT, 1909.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 31st July, made by the Board of Trade, extending the Regulations of 4th May, 1910, establishing a Trade Board under Section 11 of the Trade Boards Act, 1909, for that branch of the Lace Trade which is engaged in machine-made lace and net finishing other than the finishing of the product of plain net machines [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
SOLDIERS' EMPLOYMENT.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 15th May; Colonel Yate]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION.
Copy presented of Second Report of the Proceedings of the Development Commissioners being for the year 1911–12 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
FEEBLE-MINDED PERSONS UNDER THE POOR LAW (SCOTLAND).
Return ordered, "showing number and classification of Mentally Defective Persons (other than Persons certified as insane) in receipt of institutional relief or otherwise chargeable to a parish in Scotland on a given day, grouped according to sex, and, in the case of women, condition as to marriage, and distinguishing persons over sixty and under sixteen years of age."—Mr. McKinnon Wood.]

PROGRESSIVE WHIST DRIVES.
Major GASTRELL: I beg to present a Petition containing 87,000 signatures, praying this House to reverse the recent judgment of the High Court in regard to the games known as "Progressive Whist Drives," which are deemed to be illegal. For many years past hundreds of thousands of His Majesty's subjects have been—
Mr. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that only a statement of the objects of the Petition can be made on its presentation.
Major GASTRELL: Then I content myself by appealing to this House to take steps to see that such form of recreation may be lawfully permitted and maintained.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Persia (Russians and Shahsevens).
  Sir GEORGE SCOTT ROBERTSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any recent information concerning the fighting between the Russians and the Shahsevens in the Azerbaijan province of Persia; have the Russians reinforced their troops operating against the Shahsevens; and has the Persian Government any power to maintain order in the Ardebil and surrounding districts without the help of the Russians?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): I have no very detailed information and no official information of recent date regarding Russian operations against this nomadic tribe, who appear to be a constant source of disturbance near the frontier, but some reinforcements have been sent to assist in them. As regards the last part of the question, I regard it as very doubtful whether the Persian Government could at present restore order in the lawless districts.
  Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSON: Is there any single word of hope to be spoken about Persia at the present moment?
  Sir E. GREY: I am afraid I can say nothing more than I stated in the Debate the other day.
  Mr. MORRELL: Are the negotiations for the small loan at all advanced.
  Sir E. GREY: They are proceeding. I cannot say that they have made any definite advance since I last spoke.

  France and Russia (New Naval Convention).
  Mr. ALDENasked whether the right hon. Gentleman has any official information with regard to the New Naval Convention between France and Russia; and whether it affects the position of England in relation to both Powers in any material respect?
  Sir E. GREY: I have received no official information on this subject.

  Khan of Hoti (Imprisonment).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked (4) with reference to the recent arrest and imprisonment without bail of Khan Bahadur Khawaja Mohamed Khan, Chief of Hoti, upon a serious charge, whether he is aware that the Advocate-General, in asking leave to withdraw the case against him in the High Court of Bombay, stated that he had no grounds whatever to conduct the case against him, and that he was at a loss to know why the frontier authorities had arrested him and sent him down to Bombay; whether he is aware that his lordship the judge of the High Court of Bombay, in discharging the accused, stated that the Khan was arrested on evidently nobody's complaint, that he had been subjected to many indignities, and that the whole procedure seemed to be most irregular and arbitrary; and whether the Secretary of State has made any inquiry into the circumstances connected with the case and considered what, reparation can be made to the Khan; (5) whether the Viceroy and Governor-General of India has issued a notification that no Government servants should join any movement for collecting subscriptions for universities and colleges; whether he is aware that on the 5th April, 1911, Sirdar Mir Alam Khan, Sahib, E.A.C. Peshawar, and Maulvi Ghulam Hassan Khan, sub-registrar and honorary magistrate, Peshawar, addressed a letter to Khan Bahadur Kbawaja Mohamed, Khan of Hoti, asking him with menaces to subscribe to the fund for establishing the proposed Islamia College, at Peshawar, adding that this college was the uppermost idea in the mind of the Chief Commissioner and that, although the Khan was personally against the scheme, nevertheless, by subscribing to it he would remove the many suspicions existing about his person; and whether he proposes to take

  2891
  any action in this matter; and (6) whether his attention has been called to the Manual of Pashto, compiled by Major G. Roos Keppel; whether he is aware that this book contains, on pages 203, 213, 217, and 231, offensive personal allusions to Khan Bahadur Khawaja Mohamed, Khan of Hoti; whether the author of this book is now Sir George Roos Keppel, Chief Commissioner of the North-West Frontier Province; and whether he can give any explanation of the matter?
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is now able to make his promised statement anent the case of His Highness the Khan of Hoti?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The person described as "His Highness" is not a ruling chief, but a British subject named Khan Bahadur Khwaja Muhammad Khan, commonly called the Khan of Hoti Mardan. I regret that I have hitherto been unable to make the promised statement, but I had only a telegraphic summary of somewhat voluminous Papers which came from the Government of India last week. The Secretary of State is presenting the Papers to Parliament at once, and they will be distributed as soon as they can be printed. The case is a complicated one, and it is impossible for me to give in my present answer any summary of the circumstances which led to the arrest of the Khan Bahadur on a criminal charge, or of the legal proceedings at Bombay. Apart from the question of the Khan Bahadur's guilt or innocence of the specific offence with which he was charged, which has been settled by high judicial authority in favour of the accused, the Secretary of State fully concurs with the Government of India (for reasons which will be appreciated when the Papers are read) in thinking that the primâ facie case justified the action of the North-West Frontier Province authorities in arresting the Khan when asked by the Bombay authorities to take notice of the facts as they were then known, and that the Khan was treated with all possible consideration. He has also satisfied himself that the allegations made against Sir George Roos Keppel of malice against the Khan Bahadur are absolutely baseless, as might have been expected from that officer's honourable and distinguished record; and that the various earlier incidents connected with the Khan which have been mentioned in the Press and in this House had no con-
  2892
  nection whatever with his arrest and trial on a charge of abetting the abduction of two girls.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: With reference to the reference in the answer to allegations of malice against Sir George Roos Keppel, may I ask whether there has been any suggestion of malice against him in any of the questions I have asked, and is there any suggestion in the answer which has been read out that I have made any such suggestions of malice against Sir George Roos Keppel?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I was not referring to my hon. Friend. Anybody who has followed this controversy knows that allegations have been made against Sir George Roos Keppel in the Press and elsewhere.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Has the Under-secretary himself read the paragraphs in the Manual of Pashto, and, if so, is he satisfied himself that they are not offensive allusions to the Khan?
  Sir J. D. REES: Is this gentleman correctly described in Question No. 7 as "His Highness"?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I have answered that point in the reply I have already given.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that the judge, in his remarks upon this case, stated that the Khan had been arrested apparently in the first place at nobody's complaint; and, in the second place, that having been arrested the whole procedure under which he was arrested seems to be of the most irregular and arbitrary nature?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I am endeavouring to furnish the House with all possible information on this case. The whole of the Papers are going to be laid, and my hon. Friend will find his questions are fully dealt with. I am sorry for the delay, but the Papers only reached this country by the last mail which arrived on Saturday last.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Do I understand that an answer has been given to Question No. 5?
  Mr. MONTAGU: So far as it is possible pending the presentation of the Papers which I propose to lay on the Table. It is impossible to give a summary of the circumstances to-night. If the hon. Member will be so kind as to wait a very short time for the Papers he will find all his questions are answered.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Without attempting to give me a summary of the proceedings in connection with the trial can the hon. Gentleman give me a definite answer to the definite question I have put to him, namely, whether a letter was addressed to the Khan asking him to subscribe to the fund for establishing the Islamia College and threatening him if he did not subscribe?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I do not want to deal with one particular paragraph without dealing with the whole. The Khan himself has been acquitted in a Criminal Court, and Sir George Roos Keppel has now, I hope, been acquitted of any charges that have been made against him by the expression of the confidence of the Government of India, and of the Secretary of State. Those are the two people concerned in this charge, and I really think the hon. Member had better wait for any further information until the Papers are laid.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTrose—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will see there are a large number of questions on the Paper, and it is not fair to occupy so much time at the expense of other Members with supplementary questions.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I wish to put a question. There was a reference in the last answer to charges that were made against Sir George Keppel. Now, I have not made any charges.
  Mr. SPEAKER: No one said the hon. Member had. He seems to be particularly anxious to fit the cap. It has been particularly disclaimed by the Under-Secretary. Will the hon. Member now kindly ask Question 6?
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: You yourself made a remark about "fitting the cap."
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will not ask Question 6, I shall pass on to the next.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: You yourself made a remark with reference to "fitting the cap."
  Mr. SPEAKER: I really must ask the hon. Member to resume his seat.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTrose—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I shall have to ask the hon. Member to withdraw if he does not comply with the usual Rules. He must bear in mind we have only a very short time to deal with questions, and there are a great number on the Paper.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Mr. Speaker, you have made a remark about "fitting the cap."
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member persists in resisting my authority, I must ask him to leave the House.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I will raise it at the close of Questions.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Questions 6 and 7 have already been answered, but perhaps I may be allowed to ask whether the Under-Secretary has satisfied himself by reading this Manual of Pashto that these personal allusions were not offensive and should not be withdrawn?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The hon. Member will find on reading the Report that this set of questions in the Manual of Pashto are not Sir George Roos Keppel's authorship, but are twenty years old, and were collected in this Manual and given as examples of questions asked in the original examination.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Are we to understand that this Manual of Pashto has something to do with the trial, and that this particular question cannot be answered except with reference to the trial itself?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

  Jullundar Cantonment, Punjab.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Under-secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the facts connected with the expulsion of Lalas Pyari Lal and Devi Dayal from the Jullundar Cantonment, Punjab; whether Lalas Pyari Lal is sixty-five years of age and is the head of a respectable firm of bankers and traders; what is the nature of the charge against them which has led to their expulsion without trial and solely on the order of the cantonment magistrate, Lieutenant-Colonel A. Newnham; whether he will cause full inquiry to be made into all the facts of the case and, pending such inquiry, order the restoration of Lalas Pyari Lal to his home; and whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Badri Dass, of the Jullundar Cantonment,

  2895
  who was fined 20 rupees for having allowed a band, of which he was secretary, to play-in connection with a religious festival of the Jains, and for which he had obtained a special permit from Colonel Falcon, the commandant of the cantonment; whether on appeal the sentence was reversed and the fine ordered to be refunded; whether Lalas Pyari Lal, subsequently expelled from the cantonment without trial, is the head of the local Jain community and grandfather to the said Badri Dass; whether Lieutenant-Colonel Newnham, who fined Badri Dass, also issued the order of expulsion against the grandfather; and whether inquiry will be made into the whole circumstances to ascertain the fitness of Colonel Newnham for the position he now occupies?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Government of India, at the request of the Secretary of State, have inquired into and reported on the subjects of the hon. Member's question. It appears that Lalas Pyari Lal, who describes himself as "aged sixty-five, leading cloth merchant, banker, big landlord, and head of local Jain community," and Devi Dayal were hostile to the action of the Cantonment Committee, Jullundar, in removing a vegetable market to a more sanitary site, and that in order to foment discontent against this improvement they promoted libels and vexatious petitions against the cantonment magistrate, Lieutenant-Colonel A. Newnham. In the opinion of the officer commanding the Jullundar Brigade, their presence in the cantonment was "dangerous to good order," and they were expelled in October, 1911, with the sanction of the General Officer Commanding, Lahore Division (not by Lieutenant-Colonel Newnham on his own authority), under a provision of the Cantonment Code. On 6th March they submitted an apology, accompanied by an assurance of future good behaviour, and they were readmitted in April. The Secretary of State sees no reason for further inquiry into their case. With regard to the latter part of the question, Badri Dass, who is stated to be a grandson of Lalas Pyari Lal, was fined twenty rupees by Lieutenant-Colonel Newnham, not for having allowed a band to play in connection with a Jain festival, but for selling cloth in the regimental lines without a hawker's licence. The sentence was subsequently set aside, on appeal, by the Chief Court of the Punjab, and the fines
  2896
  remitted. Lieutenant-Colonel Newnham left India in March last on leave preparatory to retirement in ordinary course. The Secretary of State thinks further inquiry unnecessary.

  Government of India (Temporary Accommodation).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Undersecretary of State for India whether the sum of £326,340, the estimated cost of providing temporary accommodation at Delhi for the Government of India, will, with the exception of £109,890, which it is estimated will be eventually recovered, be spent on providing accommodation for which there will be no use after the new Imperial capital is built; how the sum of £109,890 will be recovered; and, if the answer to the first question be in the affirmative, whether he will explain the justification of spending so large a sum on providing temporary accommodation when all that is required already exists at Calcutta?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. The recovery will be made by the sale of land, etc., and by the transfer of plant, furniture, etc., to the permanent buildings. The justification for the provision of temporary accommodation at Delhi is that the erection of permanent buildings for the Government of India cannot be completed for some years, and it is not desirable to depart from the terms of His Majesty's announcement at the Delhi Durbar by postponing the transfer of the seat of Government.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask the Under-secretary whether he is persuaded that it is desirable to have this very large expenditure for admittedly merely temporary accommodation?
  Mr. MONTAGU: It was decided to transfer the Government from Calcutta to Delhi; and the provision of accommodation necessarily follows.

  Financial Arrangements (India).
  Mr. TOUCHEasked what portion of the balances held in England represents paper currency reserve; and why it is not, held where the notes are payable?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The gold held in England on account of the paper currency reserve is held on separate account at the Bank of England, and does not form part of the Secretary of State's balances as shown in the published statements. The reasons for holding it in England are that it is not required in India for the payment

  2897
  of notes, since a sufficient metallic reserve is held in India for that purpose, and that, through being held in England, it would be readily available for use either to support exchange in case of a diminished demand for rupee currency, or to buy silver in case of an increased demand.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked why, as the Secretary of State obtains his requirements by weekly sales of council bills throughout the year, it is considered necessary or desirable to hold balances in London at the beginning of the year of an amount practically sufficient to cover his requirements for the year?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The balances held in London depend mainly on the amount of bills and telegraphic transfers sold by the Secretary of State. At times of active trade the sales and the balances are sometimes considerably in excess of the Secretary of State's immediate requirements, but this result is due, not to a desire on his part to hold very high balances, but to his unwillingness to injure trade by not complying with the demand for the means of remittance.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked whether the Government of India have from time to time, or at any time, been urged by Chambers of Commerce and Exchange Banks to make their surplus balances available to the public in India during the crop season, when good rates of interest are obtainable, against the security of Government paper; and if they have refused to do so, preferring to employ the balances in London?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I cannot say whether at any time in the past such representations have been made by Chambers of Commerce and Exchange Banks, but I have failed to trace any within the past ten years.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked when in the opinion of the Government, the time will be ripe for giving effect to the understanding that a Royal Mint or mints would be constituted in India for the unrestricted coinage of gold?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The question of opening a mint for the coinage of gold in India is at present under consideration.

  Indian Feudatory Princes.
  Earl WINTERTONasked the Under-secretary of State for India if his attention has been called to certain cases which
  2898
  have recently occurred where Indian feudatory princes have incurred debts in this country and refused to pay them, subsequently successfully pleading the non-jurisdiction of English Courts; and if, in the interests of the public and the Indian princes themselves, he will take steps to prevent the recurrence of these incidents?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Two instances in which a ruling chief pleaded non-jurisdiction of the English Courts in respect of debts alleged to have been incurred by him have been brought to the notice of the Secretary of State in the last four years. As the hon. Member will recognise, the subject presents certain difficulties. So far as the public are concerned, they have to estimate in each particular case the advantage of giving credit for large amounts to customers not resident in this country. As regards the chiefs themselves, it is clear that if such cases were to become numerous they would destroy the respect and confidence with which their distinguished class is regarded in this country. But the Secretary of State is reluctant to generalise from particular instances with the details of which he is not acquainted, and he believes that they may be trusted to do what their position requires of them.
  Earl WINTERTON: May I ask the Under-Secretary whether the Secretary of State would consider the appointment of a Departmental Committee to inquire into this question to see if a way cannot be found to avoid these incidents in future without in any way diminishing the dignity or status of Indian feudatory princes?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I do not think at present I can add anything to my answer.

  Opium Traffic (India and China).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-secretary of State for India whether he has any information to give the House before it rises regarding the action of the Chinese Government in respect of the cultivation of the poppy; whether circumstances point to the probability that that Government will in the immediate or near future be able to control such cultivation and, if not, whether the agreements with China regarding opium are necessarily voided or should be revised in order that an international arrangement may not run to the disadvantage of the subjects of one party thereto; and whether, in view of the expenditure to which the Indian Government stands committed in respect of the

  2899
  move of the capital to Delhi, some basis of negotiation less onerous to the Indian taxpayer should be devised?
  Sir E. GREY: His Majesty's Minister has received repeated assurances from the provisional Chinese Government that they will pursue a policy of rigorous suppression of the cultivation of the poppy, and the President, Yuan-Shih-kai, has issued a proclamation couched in the strongest terms enjoining on all provincial governors and local officials the necessity of enforcing the restrictions on smoking and cultivation of opium with the utmost stringency. In the present unsettled condition of China I cannot attempt to determine the date at which the central Government will be in a position to exercise the necessary control in all the provinces of China, and it would be premature to consider the possibility of a revision of the agreements with China concerning opium.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government propose for an indefinite period to carry out its share of the agreement to the detriment of the Indian revenue and taxpayer, while it is not sure the Chinese Government in the immediate future or at any time will be able to carry out its part?
  Sir E. GREY: My answer was based on the assumption that the present want of control in China is temporary and not indefinite.

  Indian Public Service Commission.
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether appointments from Home to High Court benches in India come within the ambit of the reference to the Indian Public Service Commission?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I am not sure that it is a part of my functions to interpret the terms of reference to a Royal Commission. That is a matter for the Commission itself, but it seems to me clear that by the terms of reference the Commission can only concern itself with the Indian judiciary in so far as it is recruited from the Indian Civil Service and other Civil Services, Imperial and provincial.

  Territorial Camps (Contracts).
  Mr. EDWARD WOODasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that local arrangements were made and contracts signed for the purchase of
  2900
  straw for the two Territorial camps at Flamborough and Hunmanby, and that these arrangements were subsequently cancelled in favour of a Liverpool contractor; and, if so, will he explain the reason for the official statement that little or no help as regards the supply of straw for these camps could be obtained from farmers in the Bridlington district?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): Further inquiries are being made, and the result will be communicated in due course to the hon. Gentleman.

  Military Uniforms at Political Meetings.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Secretary of State for War, whether his attention has been called to a Liberal demonstration held at Brighton, on Saturday, 27th July, at which Alderman W. J. West, of Battersea, who was one of the principal speakers, addressed the meeting wearing the uniform of a Territorial; whether he will have inquiries made into the matter; and whether it is in accordance with the regulations that a speaker at a political demonstration should wear His Majesty's uniform?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): Nothing is known of this matter at the War Office. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to let me have some more information in order to enable me to make further inquiries.
  Earl WINTERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that great indignation is felt at the action of Alderman West on this occasion?
  Colonel SEELY: I cannot accept the statement without inquiry. Many of these cases are brought to my notice, and it is often found that the facts alleged are not quite accurate. That may be the case in this particular instance. I will, however, certainly inquire.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is this any worse than employing a regimental band at a Primrose League meeting?
  Colonel SEELY: These matters, I repeat, are often brought to our notice, and often we find that the facts are not as presented. I would not like, therefore, to answer without further inquiry. Of course it is quite contrary to regulations for anything of the kind suggested to occur, and such conduct would be checked in every way. This applies to both sides.
  Mr. JAMES ROWLANDS: Was it a Territorial uniform this Gentleman appeared in?
  Colonel SEELY: I hope it will not be assumed that the facts as stated are accurate. With the best will in the world these things are often misdescribed.
  Earl WINTERTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that anyone on this side of the House has been guilty of this practice?
  Colonel SEELY: I can tell the Noble Lord of an occasion which occurred not long ago. A respected Member of this House had been dining at Mr. Speaker's house, and a similar charge was made, but on inquiry it was found that no breach of regulations had been committed.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    MILITARY FUNERALS (BELFAST).
    Lord ALEXANDER THYNNEasked the Secretary of State for War whether certain portions of Belfast, notably those in which Nationalist sentiment is predominant, have been placed out of bounds for soldiers stationed in Belfast; whether the safety of the men themselves necessitated the adoption of such an unusual course; and whether military funerals proceeding from the Victoria Barracks to the cemetery have been ordered to make a considerable detour in order to avoid a particular district owing to the state of Nationalist feeling?
    Colonel SEELY: The reply is in the affirmative. Since the riots in 1907 it has been found necessary to put certain portions of Belfast out of bounds, and the police are of opinion that in the interests of the soldiers these portions should still be put out of bounds, and that military funerals should not pass through the district in question.

    Land Tax Valuation (Woodhall Spa).
    Mr. FRED HALLasked if, in view of the decision in the Woodhall Spa Land Tax valuation case, it is proposed to give such instructions as will prevent the under valuation of property where the available information, as in this instance, makes it clear that an error has been made?
    The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): There are a number of decisions by Referees which tend to establish the fact that the price
    2902
    obtained upon a sale of real property is not necessarily identical with the market value. The extent to which the price realised is indicative of the market value is a matter for determination by qualified valuers in each individual case, and I am not prepared to issue instructions which would fetter the officers concerned in the exercise of their professional qualifications.

    Bee Disease.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether under Clause 1 of the Bee Disease Bill it is intended that an Order may be issued by the English Board prohibiting the admission into England of bees and beekeeping appliances by post or otherwise from Scotland when no such Order has been issued by the Scottish Board, and vice versâ;and, if so, how is it proposed to carry such Order into effect in the absence of Custom houses on the Scottish border?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. No definite arrangements have as yet been made for giving effect to any Order which may be made by the Board under the Section, but I do not foresee any great practical difficulty in doing so.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: In view of the difficulties that are bound to arise between England and Scotland in this matter, would it not be desirable to have a uniform area for both countries for the purpose of animal diseases, including bee diseases?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not think it is quite accurate to include bees under the heading of animals. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland will no doubt be able to adopt exactly the same form of definition as we in England.

    Kew Gardens (Staff Wages and Hours of Labour).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he has replied to the application of the gardeners and labourers employed at Kew Gardens for an increase of wage and a revision of the hours of labour; and, if so, will he state the nature of his reply?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I received a deputation on this subject recently, and I am now bringing the representations made to me to the notice of the Treasury.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: Arising out of that reply may I ask whether, in view of the miserably low wages paid to the employés at Kew Gardens he will bring their wages at the least up to those paid to the employés at the other Royal parks?

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
    Mr. SANDERSasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he has received a resolution unanimously carried by the council of the Bath and West and Southern Counties Society, namely, that the council views with profound regret and astonishment that Irish livestock are still allowed to be landed in this country alive, and urges the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to take immediate steps to put an end to the practice, which is fraught with such grave and serious danger to our flocks and herds, and to place Ireland under the same restrictions as any other country where foot-and-mouth disease exists; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have received the resolution to which the hon. Member refers. In view of the circumstances of the last five weeks it is not unnatural that stock owners should wish that every possible precaution should be taken to guard against the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease into this country, and I shall certainly adopt every reasonable precaution necessary for the purpose. But, as I stated, in reply to the similar question addressed to me by the hon. Member for the Eddisbury Division on Tuesday last, I am satisfied, after careful investigation and inquiry, that there is no ground whatever for suggesting that the landing of Irish animals for slaughter at certain foreign animals' wharves has been the means of introducing the disease, or that it is attended, as stated in the resolution, with grave and serious danger to our flocks and herds.
    Mr. KILBRIDE: What area of country does this Bath and West and Southern Counties Society cover, and if its request were acceded to how much would the price of beef be raised?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Bath and West and Southern Counties Society is a very well-known agricultural society in this country, of quite a responsible nature. It covers eight or nine counties—[HON. MEMBERS: "More"]—or more.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: Is it not the fact that at a slaughter port there can never be any adequate safeguard against the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease? Is it not the fact that the right hon. Gentleman would never have thought of admitting animals for slaughter at any port in the United Kingdom if it were known that foot-and-mouth disease existed in the country from which they came?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The arrangements I have made for the slaughter of fat animals at foreign animals' wharves only apply to three English ports, and there the most careful safeguards are taken, so that there can be no infection from the wharf, as far as it is possible for anyone to take precautions. The lairs are well isolated, and if the right hon. Gentleman would like to see the whole of the Regulations under which these foreign animals' wharves are being worked I shall be happy to submit them to him, and if he can suggest any modification or any tightening up of the restrictions I shall be only too glad to consider them. Up to the present I have not heard the least suspicion from anybody except the Bath Society that there was any chance of infection coming from the foreign animals' wharf, and up to the time of the first sign of the disease in Somerset there had been no animals landed at Bristol at all.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: I am sorry to intrude again, but this is a very serious matter. Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that his reply to me gives the whole case away when he uses the words "so far as it is possible to do so"? Is it not known to his Department that this disease is so insidious and can be conveyed by such" a variety of different means that it is impossible to check it, and you can have no safeguard against the introduction of the disease if you once allow diseased animals to land within the country?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is proceeding on a hypothesis which I cannot admit. We do not admit diseased animals at the wharf, but only animals which have passed the closest veterinary scrutiny. I am afraid I cannot take steps that would lead to a meat famine in the West of England. Every possible precaution is taken, and no risks. I believe, are run. That is my opinion and the opinion of my veterinary advisers.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: I wish to ask only two more questions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh,

    2905
    oh!"] There is nobody who has had more experience on this subject than myself. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, when he talks of a meat famine, the animals cannot be slaughtered on the other side, and the meat sent here; is he not aware, after his present experience at the Board of Agriculture, and after all he has heard, that what he proposes cannot be any guarantee whatever against the introduction of this fatal disease; and has he inquired into the past records of the Board of Agriculture, and, if not, will he do so, and ascertain what, happened with regard to Argentina when it was infected with the disease, and when two cargoes were allowed to come here?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have inquired very fully into the past experience of this country and of the Board with regard to the introduction and dissemination of foot-and-mouth disease, not only in the past year, but in many years past, including the time when the right hon. Gentleman held the office I now have the honour to occupy. I see no reason whatever for supposing that the safeguards which are being taken are not sufficient, nor do my advisers think that they are insufficient. When the right hon. Gentleman states that the safeguards are no safeguards whatever, I can only say I totally and entirely disagree with him. I have taken every possible step to prevent the spread of the disease. Not a single case out of the sixty outbreaks which have occurred has been traced back to the foreign animals' wharves, either directly or indirectly, and I cannot see any reason whatever, merely on a suspicion which, I believe, originated in the West of England, on the theory that the Somerset outbreak was traced to Bristol, why I should alter the Regulations which have been in force for something like three weeks.
    Mr. CLANCY: I wish to ask a question on a point of Order. On the Order Paper to-day there is a question standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Wilton Division of Wiltshire which has not been reached. In that question the statement is contained that foot-and-mouth disease has broken out among the children in Dublin. I have inquired into that statement, and I have found that there is no foundation for it.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is taking upon himself the function of a Minister in answering the question. What is the point of Order?
    Mr. CLANCY: The question I was going to ask on a point of Order—and perhaps it may lead to an answer—was whether, under these circumstances, when an infamous question like this—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to take advantage of this opportunity to apply an epithet to the question. The question is a perfectly plain one: to ask whether there are cases of this disease, and, if so, what steps have been taken to prevent it spreading, or whether the Minister will take steps to make the disease in its human form notifiable by doctors and so on. The hon. Member who puts down the question has apparently heard some rumour and asks for information.
    Mr. CULLINAN: He is asking every day.
    Mr. CLANCY: May I ask whether this question under the circumstances which we have stated ought not to be orally asked now and orally answered?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will see that it would involve me in most terrible difficulties if I were to take out of the Questions every day those which I thought should be asked and answered at once. The hon. Member will be able to obtain in the space of two or three minutes the reply at the Table which he will be entitled to see if he wishes to see it, and in any event it will be published to-morrow morning in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. CLANCY: It has been on the Paper since Friday and there is no foundation for it.

    Sea Fisheries (Devon and Cornwall).
    Mr. MILD MAYasked whether the applications of the Sea Fisheries Committees of Devon and Cornwall to the Development Commissioners for a Grant to facilitate the provision of auxiliary motor-power in fishing boats will not be allowed to reach that body, though long since addressed to it in the manner officially prescribed?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to refer him to the answer which I gave to his question on this subject on Thursday last. As to the inquiries which are being made with regard to the applications to which he refers, they were referred by the Treasury to the Board on the 1st and 5th ultimo respectively, and it is the statutory duty

    2907
    of the Board to submit them to the Commissioners with their report thereon. There can be no question of their being withheld from the consideration of the Commissioners, as the hon. Member appears to suggest.
    Mr. MILDMAY: Am I to gather that they will be passed on to the Commismissioners forthwith? I only ask because the matter has been so long delayed that there is some anxiety felt as to what is going to happen.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: There is no question whatever of these being withheld from the consideration of the Commissioners.

    H.M. Office of Works (Architects).
    Mr. GOLDSMITHasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, the number of buildings erected by the Office of Works to the design of architects not connected with the Office of Works since the 1st January, 1907?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): No new buildings designed by outside architects have been commenced since January, 1907, but several have been in course of erection which were commenced prior to that date as under:—(1) Victoria and Albert Museum; (2) Admiralty Buildings, Block IV.; (3) British Museum Extension; (4) Public Offices, Whitehall.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Office of Works have spent over £4,000,000 in the last four years on the erection of new buildings, and apparently the whole of that work has been done by the official architects of the Office of Works; and will they see that in future outside architects are given a chance of competing with the official architects?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I cannot say, without reference, whether the figures given by the hon. Member are correct, but there is no reason why the Office of Works should change the course which they have adopted.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these are the figures which he gave me last week?

    Committee of Council on Education (Scotland).
    Mr. PIRIEasked the Secretary for Scotland with reference to the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, who are known as My Lords, and which is composed of the following Members, namely, Lord Morley, the Secretary for Scotland, Lord Haldane, Lord Shaw, Lord Reay, and Lord Elgin, the date of their appointments, and the number of meetings they have attended, respectively; as also the number of meetings of the Committee held annually since 1906; and the date of the last meeting?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The Committee of Council on Education in Scotland consists of the members named, together with the First Lord of the Treasury and the Lord Advocate. The Committee was appointed by Order of His Majesty in Council on the 2nd March, 1909; the present Secretary for Scotland being appointed vice-president by a similar Order dated the 29th February, 1912. No meetings have taken place since the date named.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of adding the Speaker of the Irish Parliament to this Committee?
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The right hon. Gentleman did not answer the last part of the question as to the date of the last meeting.

    National Galleries (Edinburgh).
    Mr. HOGGEasked if it is practicable to arrange for a popular course of lectures on art at the National Galleries, Edinburgh, this summer; or whether it will be possible to make arrangements in the near future?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not yet in a position to add anything to the answer which I gave my hon. Friend on this subject on 22nd July.

    Continuation Class Code (Scotland).
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked why there is no provision in the Continuation Class Code for Scotland to enforce the enactment of the Education (Scotland) Act of 1908, that it shall be the duty of the school board to make provision for the instruction of the pupils in continuation schools in the laws of health and to afford opportunity for suitable physical training?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Department consider that the provisions of the Code relating to the approval of timetables and syllabuses of work are sufficient for the purpose indicated in the question, and it has been their practice to ask managers to add the subjects mentioned to their programme if they were not already included in it. But under Section 10(2) of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, the Department's power of enforcing the requirements as to these subjects is limited to cases in which a petition is received from not less than ten ratepayers.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not a fact that the petition from the ratepayers relates only to the establishment of a continuation class, and has nothing whatever to do with the curriculum which is followed in that class, which is prescribed by the Act of Parliament?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I should like notice of that question.
    Sir H. CRAIK: You must get up your point.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I really must decline to answer without notice abstruse legal points.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Was not the question I put one which was perfectly plain on the face of it?

    Imperial College of Science.
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked whether additional Grants have recently been made by the Treasury to the Imperial College of Science; whether applications for additional Grants to the University of London have been refused pending the Report of the Royal Commission of Lord Haldane; and whether one of the chief questions referred to that Commission was the question of the relationship of the Imperial College to the University of London?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to all three questions is in the affirmative.

    Judicial Committee of Privy Council (Salaries).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister why certain judges of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council receive, and others do not receive, salaries; and whether this matter is under consideration in view to uniformity of treatment?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): There are no salaried members of the
    2910
    Judicial Committee, but under Section 30 of the Judicial Committee Act, 1833, two-members of the Judicial Committee who attend to hear appeals from India are paid certain sums of money as an indemnity for the expense they may incur. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

    Law Integrity Insurance Company.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has informed him what action he took with reference to insurance policies held by the Irish Courts to be illegal when submitted to him as Attorney-General for Ireland in 1911 by the hon. Member for North Westmeath; whether Mr. Charles O'Connor, K.C., has informed him what action he took with reference to the same policies when submitted to him as. Attorney-General for Ireland by the same person; whether Mr. Moloney, K.C., has stated the date in June, 1912, upon which he advised the Law Integrity Insurance Company to evade trial; and whether he has been informed why three of these insurance bodies condemned by the Courts are nevertheless allowed to collect money in Ireland at the present time?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have no direct knowledge of any of these matters, nor do they come within my official cognisance. I am informed that the matters referred to were inquired into by the present Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls when they held the office of Attorney-General, but no information was obtained which, in their opinion, would justify proceedings being taken against anyone. Mr. Moloney, K.C., states that he did not at any time advise the Law Integrity Insurance Company to evade trial, and that no such advice was ever sought from him. Certain policies issued by the Irish Provident Insurance Company have been declared to be ultra vires by the Irish Court of Appeal, but the company is now in liquidation, and no insurance premiums are being collected.

    labour Disturbances (London and Belfast).
    Mr. FRED HALLasked how many men have up to the present been injured in connection with the dock strike in London and the labour troubles at the Belfast shipyards, respectively; what is the number of men affected by the Belfast dispute and the number of police available for dealing therewith; and what are the grounds on which the Government has-

    2911
    made use of troops in Belfast, while it has not only declined to do so in London, but has restricted the use of Metropolitan Police to the protection of men in a limited area?
    Mr. CARR-GOMM: May I ask whether, in common fairness to the people of London, he realises that this question makes a comparison between two entirely dissimilar events, and whether he also realises that the request for the use of troops in the Port of London came from persons associated with the party opposite?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The number of men actually assaulted at the shipyards at Belfast so far as is known to the police is thirty-one. The number who have lost their employment owing to violence and intimidation is believed to be about 2,500. With regard to the London dock strike, I am informed that up to and including the 21st July, fifty-eight private persons were treated at London hospitals for injuries received in connection with the strike. Of these the injuries of only ten persons were such as to necessitate detention in hospital. The number of police available in London was sufficient for the maintenance of order, but in Belfast the normal police force of the city was not adequate to deal with the serious state of affairs, and the assistance of the military was therefore obtained in aid of the civil power.
    Mr. PETO: Are we to understand that 2,500 employés of the Belfast dockyard are now out of employment in consequence of disturbances?
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is not that in consequence of the disturbance preached in this House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The figures I have given are supplied to me by the Irish Office.

    International Disarmament.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether the Government propose to take no steps towards initiating a conference to deal with international disarmament until representations are made to this effect by other Powers; whether he will state what kind of intimation from such Powers would induce the Government to make some response; and whether, in view of the fact that since 1899, when this matter was considered at The Hague, there has been a continuous growth of expendi-
    2912
    ture on armaments, he will adopt some plan by which the policy of international disarmament may become a really live issue?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not believe that international disarmament, if by that is meant abolition of all armed force, is a practical question. His Majesty's Government have always been ready, as the other Powers are aware, to discuss internationally the question of the increasing expenditure on armaments, and any intimation from other Great Powers that they were prepared to consider the question would meet with a ready response from His Majesty's Government.

    Indian Civil Service Commission.
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Prime Minister whether, in order to secure that confidence in the impartiality of the Commission on the Indian Civil Service which is desirable on the part of that service, he is prepared to reconsider the nomination to that Commission of the hon. Member for Leicester?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As the hon. Gentleman will recognise, if he has studied the list of names, diverse opinions on many questions relating to Indian government and administration are likely to be held by different Members of the Royal Commission. I have no reason whatever to suppose that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, any more than his colleagues on the inquiry, will fail in the requisite impartiality of judgment on the particular matters to be reported on by the Royal Commission. I do not propose, therefore, to make any fresh submission to His Majesty on the subject.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Has any other Member of the Commission since his appointment expressed himself in violent and virulent terms?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those people who heard the passage in the speech to which the hon. Member refers—
    Sir H. CRAIK: On a point of Order—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We had better hear what the question is first.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD:—took it to be a perfectly amiable piece of banter on the hon. Gentleman (Sir J. D. Rees)?
    Sir H. CRAIK: I put down a question which had reference to the speech of the

    2913
    hon. Member (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), and I was informed at the Table that any reference to a speech by an hon. Member was out of order. I have to ask if the hon. Member (Mr. Wedgwood) is in order in referring to a speech of an hon. Member to which I was not permitted to refer in my question.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is obvious that the hon. Member's question did refer to that speech.
    Sir H. CRAIK: The Clerks at the Table refused to receive a question with any reference to the speech, and the question now permitted was received in its present form.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member (Mr. Wedgwood) asked a supplemental question.
    Sir J. D. REES: Did the Prime Minister see the opinion telegraphed on Sunday from Bombay to the "Times"—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That requires notice.
    Sir H. CRAIK: I shall take the opportunity to refer to the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I ask whether my question was refused by the Clerk at the Table because it referred to the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester as an insult to the public service in India, and why the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme was allowed to refer to the speech in a supplementary question?
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member had to listen to every supplementary question and to make up his mind at once, he would find that it is not always so easy a matter to say whether a supplementary question is in order as in the case of a question that is on the Paper. One has more time to consider the questions on the Paper. The host way to avoid any difficulty of that sort is not to ask supplementary questions.

    Established Church (Wales) Bill.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the intimidation which has been used in many places in Wales to prevent persons signing petitions against the Welsh Disestablishment Bill, in consequence of which the number of signatures is undoubtedly less than it would otherwise have been; whether he is aware that in some places leaflets were issued warning
    2914
    people that the names of the signatories would be obtained from London and published in the locality; and whether the Government will take steps to put a stop to such attempts to prevent people exercising their constitutional right of petitioning Parliament?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. I have no information of any of the methods suggested by the hon. Member being employed. I gather from the hon. Member's question that there is considerable divergence of opinion as to the means used on both sides in connection with this petition.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if I give him, as I can give him, proof of the methods I complain of in the question, which referred only to one side, he will investigate the matter and take steps to enable people in future to exercise their constitutional right without molestation?
    Mr. MCKENNA: When I have seen the proofs I shall be very happy to consider the question.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is my right hon. Friend aware that pressure has been brought upon people to sign the petition by offers of clothes and blankets?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir, reports of that nature have also been made.

    Putumayo District (Collection of Rubber).
    Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the accusations which have been made against the Peruvian Amazon Company, particularly in foreign countries, the Government will consent to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire whether any responsibility rests upon the British directors of the company for the atrocities on the Putumayo; and whether any changes in the law are desirable to prevent the machinery of the English company law being used for such nefarious practices?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Government have considered this suggestion, and, in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case, they approve of the appointment of a Select Committee with some such reference as the Noble Lord suggests.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I presume it will not be appointed at this period of the Session, and that it will be appointed in October?

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
    Mr. CASSELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that it has been decided to make sanatorium treatment available for all persons whether insured or not, and the injustice of making insured persons pay for benefits which uninsured persons also receive, he will consider the advisability of doing away with sanatorium benefit under the National Insurance Act, 1911, and substituting other benefits, such as paying sickness benefit from the first day of illness, sanatorium benefit being made available under a national scheme for all persons alike?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. and learned Member states the case rather more broadly than the facts warrant. The matter depends on the conditions of administration of the Grant, which the county councils have not yet submitted. In the absence as yet of any definite proposals on this point I am not in a position to give an answer to the question.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is it proposed that uninsured persons shall make the same payments for benefits as insured persons? Is there any real substance in this thing?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is the question I have answered.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked what is the position of an insurance committee which, acting under its statutory obligation in providing sanatorium benefit, exceeds the sums at its disposal; and will the committee be personally liable for the excess of expenditure, or will there be a reduction of sanatorium benefit or a levy on all insured persons in the area after the next valuation?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): It will be the business of the insurance committees so to arrange their expenditure as to keep within the limits of the funds which they will have available. The alternatives referred to in the question will not therefore arise.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: What will happen if they do not keep within their powers?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Any excess in regard to the expenditure of one year will be carried over and debited to another year.
    Mr. CASSELasked whether any insured person in England has yet received sanatorium benefit, and, if so, approximately how many persons have received such benefit?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Arrangements have been made by a number of insurance committees for the immediate administration of sanatorium benefit, and I have no doubt that some cases have already been dealt with, but I am not in a position to give any estimate of the approximate number.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of any case?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot find out without circularising all the insurance committees, and it would certainly be premature to do that.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Staffordshire County Council have been advertising for applications for sanatorium benefit for at least three weeks?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think most insurance committees are now either receiving or dealing with cases.

    APPOINTMENTS.
    Mr. WILKIEasked whether, in making appointments under the National Insurance Act, preference has been given to persons with university training as against persons having a wide experience of friendly societies and trade organisations; and whether, in the making of further appointments, more regard will be had to the latter qualification?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The sole consideration in the selection of candidates has been, and will be, their suitability for the particular duties of the posts. The indoor staff has been recruited from trained Civil servants. In the ease of the outdoor staff a small minority only of those appointed and selected for examination (whether drawn from the Civil Service or outside) have had university training. The qualification referred to by my hon. Friend is receiving due weight in accordance with paragraph 25 of the Mowatt Report.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Have appointments been made without examination to the

    2917
    junior posts on the staff, and how is it proposed to deal with the 45,000 applications that have been made?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Appointments have been made from the Civil Service without examination.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Have appointments from outside been made without examination?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think any appointments to the junior part of the staff have been made from the outside.

    CONTRIBUTION CARDS.
    Mr. WILKIEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the National Insurance Commissioners will by Regulation endeavour to prevent any approved society obtaining any advantage as compared with any other society in the collection of insurance cards in October next; and whether he will consider the possibility by Regulation of preventing employers handing the cards of any or all of their employés to any one organisation, or permitting the agents of any such organisation attending on or about the premises where the persons are employed, with a view to collecting or receiving the insurance cards which would, directly or indirectly, militate against the free choice of an approved society?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think it would be possible, even if it were desirable, for the Commissioners to interfere with the arrangements which societies may make for receiving the cards of their members at the end of the quarter, but the Commissioners would take the most serious view of any attempt by a society to obtain credits in the National Health Insurance Fund upon cards to which it was not entitled. Such an offence might entail withdrawal of approval from the society, and penal consequences under Section 69 of the Act to persons implicated. Any employer who, instead of handing the card to the contributor on its expiry delivered it to an agent of an approved society would be guilty of a breach of the Regulations.
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that some firms in the furnishing industry in Sheffield are issuing insurance cards, to the workpeople which have spaces on the back, to be filled in, stating who the workpeople were recommended by on starting in the employ of a firm, and the reasons for
    2918
    leaving their employ; and, if so, having regard to the fact that such card partakes of the character note that, the men in the shipbuilding industry threatened to strike against, will steps be taken to declare illegal the issue of such cards?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No such practice as that to which the hon. Member refers has been brought to my notice. The only cards which can be legally used for the purpose of the payment of contributions under Part I. of the National Insurance Act are the cards issued for the purpose by the Commissioners, and accordingly any attempt by any employer to pay a contribution by affixing a stamp to any other kind of card is of no legal effect, and the employer is guilty of a contravention of the Act. It is a breach of the Regulations for any person to deface a proper contribution card by writing on it such particulars as those mentioned by my hon. Friend.

    DEPOSIT CONTRIBUTORS' BENEFITS.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked what benefits an employed person over sixty-five years of age on 15th July last, who is a deposit contributor, will be entitled to under the National Insurance Act; and which insurance committees have determined what these benefits are to be?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As the hon. Member is aware, the benefits to which a person over sixty-five on 15th July last who becomes a deposit contributor becomes entitled to are to be such as may be determined by the insurance committee. So far as I am aware, no insurance committees have yet come to any decision on this point, but the Commissioners propose to issue a circular letter making some suggestions in regard to these cases.

    INSURANCE COMMISSIONS.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked whether the chairman of the joint committee of Insurance Commissioners is present at meetings of the English Insurance Commission; and, if so, in what capacity he attends?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Chairman of the National Health Insurance Joint Committee does not attend meetings of the English Commission except upon the invitation of that Commission.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked how decisions of the joint committee, the advisory committee, and the several

    2919
    National Insurance Commissions are arrived at; and whether the chairman of each body, respectively, has a casting vote?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Treasury Regulations governing the constitution of the joint committee provide that in the event of a vote being taken on any matter, the Chairman (or in his absence the vice-chairman), shall if the voting is equal have a casting vote. The advisory committee has no administrative powers, and does not proceed by resolution. The procedure of the several Commissions is governed by their own standing orders. The decisions of the joint committee, and of the several Commissions are almost invariably the result of general agreement after discussion.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether the office of assistant secretary to the Welsh Insurance Commissioners is now vacant; whether a gentleman, previously employed at a salary of 30s. a week, has been appointed temporarily to fill the post and to supervise the work of experienced Civil servants drawing from £500 to £700 a year; and whether it is intended to convert this temporary into a permanent appointment?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative and to the second in the negative. The last two parts do not therefore arise.

    APPROVED SOCIETIES.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked what is the number of registered friendly societies existing on the 4th May, 1911, and the number of such societies which have become approved or formed State sections under the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The registered friendly societies in existence on the 4th May, 1911, including juvenile societies, burial societies, and others not giving sick benefit which have not applied for approval, numbered 6,797. Societies which have so far satisfied the requirements and become approved as separate societies or formed State sections number 662. Many, I understand, have become branches of the larger friendly societies. As I stated, in answer to the hon. Member on the 1st instant, the numbers, including branches, are: Number existing on 4th May, 1911, 27,458; number approved, 19,589.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked approximately how many of the 10,500,000 members of approved societies under the National Insurance Act are members of approved societies being friendly societies existing on 4th May, 1911, or the State sections thereof or members of approved societies formed by trade unions, or members of approved societies formed by industrial insurance companies, respectively?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The approximate numbers are, respectively, 5,700,000, 1,000,000, and 3,500,000, making a total of about 10,200,000, not including members of new societies.

    MALE VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTORS (STAMPS).
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked whether it is proposed to issue stamps of the value of 1s. 1d., and upwards, for the use of male voluntary contributors under the National Insurance Act; and, if it is not proposed to issue special stamps, whether the contribution cards can be revised so as to leave space for more than one stamp each week?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: There is no necessity to issue stamps of the value named or to revise the contribution cards. In all cases in which more than one stamp must be used the cards provided contains two stamp spaces for each week.

    FARMERS' INCOMES.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that 90 per cent. of the farmers of the United Kingdom have incomes of less than £160 a year; that the Insurance Tax represents 6 per cent. of the average farmer's income and a tax of a shilling an acre on agricultural land; that an impost of this description is in fact levied on oats, wheat, barley, beef, and mutton, and amounts to a preference in favour of Canadian wheat, Russian barley, and Argentine oats and meat; and what steps the Government propose to take in order to preserve equal conditions for British agriculturists?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no reason to doubt that, as the hon. Member implies, the great majority of farmers in the United Kingdom are exempted from Income Tax, more particularly as owing to the method of assessment under Schedule B, no farmer who pays a rent not exceeding £480 per annum is deemed to make a profit of over £160, even though he may in fact make a larger profit. A farmer's

    2921
    normal contribution towards the cost of his employé's insurance is 3d. a head per week, and if the hon. Member will compare this sum with the variations in the cost of labour in the various countries he names, I think he will admit that the last part of his question hardly arises.

    UNEMPLOYMENT BOOKS (STAMPS).
    Mr. WORTHINGTON - EVANSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is by his instruction that the divisional officer of the Cardiff Labour Exchange has written that health insurance stamps placed on unemployment books by mistake cannot be given credit for; and whether he will order a refund of the value of such stamps?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): Health insurance stamps are not valid for the purpose of contributions towards unemployment insurance. As announced, however, in the Press on 27th July, temporary arrangements have been made, as a special concession, to give credit in cases where wrong stamps have been affixed to unemployment books. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of this announcement. I will see that any misunderstanding that may have arisen on this point at Cardiff is adjusted.

    CASUAL WORKMEN.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, if a casual workman applying for work early on a Monday produces a health insurance card stamped with a 7d. stamp put on by himself in the belief that he will thus more readily obtain a job, there is any liability on the actual first employer to pay any part of the contribution?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Act requires that contributions shall be paid in the first instance by the employer, and the employer is not relieved from his liability under the Act by the fact that an employé produces a stamped card. The proper course of action for the employer in the circumstances stated is to ratify the stamping as done for him by paying the value minus the amount he is entitled to deduct when he pays wages.

    LOW-PAID WORKWOMEN.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state how and when the 1d. a week payable by the State in cases of certain low-
    2922
    paid workwomen is to be obtained; and whether the workwoman or her employer is responsible for obtaining it?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The 1d. will be credited to the society upon a declaration by the contributor as to her rate of remuneration. Forms of declaration will be supplied to societies towards the end of the quarter for use by those of their members who are affected.

    ENGLISH JUDICIARY.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make his promised statement with regard to appointment of an additional judge?
    The PRIME MINISTER: On the reassembling of the House His Majesty's Government will propose an Address to the Crown for the appointment of one additional judge.
    Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM: I beg to give notice that from these benches that appointment will be strenuously opposed.

  INDIAN CIVIL SEEVICE.

    PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I am very unwilling to trouble the House to-day with any matter relating to personal explanation, but, in view of certain events that have taken place owing to a statement I made in this House a week ago to-day, I dare say the House will expect that I should say something. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Had it not been a matter of public interest I should not have troubled the House with, it at all. This day week, in replying to certain claims advanced by certain hon. Members opposite with reference to knowledge about Indian affairs, I made a statement which has been misquoted ever since, apparently for a special purpose. Perhaps the House will allow me to read what I said—it was only in a sentence. After referring to short visits to India, and to the visit my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was about to make, I spoke as follows:—
    "On the other side, when a person goes to India, and, in Anglo-Indian language, gets 'sun-baked' he is not good for anything, although he thinks he knows everything, and, while he ceases to he a Westerner, he never has the sympathetic or mental capacity to become an Oriental, and we find him in the end reproducing, in his

    2923
    own personal characteristics, all the vices of both worlds, and showing very few indeed of the virtues of either."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1912, col. 1926].
    That statement, I regret to say, has been used as though it were a general attack upon the Indian Civil Service. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact to begin with, that it was a qualified statement as to those who had gone to India and got sun-baked. That is a small point. The point I wish the attention of the House to is that those who have quoted the statement have conveniently stopped at an awkward point. Because I went on to say "That is the melancholy end of so many"—"so many" certainly being a second limitation, and applying the statement I made to only a certain number. The meaning and the purpose that I had were perfectly clear to every Member of this House, and were explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Sir G. Scott Robertson) in speaking later. He stated:—
    "the hon. Gentleman has not fully appreciated the position taken up by the hon. Member."—
    That is, myself.
    "What struck me was that the particular Member opposite to whom his words were addressed thoroughly appreciated the humour of them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1912, col. 1967.]
    On Friday an anonymous letter appeared in the "Times" attacking me personally. I hope that we have not come to the time when Members of this House require to reply to anonymous letters. The "Times" unfortunately referred to the letter in its leading article, and it is just possible that then I ought to have referred to it myself and pointed out that the quotation was partial, that it conveniently stopped at a point which suited the anonymous correspondent to make his point, and that if he had quoted the next half-dozen words his point would have been destroyed. If I have made a mistake I am sorry, but, in any event, I did not consider that even when the "Times" took notice of an anonymous correspondent I was bound to follow its bad example. Since then the matter has been more or less public; a telegram has been sent from a well-known newspaper in Allahabad, the "Pioneer," using certain offensive language, which of course I expected, but the whole point is I made no attack upon the Indian Civil Service. I have written about the Indian Civil Service elsewhere; that writing has been critical, but it has been fair, and I have the very best means of knowing that it has not been resented by that service. I have never added to what I have written;
    2924
    I have not changed my opinion about the service, and when my hon. Friend above me referred in very just and glowing language to that service I took pleasure in showing my assent to what he was saying by cheering it at the time. I think, in view of the circumstances and the use that has been made of this quotation, that the House will not quarrel with me if I have troubled it with this personal explanation.
    Sir J. D. REES: The hon. Member having made a pointed attack upon me—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to occupy the time of the House now in replying.
    Sir J. D. REES: Am I not entitled to make a personal explanation in answer to an attack made under cover of personal explanation? I will not occupy two minutes.
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the opportunity for renewing the controversy of a week ago. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) did make in his speech what I conceived to be an attack upon the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman, thereupon, I think, followed him in Debate; he came next, as far as my recollection goes. He had then an opportunity of replying, an opportunity of which he took full advantage.
    Sir J. D. REES: The hon. Gentleman having repeated his attack to-day—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Leicester has not added anything to what ha said last week. He has quoted from what he said, but he has added nothing to it, so that the hon. Member may rest quite content.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I not reply to what has been said?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It would be quite contrary to all precedent, and would destroy all sense of regularity in the proceedings of this House if the hon. Member were to reply to what has been said now.
    An. HON. MEMBER: We are not in India now.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: May I say a word or two?

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BILLS PRESENTED.
    TRADE DISPUTES LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
    "To amend the law relating to Trade Unions with respect to Trade Disputes and to protect the provident funds of a trade union from civil liability in certain events." Presented by LORD ROBERT CECIL; supported by Mr. Fletcher, Mr. Mills, and Mr Sandys; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 8th October, and to be printed.—[Bill 309.]
    SEA FISHERIES REGULATION (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.
    "To provide for the suppression of illegal fishing by trawl vessels." Presented by Mr. MORTON; supported by Mr. Harry Hope, Mr. John Hope, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. Munro, Mr. Sutherland, and Mr. Watt; to be read a second time upon Friday, 11th October, and to be printed.—[Bill 310.]

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Prime Minister if he can make a statement with regard to business?
    The PRIME MINISTER: After the Second Reading this evening of the Trade Unions Bill we will take the Report stage of the Finance Bill and the Third Readings of the Public Works Loans Bill and the Protection of Animals Bill.
    To-morrow we propose to ask the House, for the general convenience, to meet at twelve o'clock. The Third Reading of the Finance Bill will be the First Order. Then the Postmaster-General will make a statement as to the Marconi contract. It is not proposed to have a general discussion on the subject or to ask the House to approve the contract, but an early opportunity will be given when we resume in the autumn for a discussion. The Adjournment Motion will then be taken, and on this the Sugar Convention will be discussed. We propose to resume on Monday, 7th October. [An HON. MEMBER: "What business will be taken on the resumption?"] That announcement will be made to-morrow.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: I beg to give notice that, to-morrow, on the Motion for the Adjournment, I will take the opportunity to raise the question of the admission of live cattle into ports of the United Kingdom from Ireland.
    Resolved, "That this House do meet To-morrow at Twelve o'clock."—[The Prime Minister.]

    PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL AND PROTECTION OF ANIMALS ACT (1911) AMENDMENT BILL.
    Ordered, "That the Proceedings on the Public Works Loans Bill and Protection of Animals Act (1911) Amendment 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."—[The Prime Minister.]

    SUSPENSION OF A MEMBER.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Montague Barlow.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT rose in his place—
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. SPEAKER: We have now begun the regular business. If the hon. Member persists in rising and attempting to address the House while I am standing, I shall have to take serious measures. He is not entitled to disturb the regularity of the proceedings of the House by constantly rising in his place and putting questions.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I wish to ask a question.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The time for asking questions is past. We have now commenced the regular business, and if the hon. Member cannot remain seated, I am afraid I shall have to take such steps as the Standing Orders empower me to take.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I wish—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw from the House during the remainder of this day's sitting.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I rose to ask a question.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must request the hon. Member to withdraw. He has defied my authority over and over again, and I must ask him to withdraw.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Not if I wish to ask a question—
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will not withdraw, I shall be under the painful necessity of suspending him.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I only ask permission to put a question, and you refuse to allow me permission.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has repeatedly risen. Is the hon. Member prepared to leave the House?
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I asked permission to put to you a question. I conceived that I acted within my rights in rising to ask you a question.
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member does not withdraw, I shall have to name him under the Standing Order.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I do not hear what you say, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will not obey my authority, I have to name him for disregarding the authority of the Chair.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have to move, "That Mr. MacCallum Scott be suspended from the service of the House."
    Question put, and agreed to
    Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER then directed Mr. MacCallum Scott to withdraw from the House, and he withdrew accordingly.

    HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (No. 2) BILL.
    Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOW: I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to amend the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890 to 1909, and the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899, and to encourage the private ownership of dwelling houses and business premises amongst the working classes."
    The measure has for its object the encouragement of that proposal. A similar movement has been encouraged both in France and Australia by very wise legislation, and it seems to those who are associated with me in this matter that the time has now come when steps should be taken of a similar character in this country. Three years ago French legislation was passed for doing this very thing. The State lends money at a very low rate of interest to societies for the purpose of enabling them to advance sums to the working classes who desire to purchase their own houses. The purchase price is repaid by instalments over a period of years at the rate of interest which the State charges for those loans, a rate extremely low. A good deal has been said in this House about 3½ per cent, being a low rate of interest, but in France the State only charges 2 per cent, to societies which are working the Act. In Australia similar
    2974
    legislation was passed, and there the movement has flourished to such an extent that in the large towns of Australia, I am told, nine out of ten workmen are now the owners of their houses. A similar movement has taken place in this country. We have friendly societies, building societies, house purchasing societies, and insurance companies all taking up this work, one of the largest being the Provident Association of London, which has already sunk £5,000,000 of the money of the society, and no less than 24,000 members of the working classes have acquired their own houses. In a recent Report issued by the Home Office, the medical inspector at Old-ham attests the fact—a very astonishing fact—that there are in that town, out of 33,000 inhabited houses, no less than 11,000 which are actually owned by the working classes. What we propose to do is this. The average rate at which the societies undertake this work and advance money is 5 per cent., or rather more. The friendly societies used a large amount of their funds for this purpose, but, fortunately or unfortunately, according to the point of view, a good deal of this money by the National Insurance scheme will be wiped off, and no longer available for such purposes by the friendly societies.
    It seems to me a desirable thing that the State credit should be used, and that advances should be made of societies' money at 3½ per cent., whereas at present they can only get it at 5 per cent., and this would enable the work to be carried on under more favourable circumstances and enable the occupiers to become owners sooner than they can at present. Even under the present conditions friendly societies, co-operative societies, and building societies can make such good terms on the basis of purchase that the tenant can come into possession and become owner of the premises by payments which shall not exceed fifteen years, and which do not exceed the amount paid in rent. So it comes to this: that a man by paying no more than his rent, even under existing conditions, can become an owner in fifteen years, and possibly in less time. If by the use of the State credit—it has been done in Ireland, and why should it not be done in this country—we can decrease that period of fifteen years to ten or twelve years, we shall be encouraging an excellent movement and we shall be assisting these societies who want money, and who can make the best possible use of it. We hear a good deal of various schemes for

    2975
    dealing with the land. I do not quite know how far those schemes go, or what they amount to, nor do I know that anybody does, but I think it is clear that if you are going to have a large measure for such a purpose you may impede this most useful movement on the part of the poorer classes of the community for owning their own houses at the end of from ten to fifteen years, while at the end of that time the State will say that they will have to pay rent, or an amount equivalent to rent.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Montague Barlow, Mr. Joynson-Hicks, Lord Robert Cecil, Mr. Frederick Edwin Smith, Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen, Mr. Astor, Mr. Guinness, Colonel Kyffin-Taylor, Mr. Baird, Mr. Norton-Griffiths, Mr. George Gibbs, and Major Dalrymple White. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday, 7th October, and to be printed.

    TRADE UNIONS (No. 2) BILL.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Bill be now read a second time."
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): The Bill of which I am now moving the Second Reading is the same as was introduced last year, with one alteration only, and that is the omission of the provision for the maintenance of Members of Parliament. When the matter was last before the House there was some discussion as to why we did not include that provision in this Bill. It had already been announced by the Government that there would be a provision for the payment of Members, and for this reason we have omitted it, because it is not necessary. In all other respects the Bill is identical, and I am thus enabled to deal with it more briefly than otherwise I could have done. I assume, in the first instance—and I am entitled to assume, I think—that there is no party in this House, either the Opposition, certainly not on the Labour Benches, and not on the Ministerial side, who would take the view that the Osborne judgment in its entirety, as promulgated by the House of Lords, should be maintained. I agree that there is a considerable diversity of opinion as to the question and as to the remedy, but certainly I need not spend any time, in view of what happened on the Motion for the Second Reading on the last occasion, in justifying the
    2976
    statement which I have made, because I remember quite well—it will be within the recollection of the House—although it may be that one or perhaps, two out of the number did oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, in the first instance it was admitted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool (Mr. F. E. Smith) that there was undoubtedly much to be said for a Bill, for legislation, to mitigate the severity of the Osborne Judgment, and the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for St. George's, Hanover-square (|Mr. A. Lyttelton), was explicit in his statement with regard to it. As the House will remember, the result of the Debate upon that occasion was upon the Division that there were 219 who voted for the Second Reading, and, following the lead given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover-square, the Opposition did not officially vote against it. In fact, I think I am justified in stating that only eighteen Members of the House of Commons were found to vote against the Second Reading. For that reason I do not propose to take up any time in explaining why it is thought necessary to introduce this measure.
    It is quite plain that as a result of the decision of the House of Lords which was pronounced upon the interpretation of the Trade Union Acts, and a judgment with which I need scarcely say not only I do not attempt to criticise, but with which I do not presume to quarrel, that judgment pronounced by the highest judicial tribunal of the land, made it clear for the first time that a trade union could not devote its funds or could not make levies for political purposes. Up to that time undoubtedly the view had been held by the vast majority of lawyers in this country that trade unions could use their funds for political purposes, and there was even a decision in the Courts to that effect. In the end, when the matter went to the Supreme Tribunal, it was held they could not. The House of Lords further laid down this proposition as confining the activities of the trade union, and this is in substance the decision, that the sphere of activity and operations of trade unons must, accordng to the Trade Union Acts, which were their charter, be confined entirely to industrial purposes, and must not in the slightest degree overlap political purposes. That is the reason why this Judgment has become one which I think cannot be allowed to stand

    2977
    in its entirety, and which must be, to some extent, mitigated. May I make one further observation before I proceed to deal with the Bill, which I shall do with but little preface, and it is this: Of course hon. Members of this House will remember that the difficulty with the trade union arose from a minority in the trade unions who objected to the funds of the trade union being used for political purposes and for the advancement of a particular political party. I am not going to argue the question, which has been discussed so often, at any length, but I desire to say with regard to it that the view we take as a Government on this matter, after very serious consideration, is that we do not think that the trade unions ought to be confined merely to the sphere of industrial activity. We think that combinations of men, of working people, joined together for the purpose of ameliorating the conditions of labour are entitled, as a necessary consequence, to take some part in political life, and more particularly that in some senses it is necessary they should have Members of Parliament, and that they should be entitled to promote the candidature of Members and to pay election expenses, and to take generally a part in the political life of the country.
    On the other hand, we recognise also that a man who is a member of a trade union, and who has joined it for industrial purposes, and has become a member in order that he may get the protection of his union, and in order that he may get the advantage of the position of his labour which his union may maintain for him, and in order that he may get the benefits which the union will pay to him, and get the advantage of strike pay in case a strike should be decreed, that that man is also entitled to the protection of the Government when he says this, that although he is a member of the union he objects to his money being used for the purpose of defraying the expenses of a Member of Parliament, or a candidate for Parliament, who advocates political opinions which are opposed to his own. It is obvious that that necessarily must have led, and has led, to some friction, and the consequence of that has be-en the action brought by Osborne, which culminated in this decision of the House of Lords. We think that the difficulty is one which can be very well met, provided certain conditions are fulfilled which we have incorporated in the Bill of which I am now
    2978
    moving the Second Heading. The substance of it, I think, I may state in a few sentences, and, indeed, it has been before the House since last year. We say in a trade union you must first of all define it as we do, and deal with its statutory objects, and by that we mean the objects which are included in the old Trade Union Acts, and which incorporate nothing new except some words at the end of the Clause introduced for the purpose of removing any doubt as to the right in a trade union to provide benefits for members. In that respect, as I apprehend, there will not be the slightest difference of opinion between this and the other side of the House. Further, we say the statutory objects will cover what I may call the sphere of industrial activity, which is entirely apart from the political. For example, I have in mind in making that statement the shortening of hours in a particular employment, the effort to increase wages in a particular employment for which the union naturally would do its best in the interest of its members. Those are very simple instances of statutory objects which are beyond all question, and I pass from them because there is no question about them.
    Then, in the other extreme, you have what is called in the Bill political objects, and the political objects which we mean and which we state in the Bill, and which are set out in more detail in the Bill, substantially consist of candidature at elections; the use of the funds for payment of election expenses; for election meetings or for political meetings in furtherance of the candidature of a particular member; for the distribution of literature on political doctrines, and also for holding meetings for purposes which are not in the main merely industrial purposes. Those are what we call political objects, and we draw a distinction in the Bill between the statutory and the political objects, and in order that a trade union may be entitled to devote its funds to the political objects, it must comply with three conditions. The three conditions are set forth in Clause 3 of the Bill, which on the last occasion was much referred to, and which, no doubt, will be criticised again today. Those conditions are to this effect: That there must be rules passed by the trade union and approved by the Registrar of Friendly Societies incorporating first the three conditions to which I have referred. The first is that the funds shall only be used for political objects after there has been a resolution passed on a ballot taken of the

    2979
    members of the union, and in accordance with the provisions of this Bill, which are to the effect that the Registrar must see that every man has an equal opportunity of voting, and, as I have said already, he must be satisfied that the ballot is fair, and that the rules provided for it are, at any rate, such as give opportunity to every member of the union to record his vote, and that the resolution must be carried by a majority of those voting. The second condition is that any payments which are made in furtherance of those political objects are to be carried to a separate fund, and that this fund should not be mixed up with the ordinary fund of the trade unions; and, further, that any man who objects to pay should be entitled to claim exemption from the levy or from the obligation to contribute his quota to this political fund.
    Mr. NEWTON: And become a blackleg.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think that is quite an unjustifiable interruption. If the hon. Member has any criticism to make with regard to this, surely he can make it in the discussion later on. There is no question of a man becoming a "blackleg." I am pointing out what he is entitled to under the Bill, and if the hon. Member will read the Bill he will see that we have taken care to provide that he shall be safe. Whether that satisfies the hon. Member or not, is another matter and is open to discussion; but we have at least taken care and every precaution to see, as far as we have been able, that he shall not only be enabled to claim exemption, but that effect shall be given to it when exemption is claimed. The third condition is one which deals with that precise point, and it provides that no member who has claimed exemption is to be under a disadvantage, nor is he to be excluded from any of the benefits of the trade union because of his refusal to contribute to the political fund. We think that in that Clause and with those conditions we have taken ample precaution to see that a member who does not wish to pay and who claims to be exempt, will be entitled to refuse to pay, and will at the same time not be excluded from the benefits of his union.
    One further observation I wish to make upon the Bill, and that is that, although I called attention to the two extremes, that is, the statuory objects and the political objects, there is a wide intervening field for the activities of trade unions
    2980
    which covers what I think I am justified in calling a non-debatable area—that is to say, activities in which the trade union may be agitating for an eight hours' day. Nobody could say that is purely industrial; it partakes of the political, and undoubtedly there you have the political purpose overlapping the industrial purpose. In that sphere I quite agree, or at least I think, after having devoted a good deal of attention to it and I daresay some other hon. Members may have done the same—I found it quite impossible by any definition to draw the line between what is industrial and what is political. I am speaking not only of what I have done myself, but with the assistance of many who are well qualified to incorporate definitions in a Bill. We have all arrived at the same conclusion, and I am quite certain that it will be unanimous, that you cannot say that at a, particular point a thing ceases to be industrial and becomes political. You may say, and rightly, that there are some things which are merely industrial and never will be political, and equally that there are some things which always will be political and never are industrial; but there must be some intervening space, and that is untouched by the provisions of this Bill. I mean that the conditions, the three conditions which are incorporated in Clause 3, do not operate as regards this non-debatable area. They only affect the application of the funds of the union towards what are called and defined in the Bill as political objects to which we refer. Outside those, of course, the trade union may devote its funds according to the wishes of the majority. Therefore the result of our Bill, if carried in the shape in which it stands, would be this: that for the vast majority of the operations and activities of trade unions it is not necessary to put into operation those conditions, and that means it is not necessary to have a separate fund or to have this special ballot or to have the particular rule to which I called attention. The trade union will carry on as it has done hitherto, and in our view properly and legitimately, in accordance with the government of the majority. But when you come to the other field to which I have called attention, the field covered by the political objects, you must have these three conditions complied with before the trade union is entitled to spend its money or take contributions from its members.
    There is one other provision which is no doubt important to trade unions and to

    2981
    which I would call attention. We have provided in the Bill that there should be no doubt as to what is a trade union—that is, so far as you can do so by legislation—and we have also provided for a tribunal to decide that point, in order to avoid the expense and delay, and very often the annoyance, of having to fight a matter of this kind in the public Courts. What we have said is: Here is the Registrar of Frendly Societies. He, and his predecessors, as the successors of other Registrars, have built up a very useful code of rules and practice to the satisfaction of trade unions and all those who come within the sphere of the operations of the Registrar of Friendly Societies. He, with the experience which he has derived, is the best authority to judge whether or not the objects of a union which seeks to be registered or to get a certificate from him is really a trade union. Our reason for providing that is that you might have associations formed which are not legitimate trade unions, which might seek to get the advantage of this Bill or of similar provisions. Therefore, we say that a union must have for its principal objects what we have defined as the statutory objects. But that is merely incorporating the old definition of the old Trade Union Acts. If any question arises in regard to that, the Registrar will decide. When he has decided and given his certificate, which he may give to unregistered as well as to registered unions—and an unregistered union forfeits nothing by applying for a certificate; it does not come in the slightest degree under the sway of the Registrar—both registered and unregistered trade unions, when they have once got the certificate of the Registrar of Friendly Societies, can produce it whenever they are challenged, and that is conclusive for all purposes that they are a trade union within the meaning of this Bill. If the Registrar chooses to grant a certificate, or if, having granted a certificate on an application, and on hearing the facts and circumstances he withdraws the certificate, as he is entitled to do under the Bill, an appeal is given from the Registrar to the High Court of Justice. In that case, as the union may be deprived of what in our view is a very valuable right, we give them the opportunity of going to the High Court of Justice.
    That in substance deals with the provisions of the Bill. After a moment's examination of the criticisms which may be directed to the Bill, I will leave the matter to the House. One criticism
    2982
    which no doubt will be directed to the Bill on this occasion as on the last was foreshadowed by the interruption of the hon. Member opposite. It will be said that the safeguards provided in the Bill are illusory. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I quite anticipated that that would be so, and I am very anxious to deal with the point. I understand that hon. Members opposite are apprehensive that a member of a trade union who claims exemption will be what is called a marked man, and that in consequence he will either lose his employment or in some way or another be put at some disadvantage, and, it is suggested, might be expelled from the trade union. If he is expelled, there is a right of application to a Court of Justice. A Court of Law can deal with that question, and can restrain any union from expelling a man if there is no ground for it.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The Court cannot restrain a trade union from depriving a man of benefits.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am not so sure of that. I was not dealing with that point, but I am obliged to the Noble Lord for referring to it. I will come to it in a moment. I agree that it is a matter which has to be considered. But the safeguard is not illusory, for the reason that you have provided under the rules, which will be administered by the society, that a man is not to be placed at a disadvantage or to be deprived of his benefits. I know that it has been said and will be said again, "What is the use of that to a man who is a member of the trade union? The union may deprive him nevertheless." But is that quite a just observation? Is it well-founded? If hon. Members opposite are right in the view that they take, there is a very considerable minority of members of trade unions who object to pay towards these political objects. That has always been the argument. If that is the case, do they imagine for one moment that, with that provision in the rules to the satisfaction of the Registrar, a powerful minority or even a small minority would not be enabled, if the executive refused, to make its voice heard and to carry its way at a general meeting of the trade union? I am unable to take the view that the members of a trade union at a general meeting would be so unfair, so unjust, so arbitrary, as to say, "Not-withstanding that we have incorporated that provision into our rules, we refuse absolutely to give effect to it, and we are

    2983
    going to deprive a man of his benefits merely because he refuses to contribute towards the political objects."
    I understand much better the argument that may be put forward that very considerable pressure will be brought to bear. It has been said that there would be intimidation and coercion. I prefer to take the view that there would be attempts at persuasion, perfectly reasonable, perfectly legitimate. [An HON. MEMBER: "Peaceful picketing."] The question of peaceful picketing does not come into it at all. What I am pointing out is that there may be persuasion, and surely it would be perfectly legitimate for the members of a trade union to attempt to persuade another to come in and join them. If you had not the force of our provisions, if you had not the conditions which we have incorporated in the Bill, I could understand much better its being said that we had taken no care to provide that a man should be protected effectively in the exercise of his liberty. But with those provisions and the further point to which the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin calls attention, I submit that there is ample protection. The Noble Lord said just now that there was no power to restrain a trade union from excluding a man from benefits. I agree with him if he says, and I have no doubt this is what was in his mind, that under the Trade Union Acts, which we must always bear in mind when dealing with trade unions, there are limitations on the actions which may be brought against a trade union or by a trade union. That has been so from their earliest incorporation. It is not necessary to go into the history of the matter. No doubt at one time it was thought to be some disadvantage. To-day it may be thought to be some advantage. But as the law stands, a trade union cannot be sued for the payment of benefits to its members, and equally a trade union cannot sue a member for refusing to pay his contributions to the union. But I am by no means prepared to say that there could not be an application for an injunction to restrain a union from excluding a member from benefits.
    Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: That would be enforcing an agreement.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: From one point of view it would be enforcing an agreement. But I am not going into the legal discussion. I am anxious particularly that the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay
    2984
    Macdonald) should follow my view in regard to this. The restriction is not against bringing an action. The words are that a trade union shall not be entitled directly to enforce an agreement. The House of Lords has drawn a very great distinction between the words, the point being that the House of Lords felt that you might bring an action to restrain by injunction, because it was not directly enforcing an agreement. I agree that hitherto the law has been, and I think the law is, that no action can be brought against a trade union to obtain the payment of benefits to members, and there is nothing in this Bill which changes the law on this point. The law remains exactly as I have explained it. But when you have got this provision in the rules—and the provision is one which I think a trade union must necessarily carry out; I cannot conceive that a trade union would be absolutely regardless of it or that at a general meeting of its members a trade union would refuse to give effect to its own rules—
    Mr. A. LYTTELTON: Is not an injunction an action at law?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not follow the point.
    Mr. A. LYTTELTON: If no action can be taken against a trade union, how does the Attorney-General get rid of the point by saying that an action for an injunction can be brought?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I have had to look into the matter very closely, and the matter is really perfectly plain on the authority of the highest tribunal in the land. The House of Lords held that to bring an action against a trade union to restrain them from doing a thing was not the same thing as bringing an action against them for damages for not doing a thing. In one case, if you bring an action for damages, you are directly enforcing an agreement. In the other case, if you bring an action for an injunction, it is not directly enforcing an agreement. That is the whole point. The right hon. Gentleman may think that it is a very fine distinction. If I may say so, I thought so when I argued the point, because I argued to the contrary. But the House of Lords pronounced it to be the law, and now there, is no doubt about it. It is the law administered from the highest tribunal to the lowest. Therefore it was that I drew the distinction, and said that the Noble Lord

    2985
    was not quite right in his statement, or at any rate that there was no authority for the proposition which he put forward.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Would the Attorney-General give the name of the case to which he refers?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It is the case of Howden. There is also the other case of Osborne v. The Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants.
    Mr. PETO: Did either of those cases deal at all with the question of benefits? Did not the Howden case deal with a trade union paying unemployment benefit to people who had struck work contrary to the rules of the union, and the other was an altogether different matter?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The object of the action was to restrain a union from paying strike pay. I agree that it did not decide that a member could bring an action to restrain a union from not paying him, we will say, the sick benefit to which he was entitled. That was agreed to; and I am sure the Noble Lord will agree with me that one ought to be a little careful in making a statement, though I agree with him that there is no case in the view of certain judges. In view of a recent decision I am not prepared to state that such an injunction would not be—
    Mr. PETO: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I want to know from him whether it is not a fact that in the case of Mussell v. the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners, decided by the House of Lords so late as 26th February we have not got a perfectly definite and conclusive decision that there is no possibility of a trade union member getting the benefits in the way indicated?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I have said that at least three times. I did not quote the authority, for it was, to my mind, an absolutely clear proposition. I was trying to draw the distinction. My reason for doing it was because I did not want the hon. Member for Leicester or his friends to be under any misapprehension. When I say that I am not changing the law by this Bill in this respect, I do not want it to be understood that I am laying down that no action can possibly be brought by a man in some way to restrain a trade union if it refuses to carry out these rules. I do not say that at all. It appears to me that by more recent decision it is a very difficult thing for any one to assert that
    2986
    the Courts and certainly that the House of Lords, might not in certain circumstances say they would grant an injunction. That is my only reason for referring to it, and because of what the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin said. I will deal with another, and what was certainly on the last occasion the chief objection raised. It was said that we made no proper provision for taking the ballot. I think that that criticism, when the matter is examined more carefully, will turn out to be wrong. It is plain from the Bill that the rules are to be subject to the approval of the Registrar of Friendly Societies. Clause 4, a special Clause, provides that before the Registrar of Friendly Societies approves he must be satisfied that every member has a legal right to vote, and that the secrecy of the ballot is properly secured. I do not know what other precautions anybody could have devised for this purpose.
    The criticism which was built up upon that, and which I thought had some substance in it, and probably the criticism that the Noble Lord had in his mind just now, was properly directed to the suggestion that you might not get a sufficient number of men to take part in the ballot to make the vote really a true reflection of the opinion of the members of the union. That is an argument which was dwelt upon at considerable length by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Walton Division on the last occasion, and which was also argued out by various hon. Members. The only answer that I desire to make in regard to that is that you cannot, of course, insist that every man shall vote. What you can insist upon is that he shall have the proper opportunity to vote, and that the ballot shall be secret. If he does not choose to take the trouble to vote on a question which is thought to be of importance to his union, how on earth are you going to make him do it any more than you can make a man vote at a Parliamentary election? All we can do is what we have done in this Bill, and that is make it clear that there is the ballot and that it is secret, and to make it clear that a member of the trade union shall have the opportunity to vote. I think I have covered the whole ground of this Bill. My submission to the House is that when this Bill is carefully and seriously examined, when it has been looked into and its provisions analysed, the House will come to the conclusion that what we have done here is to give full

    2987
    effect to the legitimate aspirations of the trade unions in their desire to devote their funds to political objects, whilst at the same time we have taken the amplest care to protect the minority who decline to contribute to this fund, and therefore are entitled to that protection which the Government can give in these circumstances.
    Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM: Before the right hon. Gentleman finishes his remarks, may I ask him whether the general, that is the accumulated funds, can be taken for political purposes, or is a fund to be accumulated for payments to be made from it?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The fund is to be a separate fund, and that separate fund consists only of the money that is raised from the levies for political purposes, and in pursuance of the resolution which has been arrived at through the ballot, and which has been approved by the Registrar of Friendly Societies.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The Bill does not say so.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Oh, yes, it does!
    Mr. HOHLER: I think it says the Registrar "may" approve.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Look at Clause 3, Sub-section (1), paragraph (b)—
    "Any payments in the furtherance of those objects are to be made out of a separate fund (in this Act referred to as the political fund of the union). All payments that are to be made out of the separate fund are not to be made out of the general fund. A levy 'may' be made."
    An HON. MEMBER: There is not to be a separate levy?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: You can make a separate levy because the man has to claim exemption from that levy. There need be no separate levy, and exemptions are provided for in Clause 6. The hon. Baronet wishes to know whether you are to have a separate fund, that is a political fund, apart from the general fund.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Yes.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Undoubtedly no. The money that has been obtained from the levies which are made in pursuance of this Bill for the political fund would have to go to a separate fund, as provided here, and no payment could be made for politi-
    2988
    cal objects except out of that fund. That is the intention of the Bill. I hope that answers my hon. Friend.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I am not quite clear. If the levy is an ad hoc one, then, of course, it is perfectly clear. When the general, the ordinary contributions to the trade union are made weekly, I presume that the learned Attorney-General's statement is that a portion of this weekly levy might, if the trade union assents by a majority to the levy, be taken for the purposes of the political fund?
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: May I give an illustration, and try to make the point clear? Supposing the payment to the trade union was made on a call of 5½d. per week, and a further call was made for a halfpenny per week, then I suppose a man would have to pay 6d., 5½d. of which would go to the industrial fund and a halfpenny to the political fund.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Quite; provided, of course, that you have made provision that a person who may want to claim exemption from the second part may do so and pay the 5½d. instead of the 6d. Everyone who has not claimed exemption will pay the 6d. Everybody who has claimed exemption will only pay the 5½d. All that is collected for that halfpenny extra would go to the extra, the political fund.
    Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: I beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the question to add the words "upon this day three months."
    I think that the speech to which we have just listened from the Attorney-General is really an eloquent statement of the position of the Government at the present time. He has given us, with his usual fairness and lucidity, an exposition of his Bill, but he has not attempted to justify it in any way. He has explained its provisions and its machinery, but I really think he ought, at any rate, to have attempted to show that this concession to the Labour party is not merely a convenience to the Government, but is in some way an advantage to the country.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: One moment; that there may be no misapprehension, let me say I thought I pointed out that I was not going to argue the merits of the Bill because of what had happened on the last

    2989
    occasion with this very Bill, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square (Mr. Alfred Lyttelton), approved of the Second Reading of the Bill. The only question between us was as to whether the remedy which we were proposing was a right and a proper one; that is the whole position.
    Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: Let us be quite clear. I said most distinctly when I voted against the Third Reading of the Bill last year, that unless provisions for safeguarding were made—
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I agree entirely.
    Mr. A. LYTTELTON: The Government have had twelve months to consider the question and have not made a single addition to the Bill. I shall most certainly vote against it.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: I venture to protest strongly against the discussion I of the Second Reading of any measure I in such circumstances as these. The Bill was brought forward fifteen months ago, and it shows, to my mind, some little lack of respect to this House, if this Bill can be justified upon its merits, that the Attorney-General sits down without attempting to do so. If this Bill could be justified on its merits, no one could justify it better than the Attorney-General. He has omitted to justify it upon its merits, but he has done a practical thing. This Bill is a price which has to be paid, and when a price is being paid the practical thing is to count out the money and to show that it is there. What the Attorney-General has done is to go through this Bill and make it clear to the payees that here is the stipulated and agreed price. I will endeavour to deal with this matter as shortly as I can, and may I, without offence, venture to say that this is a matter on the broad lines of which great interest is felt by people outside. I hope that the lawyers who may take part in this Debate will avoid any technicalities so far as they can. I approach this Bill from the point of view which I expect is shared in all parts of this House. I approach it from the point of view that the direct representation of labour in this House is a necessary and a desirable thing. I protest altogether against the notion that the only representation of labour in this House or the principal representation of labour in this House is upon the benches opposite. Events appear to me to demonstrate that the
    2990
    average working man of this country, inside and outside the trade unions, desires to be represented here either by a Liberal or a Conservative Member. But the presence of the Labour party here shows that there are a large number of important industrial constituencies which do prefer to be represented by labour in this House, and although I think myself that the representation of labour here is attended by serious disadvantages, I will not take up time discussing that matter; I would much sooner have Labour Members here even with, those disadvantages than not have them here at all. I feel very much indeed that in these days there is a segregation of classes and interests in this country; that classes are living apart and drifting apart in a way that used not to be, and it is a most urgent matter that these great and growing forces of labour should have every kind of outlet and ventilation for their grievances and for the bettering of their condition.
    I start, as I expect we all start, from that position, and starting from that position I oppose this Bill, because while I think it is in no way necessary for the maintenance of labour representation here, I think this Bill would introduce grave danger into our representative system and would interfere with and take away elementary rights of freedom of thought and action. The Attorney-General certainly has not suggested, and I do not think anyone in the course of this Debate will suggest, that this Bill is necessary for the maintenance of labour, representation in this House. To my mind the point need not be laboured. I do not think that any Labour Member, at any rate, would get up and say that unless they can get a forced levy, and that if they have to depend only on voluntary levy they cannot maintain their position in this House. Obviously that would not be time. The presence of the Labour, party in this House demonstrates that they are here and can remain here in great force and vigour upon a voluntary basis. It. was in 1908 that the Osborne Judgment was pronounced in the Court of Appeal. No one suggests that the Labour party have either evaded or broken the law since, and therefore, if they are here, I think we must assume they are here upon the basis of voluntary contribution and voluntary association during these four years and at no time have they been more fully represented

    2991
    or more influential both inside and outside this House. The reason why this Bill is demanded is because the Socialist leaders, although they obviously have control of considerable resources under the present system, yet would like to have more. They would like to have a full levy. They know they will never get a full levy except under compulsion, and they know if this Bill is passed whatever is the form they will be able to have that compulsion. We know what their position is. We know what their Bill was. Roughly speaking, they are in favour of the powers of the Bill, but opposed to the restrictions. They were instructed by the Trade Union Congress to oppose this Bill unless it was brought into accord with their desires. We shall see in a moment what their position is. I expect they will accept this Bill under protest. If they do that it will be because they know very well that the safeguards against which they have been instructed to rebel are illusory and unreal in practice.
    Whatever else this Bill does it is going to take very large sums of money from pockets not too full of money, and that money is going to labour representation. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Kein Hardie) has told us what that representation is. He says it is a means to an end, and that end is not trade unionism but Socialism. The money, therefore, to be taken from the pockets of the average trade unionists is going to be applied for Socialistic purposes; of that there can be no doubt. I want to discuss this matter step by step. Assuming, as I hope in a moment to show, that this Bill involves a compulsory levy, then the question arises of necessity what are the polities of those men whose money you are going to take for Socialism? If they are Socialists then this is a Bill which no Liberal would support, because no Liberal would admit that Socialists ought to be compelled to subscribe to Socialism, any more than Liberals to the Liberal Association. If these men are Socialists then this Bill is bad, but if these men are not Socialists what are any of the Liberals who still attend debates in this House going to say to a proposal which will be found to be this, that its object is to take from the pockets of men who are not Socialists money which is to go to Socialist purposes. What are the average political views of the average trade unionist? It is a very difficult question, no doubt, but I think of late years the facts, which enable one to judge pretty
    2992
    well, roughly show what the average trade unionist is in ordinary politics. The Attorney-General referred to results of political ballots in the last three years inside the trade unions. They are very striking. The stonemasons took a ballot in 1911. Out of 15,000 members I think less than 1,500 voted. The engineers had a ballot on a political question, and out of 107,000 odd members more than 100,000 stood outside the ballot altogether. The shipwrights took a political ballot, and 3,000 voted out of 21,000 or 22,000. The boilermakers had a political ballot, and 5,000 out of 50,000 voted. Everyone knows the list could be extended indefinitely. It shows the same thing and that the inference to be drawn is this, that these domestic political ballots in the trade unions, which, be it remembered, are not secret—a man gives his name and address—resolve themselves into a vote between a minute minority of Socialists and even a minuter minority of anti-Socialists, and that the body of the trade unionists stand outside the contest altogether. That is in effect what happens.
    How is this very striking fact to be explained? Is it that the men are apathetic and do not take the trouble to vote? It would be a very unfair view to take of the political capacity of British labour to say that they were men of that character, and that you might take their money for Socialism or Toryism or Liberalism or what you like. But that is not so. You get an indication of the political views of the ordnary trade unionists whenever you get a Parliamentary election in an industrial constituency in which the three parties are represented. Take the last two instances—the elections at Hanley and the Crewe Division. What do they show? It seems to me they prove to demonstration that when the average working man, the average trade unionist, is called upon for his vote at the proper time in a secret ballot he is not found to be a man of no political opinions at all, but is like any ordinary man. He comes to the poll and gives his vote, and by great masses and majorities these men vote down the Socialist candidate, and the working man is seen to be just an ordinary Conservative or an ordinary Liberal. I claim, if the House is good enough to have followed me, to have established these two points. You are going to take the money of men who are convinced Liberals or Conservatives, and you are going to apply that money beyond a doubt to Socialistic purposes. Now, that is a thing which re-

    2993
    quires justification, and it rests very heavily upon the Government, if that is so, to show that the minority are going to be protected. What is the present position? The Attorney-General has not troubled us with the present position of the law. It rests with him to show that it is wrong before he proposes a vital change.
    What is the present position of trade unions in regard to taking part in party politics? They are on an exact equality with all their fellow subjects. The individual trade unionist can spend what money he pleases in any voluntary association that believes like himself. He can take any part he pleases in party politics, like any other individual, and the trade union is in exactly the same position as any other corporate or quasi-corporate body in this country. As I understand it, a corporate body has its objects; trade unions have their objects by Statute and they can no more than any other corporate body go outside these objects, and almost all that the Court did in the Osborne Judgment was to look at the objects of trade unions and to say these objects do not permit trade unions any more than any other corporate body to employ its corporate funds and organisation in interfering in party polities. That is the present position. There is no disability and no privilege, and trade unions are in this respect upon an exact equality with their fellow subjects. The Attorney-General has spoken of the difficulty of distinguishing between political and industrial matters. I should like to ask the House to look at this Bill carefully, because it is discussed outside almost entirely from the point of view of the insufficiency of these safeguards, and there are matters in this Bill outside those safeguards altogether. I do not think the far-reaching effect of this Bill is realised in the least. It gives power to trade unions and imposes certain restrictions upon the exercise of those powers. Those powers are enormous and the restrictions imposed are very slight. The Bill is most artfully drawn to convey the impression that there is a fair balance of power given on the one side and fair restrictions on the other, but really there is no such balance at all.
    Before I discuss the question whether these restrictions are real or not, I wish to point out how great are the areas of activity of the trade unions to which these restrictions do not purport to apply at all. This Bill opens to trade unions any political object and any non-political object
    2994
    and any lawful object whatever, subject to the one condition that the industrial object must predominate. I do not pretend to go into detail in this part of the matter, but so far as I can see it would be open to trade unions without any restrictions at all to embark upon commercial or industrial enterprises. For example, it will be open to trade unions to run newspapers. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] May I make two observations about that branch of non-political enterprise? There will be no separate fund and no member of the union will be able to secure exemption in regard to the cost of these vast new enterprises. In such objects as running newspapers and other enterprises they are not subject to the ordinary law of the land. Consequently they are in an anomalous and extraordinary, and, in my judgment, a most dangerous position. Supposing a trade union runs a newspaper; it can attack its trade rivals with libel or its political opponents, and the injured persons have no redress in any Civil Court. Not only are they prevented from getting compensation, but the Court has no power to make an order on the admitted wrongdoer that he shall not continue his wrongdoing. I invite the attention of the House of Commons to the vast field which is open to trade unions here in the non-political sphere to which these restrictions do not apply at all.
    Let me come to the political object. I wish to point out that the political objects to which these restrictions apply are only certain narrow political objects, and they only apply to the political objects defined in Clause 3 of the Bill. If hon. Members will look at the third or fourth line of the third Clause they will see a little modest parenthesis. If this Bill ever becomes law a good deal will be found to be contained in that parenthesis. The restrictions are to apply to the political objects specified in Clause 3, "without prejudice to the furtherance of any other political objects." All other political objects are free from these restrictions. Now let me come to the actual political objects to which these restrictions apply. I will take what everybody will agree is a most important form of political activity, that is, the propaganda which goes on at ordinary times. What does this Bill say about that? It says that the restrictions shall apply to the expenditure of trade union funds:—
    "On the holding of political meetings of any kind or on the distribution of

    2995
    political literature or political documents of any kind unless the main purpose of the meetings or the distribution of the literature or documents is the furtherance of statutory objects within the meaning of this Act."
    A short time ago in my own Constituency in Aldershot the local gas company started a profit-sharing scheme, and I believe it was a great success. The Socialists circulated quantities of leaflets, one of which I saw, imploring the working people of Aldershot not to touch this scheme on the grounds that the interests of capital and labour must be in eternal hostility, and they urged the people to support the Socialist party and to adopt the Socialist programme. I will take that leaflet as an illustration. [An HON. MEMBER: "Was it a trade union leaflet?"] I do not think it was a trade union leaflet, but I do not see that that matters in the least. I am simply taking as an illustration what; seems to me to be an extremely important matter. I take that leaflet and I ask whether the whole political activity which that leaflet represents does, or does not, come under the restrictions of this Bill. What was that leaflet! No fair-minded man would deny that it was a political leaflet. Would any fair-minded man deny that the main purpose of that leaflet was to improve the industrial condition of the workers as against the employers, to benefit their position, and to regulate and alter the relations between employers and employed for the benefit of the employed. The main purpose was undoubtedly the industrial benefit of the worker. If that is so, then that leaflet is undoubtedly illegal now because it is political, but it becomes legal under this Bill because its main purpose is industrial, and it is exempt from these restrictions altogether.
    I submit to this House that if this Bill passes it will be free to trade unions at once outside these restrictions altogether, and with no power to any man to dissociate himself from it, to spend the ordinary funds of the trade unions on ordinary every day political propaganda. With regard to the ballot I would like to say a few things generally. The way this Government deal with the vital, delicate, and all-important question of the secrecy of the ballot is very characteristic of them. Do they take this question in hand and deal with it themselves? Do they insert in their Bill careful provision how it shall
    2996
    be done? No, Sir; they leave it to the ipse dixit of an official, and he has to decide whether or not trade union rules, sufficiently secure the secrecy of the ballot. I will now come to a matter with which the Bill is very careful to deal. It is provided that the result of this all-important ballot shall be determined by a bare majority of those who take part in the ballot. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] The entire constitution of trade unions is to be revolutionised by a bare majority of the members voting. If there is in any I given trade union a real majority who really desire political action, surely those men would be willing to go to the effort of writing their names or making their cross on a piece of paper. If there is not in a given trade union a majority willing to take that trouble to get political action, then there is no real majority desiring it. The reason why this outrageous provision is inserted is because those who demand this Bill are perfectly well aware that if you wait until you can get a real majority in a trade union to signify their desire for Socialistic action, you will have to wait till Domesday.
    It is said that the minority are to be protected by a separate fund. We have heard some discussion about this matter. As I read this Bill there must be a separate political fund, but there need not be a separate levy for that purpose. The officials of the union can make an ordinary collection for the general purposes of the union, and having got that money into their coffers, and provided it has been, authorised by a trade union ballot, they can take what they please out of that general fund and put it into a separate fund, which is a political fund, and political payments must be made out of that fund. What is to be done in that case? The Bill provides that dissenting workmen are to have some abatement made. That is all the Bill provides. The officials are to decide how much abatement is to be made, and, without taking much risk, I can anticipate that it will not be on an unduly lavish scale. Could anything be more invidious than the position in which the dissenting workmen would be placed. The hat goes round for the general purposes of the union, and this man puts in nothing, and why? Because he is a dissenting workman, and although the collection is for the general purposes of the union on which he will make his call, he puts in nothing, and he is exempted. Nothing could be more invidious

    2997
    than the position in which the dissenting workman is put by the machinery of this Bill. The dissenting workman has to give notice in writing that he is unwilling to contribute, and hon. Members will see what that means.
    Fairness and logic are inverted at every step in the machinery of this Bill. The fair course obviously would have been if you are going to embark on a Socialist propaganda to make your collection from those men who have signified their willingness to contribute. Am I not right in saying that this Bill enacts in practice that on and after its passing into law every trade unionist in this country will have to subscribe to Socialism unless he gives written notice to the contrary. I will suppose a Tory landlord puts up a notice to his tenants to the following effect: "Every tenant of mine must subscribe to the local Conservative association." [An HON. MEMBER: "They have to," and "Where does the landlord get his money?"] I will ask hon. Members who follow me to show in what respect the two things are different. I am putting the case of the landlord who provides that every tenant of his must subscribe to the local Conservative Association and says of any man who wishes to be exempt, "Let him send to me his name and address and then we shall all know where we are." What is the difference? In each case the upholder of the system can say the man has only to sign a notice. The two cases are similar. If a Tory landlord so acted, what would be the language of hon. Members on the benches opposite? The imagination reels at the mere thought of it. Then we come to the last protection on which the Attorney-General laid so much stress: this pious provision against disability. The minority will need something more than that. They will need a real protection The report of the Trade Union Federation's Congress of 1911 says:—
    "The concession of the right to claim exemption will breed more bitterness in six weeks than the old political levy has made in a year."
    I quite agree there will be plenty of bitterness. What will be the result when a man is hustled and abused in the shops? What redress will he have if he is boycotted and his mates refuse to work with him, so that he is hounded from shop to shop? [HON. MEMBERS: "Belfast."] I think hon. Members will see I am endeavouring to deal reasonably from my point of view with this Bill. I am not dealing either with the docks or with Bel-
    2998
    fast. I am dealing with the state of things which will exist, and I am asking the House to face them fairly. We have seen what happens when there is bitterness in trade unions, but I venture to say the treatment they have extended to the outside "scab" will be nothing to the treatment they will extend to the inside "scab," whom they consider altogether a traitor to their order. We shall have men wandering from shop to shop until in despair they return on terms of absolute submission. If that is the manner in which a man is treated, what legal redress will he have? Can the Courts help him? Can they give him any redress? I am not dealing with expulsion, because it is plain enough, if a man is expelled, a Court cart restore him to mere membership, but not to benefit. If he is deprived of his benefit for his contumacy, I venture to say the Courts have no power to restore him to his benefit. That is my view, and I think on consideration the House will find it to be well founded. There is a case we all know very well decided under the Trade Union Act of 1876, which provides that in a certain event a trade union shall pay to the nominee of the deceased member a certain sum of money. The event happened, and the nominee sued the trade union. The Court held it was unable to give him judgment for the benefit, because of the inflexible rule that you cannot recover benefit by action in Court. It was said the benefit was due under the words of the Statute, which are imperative, but the Court said notwithstanding that they could not give judgment for the benefit.
    I venture to say if a man is deprived of his benefit and goes into Court asking for it, the Court will say, in that case as they said in the other, "We cannot give you your benefit." The man may say, "The Trade Disputes (No. 2) Act says I am not to be deprived of it," but the Court will say, "That section does not say what is to follow, and it does not alter the established rule that we cannot give you judgment for your benefit." I venture to say these safeguards are seen on examination to be wholly illusory. The ballot is a fraud and the separate fund is a form, and, if a man is foolish enough to avail himself of the dissenting notice, the arm of the law is not long enough to save him from the consequences of his action. The minority will have only two alternatives under this Bill. They must either secede or submit. If they go out you get rupture in the trade unions, and, if they stay in

    2999
    and submit for fear of what will happen to them if they do not, which I myself anticipate is what they will do, what is that but tyranny on the one hand and slavery on the other? If this Bill passes this will be the beginning in this country of that which is common enough in some other countries, the intervention of corporations as such, with their great funds and power, in party politics. If you let in trade unions of men, by the same Bill you let in trade unions of masters; and if you give it to the trade unions, how can you refuse it to the other corporate bodies? A railway company is far more affected by the daily course of legislation than a trade union, and has far more excuse for taking part in party politics. Railway companies are not allowed openly and as a right to employ their corporate funds and to interfere with party politics. [HON. MEMBERS: "They do it the other way."] Hon. Members are thinking, perhaps, as I am, of an evening a year or two ago, when some lynx-eyed Liberal discovered that a railway company had subscribed out of its corporate funds, I think it was as much as £10, to a Conservative association, and we remember how that instance of Tory depravity was withdrawn with abject apologies amid the upturned hands of horror of Liberals.
    If this Bill passes, corporations must be allowed into our party politics. I say we want no Tammany in this country, and this Bill would be the beginning of demoralisation in our public affairs. The conclusion which I have reached in considering this matter is very far from supporting this Bill. The conclusion I have reached is that it is urgently necessary trade unions should receive their full rights and undertake their full obligations, and should in both directions be brought under the full operation of the law. There will be no abiding peace and no industrial security so long as these great and powerful bodies are outside the law; half above and half below it as they are at the present time. I decline, for my part, to discuss this Bill with any benevolent idea that it is going to be transformed in Committee. It will not be transformed in Committee. It is a price, and, if it were transformed, it would cease to be a price and would lose the object of its existence. We must deal with it as we find it, and in my view, in resisting this Bill we are not fighting against the trade unions; we are fighting against the Socialist minority, who have captured and
    3000
    who boss the trade unions, fighting, in my humble judgment, for the great majority of the members of trade unions. I shall vote against this Bill on the double ground that I think it would degrade our public life and that I am profoundly convinced it would hand over great masses of the best of our people without redress and without appeal to a legalised political servitude.
    Mr. PETO: I beg to second the Motion which stands in the name of the hon. Member for North Hants and also in my name. A few moments ago I felt I had undertaken a responsibility considerably heavier than I do now. I am really in doubt if it is worth while to put forward any elaborate case in opposition to this Bill after the hon. Member has so clearly pointed out to the House the elaborate sham these various Clauses are in purporting to give safeguards to the minority and to distinguish what the Attorney-General said was indistinguishable, the future of political and industrial activities of trade unions. The hon. Member has shown that the whole of this is unnecessary, and it is a work of supererogation. There is a perfectly obvious and easy method open to any member of a trade union to entirely avoid all these meshes in which the Bill might be supposed to be going to entangle him. I think the explanation of the hon. Member of what took place at Aldershot the other day, taken in conjunction with the statement of the Attorney-General that in his opinion and in the opinion of people learned in the law it was absolutely impossible to distinguish between these two departments of human activity; make one fully realise that the whole of this Bill from beginning to end is nothing more than an absolute sham, and should really never have been brought before the House.
    I would like to say one word with regard to the interruption of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square (Mr. Alfred Lyttelton). From the time the Bill was introduced I have opposed it, and put down Amendments to it, and I believe I opposed it in the Division Lobby last year. I do not make any special claim to consistency at all, but I was in a position of greater freedom and of vaster less responsibility than the right hon. Gentleman. After all, what is the distinction? The right hon. Gentleman said a whole year had elapsed, and the Attorney-General took pride in saying this was precisely the same Bill with one minute modifica-

    3001
    tion that had been made in view of the fact that payment of Members had since become law. After all, it is simply a question of distinction as to at what point it is right to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. It is simply a question whether the Bill is capable of Amendment. I would like to say one or two words with regard to the speech of the right hon. and learned Member before I say what I have to say in opposition to the Bill.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that a trade union was an association of men formed to ameliorate the conditions of labour, and that they must be allowed to take political action and be represented by Members of Parliament. I was surprised to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that trade unions, as trade unions, should be represented by Members of Parliament. There is no constituency called the trade union constituency, and what is to become of the representation of constituencies if we are to say it is the right of any organisation to be represented as an organisation. I am not opposed to trade unions, but I would like to ask would it not be the case that, if this principle were carried out, every time a trade union was represented some constituency would be entirely disenfranchised. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also said there is a sphere of industrial activity entirely apart from political objects, and, later on, he pointed out that it was perfectly impossible to distinguish between the two spheres of activity. In the Bill it is laid down that every Member is to have an equal right of voting. I think that that Clause of the Bill is about the biggest sham of any part of it, for, although it says that every member has an equal right of voting, it takes no steps whatever to see that any member has any reasonable opportunity of voting whatever. There is nothing whatever to insure that more than a minority of, say, one-tenth, or even less, of the members of the trade union will vote at all. The Attorney-General asked how can we compel people to vote in such a matter any more than in a Parliamentary election. But we know perfectly well that from 85 per cent, to 95 per cent, of the electors habitually vote in elections if they have an opportunity of exercising their franchise secretly under the rules of the ballot; and in contradistinction to that, we know that, under the existing system of balloting in trade unions, frequently less than one-tenth of the members vote. There is not the slightest
    3002
    attempt in this Bill to require that there shall be any majority at all or any real expression of the opinion of the trade union as a body before political action becomes legalised as part of the activity of that trade union.
    The Attorney-General said further that no member could be deprived, or would be deprived of benefits merely because he does not contribute. I venture to say that that shows either a singular lack of knowledge of what goes on not only in trade union circles—I am casting no stone exclusively at trade unions—but in any circle where associations are bound together, and where feeling runs high on any subject such as this. Is it not perfectly conceivable that there would be other opportunities found and reasons made for the expulsion of a member than that he had not contributed to the political fund? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said one thing at the conclusion of his speech which surprised me more than anything else. He was speaking on the question of intimidation, and he said it was perfectly legitimate on the part of members of trade unions to attempt to persuade members to join in this political activity. I ask the Attorney-General to just take the case of an ordinary club—a closely analogous case—a club formed for social purposes. Supposing a small minority, including a few members of the committee who take an active part in the management of the club, decide that they want to turn it into a political organisation. Would he say in that case it was perfectly legitimate for those few members of the club to take steps to try and persuade the rest of the members of the club to entirely alter the whole basis of the constitution of the club and the reason for which is existed?
    There is nothing to change the law as to directly enforcing or recovering damages. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member who last spoke was referring to me when he said he had no doubt that laymen would deal very fully with the-legal aspects of the case. I am only seeking information as one who has been in business for a long while, and who would like to know exactly where he stands in this matter. I have always held that any man who employs a lawyer and did not take the trouble to find out the merits of his own case had a perfect right to expect he would not meet with success unless he tried to master his case. To the same extent, therefore, I say that all Members of this House have a right to

    3003
    look into this question, although it is somewhat intricate. The Attorney-General says there is no question whatever now of any member of a trade union having any right of directly enforcing benefits. Yet I noticed last year one hon. Member of the House put a question on this subject to the present First Lord of the Admiralty, then the Home Secretary, and received a reply which appeared to us to have very little, if any, bearing on the case at all. The answer I refer to was to this effect:—
    "Under the Bill a member of a trade union who is expelled from his union in breach of Chaise 3 would, I am advised have a right of action in the Courts of Law to restrain the trade union from expelling him. That is the law as laid down in the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Osborne v. The Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants and in a former decision of the House of Lords (Yorkshire Miners v. Howden)."
    I venture to take these two cases, the first one bears certainly on the question of expulsion, and I should like to read for the information of the learned Attorney-General, although no doubt he is familiar with it, an extract from the judgment of Lord Justice Fletcher Moulton as follows:
    "Let us assume that the relief is granted and that the plaintiff is declared a member of the trade union. Will the effect of that be to enforce an agreement for the application of the funds of the trade union to provide benefits for him? The only possible answer to this question is, 'Certainly not.' By the Statute that is the very thing which his membership does not entitle a man to do, and therefore declaring him a member simpliciler not only does not directly enforce the application of funds for his benefit but does not even help him in any future proceeding to enforce any such agreement. It seems to me to be a logical contradiction to say that to put a man in a position where he cannot enforce a particular agreement is enforcing it."
    I do not understand how such a case as that can possibly be quoted. It is quite true in that case Mr. Osborne proved that he had the right to restrain the union from expelling him, and he has done that, but how much further forward was he? He had the right to vote, but he had no right to claim any benefit. He had the same shadowy right as before, say in the case of the trade union being wound up or ceasing to exist, to share with other members in the distribution of its funds. That was the only right he possibly could have. In the case of the Yorkshire Miners r. Howden, he was merely restraining the union from parting with its funds, and that does not seem to have any direct bearing on this case whatever.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: In Osborne's case he was restored to his position by the injunction, but the hon. Member says he did not get the benefit. I do not quite agree with that view.
    Mr. PETO: I did not say he did not get the benefit; what I said was he had no right to it, and I read out to the House the judgment of Lord Justice Fletcher Moulton in which he said it gave him no right to claim benefits which he had not got before. If the basis of this Bill is that you are not, under Clause 3, to deprive any member of rights which he has in common with the other members of trade unions, and if he is to have no right to claim benefits then there is no real safeguard for anybody who objects to this political action. I oppose this Bill on these grounds. I say if the Bill really did what it was supposed to do outside the House, if it simply gave the trade union the right and power which the House of Lords declared, by the Osborne Judgment, does not now exist, to spend money on account of political objects, and having given the trade union that power, in return for that new power, insisted that they must allow every member who wished to do so to refuse to contribute to the political funds, the members so refusing not to be excluded from benefits or to be placed under any disability, if that were laid down by the Bill, it would be a substantial fact instead of a mere piece of pretence and then there would be very little ground for opposing this Bill. It is undoubtedly in the details of Clauses 3 and 4 of this Bill that the real grounds for opposition exist. I say that the Bill does not do what it purposes to do, and what it is essential it should do if these great powers are to be given to trade unions, and I believe that in opposing the Second Reading of this Bill I am doing it as much, if not more, in the interests of the trade unions themselves as of any body of men in this country, because there is no doubt in my mind whatever that there is bound to be a difference of opinion on the question of this political action, and, if steps are not taken to regulate this in such a way as that it shall be unfair to nobody, there will be a vast number of trade union members who will object to see their trade unions, which they believe exist for their statutory objects, and for mutual protection in the case of dispute between employer and labour, and in many cases for benefits in sickness and for relief in unemployment, they will most strenuously object to see the trade union turned into a mere political caucus for the advocacy of one particular view, which may not be the view of the majority of the trade unionists. They will still more strongly object when they see their trade union leaders allowing them

    3005
    selves to be degraded to the level of political bosses. When you deal with the interests of freedom and the liberty of the subject, the basic principles of our Constitution, according to which all men have equal rights and the same responsibility for wrong-doing under the law, and when you look at it also from the point of view I have touched on of the true representation of the constituencies by men who are free and not pledge-bound, then I say for all these reasons this Bill is a thoroughly inadequate solution of this great difficulty, and, if passed into law, is simply likely to add fuel to the fire and bitterness to the controversy.
    6.0 P.M.
    With regard to one other point my hon. and learned Friend touched upon in his speech, the question of what really originated the whole of this dispute, the Attorney-General said that, until the Osborne Judgment, the great majority of the lawyers believed trade unions were perfectly free to go into political action. It is not surprising that the condition of controversy did not occur much sooner than it did, and it is no use disguising the fact that the whole situation changed only very shortly before that time. Up to within a very few years of the Osborne Judgment no doubt trade unions were carried on for the legitimate purposes for which they were originally constituted. It is only the fact that the whole organisation of the trade unions, and to a large extent their funds, were captured by a political body that has created the whole of this difficulty. I object most strongly to the assumption that trade unionism and Socialism as synonymous terms. I do not for one moment think that they are. I object to trade unionists parading in these borrowed plumes, and making out, by quoting the number of trade union members, that all those members agree to the political views of those who now lead and control the great trade union movement. I object to this parading in borrowed plumes—I might almost say stolen plumes.
    As to the effect on the liberty of the subject, there is no guarantee in this Bill that a man is free to join the political fund or not. He makes himself a marked man by objecting to the contribution to the political levy. There is no real distinction between the funds, although there is a pretended division between the two funds. They are not separately administered, they are not separately levied, they
    3006
    are not administered by separate officials, and the contributions are not collected by separate collectors. Unless that is insisted upon, as well as the secrecy of the ballot, together with some provision for ensuring that the majority of the trade unionists will vote, and that every member will have the opportunity of voting by secret ballot, I do not think it is possible to deal justly with this controversy. As to the question of the equal right of every British citizen to his own political views, there is an elaborate provision in this Bill which I think carefully evades the point at issue. It purports to give every trade unionist, whether he agrees with the contribution to the political fund or not, equal rights with every other member. It is an axiom that, as no member has any right by action at law to recover the benefits—the benefits being the measure of his loss—if he takes action he really has no locus standi whatever. He cannot possibly maintain his position if he is in a small minority unless he has the right to say, "My life is not a pleasant one in this trade union. I do not agree with my fellow members. I not only want to leave the union but I want to be paid the actuarial value of the benefits towards which I have contributed." He has a right to demand that, and nothing short of giving him also that legal right will give him true independence of action.>
    The payment of Members is the one question which makes a minute distinction between the present Bill and the Bill of last year. I maintain that it does not materially alter the case at all. The expenses of a Member in this House, when we have frequent General Elections, are a very trifling matter compared with the expense of keeping the political views of that Member before the constituency during the, whole time he is sitting here, and the constantly recurring expense of contesting a General Election and possibly a by-election. As long as all these activities may be undertaken by trade unions, it is a very small matter indeed whether there is payment of Members or not. I do not agree for one moment that payment of Members has anything really to do with the reversal of the Osborne Judgment, or that it is a logical position to take up to say that you would not be in favour of the reversal of the Osborne Judgment if it had not been for the payment of Members. I think the two things are entirely distinct. Whether we agree with one or the other they do not hinge upon each other. I have several other minor objections to the

    3007
    Bill. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent a trade union from taking up any separate business or running a newspaper. That seems to be specially contemplated in the Bill among the political activities; not that I attach much importance to whether a particular operation of a trade union is called a political activity or an industrial activity. Among the enumeration of political activities mentioned in paragraph (e), Sub-section (2) of Clause 3, the Bill seems specially to contemplate that trade unions should run newspapers, because they may issue literature of all kinds. That, in my opinion, would be held to include the issue of pamphlets, leaflets, then perhaps weekly journals, and ultimately daily journals. There is no point at which you could possibly draw the line. It is important to consider what that means. If that is part of the activity of a trade union, which cannot be sued for any damage that may be done to any of His Majesty's subjects, what will come from it?>
    Trade unions in pursuit of political objects have a privilege which is exclusively their own, and not common to any other political organisation in the whole of the country. Any political organisation which ran a pamphlet or a newspaper in support of its views, if it libelled anybody would be liable at law for damages, but I am informed that if a trade union did so no action would lie, and nobody would be able to recover damages. They could say anything they liked about their political opponent without the slightest fear of having to pay the penalty if they said what was untrue or wrong. As to keeping the funds separate there is the most deceptive Clause in the whole Bill. It purports to set up two separate funds, but there is no real separation of the funds, and no separate branch, as has been arranged for in the case of the insurance companies, friendly societies, and others in connection with the Insurance Act. It is very curious that with that example before the right hon. Gentlemen who are responsible for this Bill, they have not thought it an obvious parallel when they are going to give the trade unions the light of carrying on separate work. Should it not be laid down that they should have a separate branch to carry on that particular business? There is far more difference between the political work and the ordinary industrial purposes from which trade unions exist than there is between the administration of the benefits
    3008
    under the Insurance Act and the administration of these separate benefits which may be given by any insurance society. There is the exact parallel which ought to have been followed in this Bill, but there is no attempt made to do more than to have a mere pretence of having separate funds. Almost my strongest objection to the Bill is that there is no provision that the majority of the members of the union shall vote. That lies at the root of the matter. If the contention of hon. Members is true that the vast majority of trade unionists are in perfect agreement in this matter, what possible reason can they have for opposing a provision which would make their position clear to the whole world and show to everyone outside who may be under the impression—as I am—that the trade union organisation has been captured by a minority, that they have a solid majority of members of all unions for this political action and for the political views of those misguided people who are called Socialists? Why should they object to having a fair and secret ballot held at proper places appointed for the purpose, and not at the trade union lodges, so that-there should be no question of intimidation?
    Mr. POINTER: Is it in order for the hon. Member to suggest by inference that trade union lodges are improper places to take a vote in matters relating to trade union business?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order; that is on the merits.
    Mr. PETO: My contention is that if there were any desire to show the world at large that this is a perfectly straightforward and above-board business, the very last place where the ballot would be held would be the trade union lodge. In voting for a Member of this House the ballot is held, not at the office of either the one rival party or the other, but a proper place is appointed for that purpose under the supervision of the proper officials. I say that this is just as important a matter. It is a preliminary step to a new form of representation in this House, not the representation of constituencies, but the representation of organisations such as trade unions, of which the Attorney-General said he approved. There is no provision in the Bill that a substantial majority should be required, neither is there any provision that the ballot should be taken in secret. Clause 4 says that any rules

    3009
    may be adopted by the trade union, although, of course, they must be approved subsequently by the Registrar of Friendly Societies and that every member has an equal right of voting. I cannot help thinking that whoever drafted the Bill did so with his tongue in his cheek, knowing he had instructions to put forward something which would serve as a specious sham and which would deceive the public and make them think that there was some real security and that it was a real provision for a secret ballot and proper rules. It is provided that every member is to have an equal right of voting, but no attempt is made to ensure that every member should have the opportunity or right of voting at all.>
    I believe this Bill is not going to deceive anybody now. I believe it is thoroughly exposed. By good fortune it was introduced into this House last year, and people have had time to take in what it really provides. From what I have read of the absolute unanimous condemnation of the Clauses of this Bill, particularly Clauses 3 and 4, by every trade organisation in the country, I believe I am perfectly right in saying that the Bill now deceives nobody. I believe it satisfies nobody. I believe that when hon. Members opposite who are particularly interested in trade union organisations come to consider this Bill in Committee—if it ever gets to that stage—and hear what is to be said in regard to its various provisions, they will come to the same conclusion as I have, that if this Bill were passed into law in anything approaching its present form it would not be any solution of the difficulty that has arisen because of the Osborne Judgment, but, on the other hand, it would mean additional trouble, and it would serve as a wedge to split trade unionism into two sections—those who believe in the carrying on of trade unions for their old, first, original, and legitimate purposes, and those who believe in turning them into mere political organisations. Therefore, from the public point of view, from the trade union point of view, from the point of view of free exercise of the rights of citizenship by every man, free from intimidation or the possibility of anything of the kind, I feel equally safe on every one of these grounds in seconding the rejection of the Bill.
    Mr. CLYNES: It is clear from the speeches we have so far heard that there are many besides those who sit on these benches who feel very keenly on the ques-
    3010
    tion, and its importance to us cannot be overstated. The House is now engaged in considering how best, how most effectively, to set up a real obstacle to prevent hon. Gentlemen who sit on these benches from coming here at all. There are forty-one Members composing the Labour party. Eight of them are men who were put before the constituencies by a Socialist organisation. The whole of the others were submitted to the electorate by trade unions. We are now engaged, as I say, in this effort to legally obstruct the entry into this House of the trade union representatives who are in it already. I do not for a moment wish to say anything to belittle the quality of the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Salter), but it struck me as being a perfect piece of imaginative work, for it dealt with a set of circumstances which do not exist, which never had existence, and which could not possibly exist if this Bill became law. We are accustomed to the taunt of being bought, and of selling ourselves. It is quite in the vocabulary of the new controversial tongue to declare that the Labour Members are more or less corrupt and receive a price from other parties. We are accustomed to be asked to regard hon. Gentlemen opposite as the very pattern of political morality, who would yield to no temptations, and who represent the brewing interest or the landlord interest or the railway interest, without the slightest motive of advancing the personal gain of those who are associated in these undertakings. We need only go back to the Debate last night to recall how adequately and how effectively those interests are represented. New Clauses were brought forward dealing with taxation, with the licensing trade or with land, and Clauses for the personal advancement of men attached to various interests affected by the legislation with which this House has to deal. As to price, I will only say that many hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House have pledged themselves to some such legislation as this. They at least, tempted by the desire to come here, guaranteed to their constituents that if returned they would see that the Osborne Judgment, if not completely overturned, was at any rate considerably modified. Last year, when we dealt with a similar Bill, only a few hon. Gentlemen opposite went into the Lobby against it. That surely indicates that we are not as corrupt as from some utterances this afternoon one would be led to believe.
    Mr. SALTER: I want to make my position clear. If I was understood to suggest that any Members of the Labour party in this House are corrupt, I expressed myself very badly. I had no intention of doing so. To be quite frank, I said this Bill was a price.
    An HON. MEMBER: And a bribe.
    Mr. SALTER: No, I never used the word "bribe." It did not pass my lips. I said it was the price of their support.
    Mr. CLYNES: I accept the assurance of the hon. and learned Gentleman that there is no personal significance whatever in any reference of that kind to those of us who sit on these benches, but we must take it, after all, that language at least has a certain meaning to people outside if it is not intended to convey a certain meaning to us who sit here. We are accustomed to defeats at the poll, and we were reminded frequently of that fact this afternoon by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He claims that they represent the average man, and we readily concede that. We claim, on the other hand, that we represent that class of man who is above the average, and that it is somewhat in the nature of political cowardice to seek to defeat us, not at the poll, not in the constituencies, but in the Law Courts. I think the very number of our electoral disasters should give some encouragement to those who we say should be content with the successes they score over us in ordinary political contests. I will not reply fully to that long statement about the leaflet issued by a little branch of the Socialist society. It has nothing whatever to do with the case. Such leaflets could be issued before the Osborne Judgment, they have been issued since the Osborne Judgment, and they can be issued after such a Bill as this has become law; and we are quite entitled, I should say, whether Socialists or trade unionists, to advise the working men of this country against any new offers of entering into co-partnership with employers of labour. The argument as to a trade union wishing to do certain things and to expend certain moneys by a bare majority of its members is adequately answered when we recall the cheers of hon. Members opposite after seeing the hon. Member for Crewe walk into this House the other day backed up not by a narrow majority, but representing a minority. If they are satisfied with a minority of votes for the purpose of making the laws of the land, surely we have a
    3012
    right to be content with a majority of votes for the purpose of administering our trade unions. I want to recall to the House the fact that what we are now asking, and what really this Bill does not give us, we have enjoyed for very many years without any molestation and without any objection. The spirit of the speech of the Attorney-General was good enough. It was very much better than the Bill, and this Bill, if it is to be satisfactory to us, will have to be improved; but this is not the moment for attempting improvements. It is in the Committee stage where our objections in detail would have to be offered to many parts of it.
    I want here to draw attention to one detail in the Bill. After all the elaborate processes have been gone through, after all these long courses of democratic methods, of meetings, of conferences, of ballots, and finally of decisions to pay a few coppers for Parliamentary purposes, the Bill says the trade union must send a circular to every member intimating that, although he and his mates have decided that money shall be paid, he need not pay it at all. That is really the effect of that part of the Bill, and it is to that principle that resolute opposition will have to be offered. The Osborne Judgment greatly narrowed down the objects of trade unions, and greatly restricted the machinery by which trade unions sought to attain their objects. As we had these objects in common and pursued them for more than a generation, it may now be correctly said that our demand is not for the restoration of a privilege; it is merely to reclaim a right which was taken from us by what we regard as judge-made law, and, in the course of that judge-made law, Lord Macnaghten covered the history as to what trade unions have been permitted to do. He said that two or three years after the Act of 1871 the scheme for securing Parliamentary representation and obtaining political power first took shape and met with general acceptance amongst trade unions. From 1871 down to 1908 the trade unions, without any interference and without any alleged illegality, have been quite free to spend their money by the votes of majorities for the purpose of sending their men here. Conservative working men and Socialist working men have been contributing towards the support of Liberal working men who have sat on these benches. I should like therefore to ask whether it is that our action was deemed to be wrong when it began to be effective and successful. For very many

    3013
    years but a few working men could come to this House. They were not a party. They did not really act or behave like a party, in the sense in which you have a Labour party now. Individually they certainly did a great deal of good, and contributed much to legislation which was of great value and advantage to the industrial population of this country.
    It is admitted that the objection to us is that we are growing strong; that we have become a party; that we exercise an influence in this House and in the country far in excess of any influence that a few stray Members were able to exercise in former days. In the year 1869 trade congresses and labour parties were discussing this matter, and in the General Election which followed, in 1874, fourteen Labour candidates were put before the electors, and at every election few or many candidates were submitted in the name of Labour right down to 1906. So that really, when we were a feeble party, suffering only failures at the poll, we were doing nothing wrong; but when we became successful and were strong enough to form not only a party here in this House, but in the country, numbering a million subscribing members, all the right of former years suddenly became illegal and actions were taken to prevent our continuing to do it. Before the Labour party was formed as an organisation in its present shape the precaution was taken to obtain the highest legal opinion on the question whether the course they were taking in forming the party was proper and in harmony with the trade union spirit. The view given jointly by Sir Edward Clarke and the late Lord Chancellor, who at the time was Sir Robert Reid, was stated in these words:—
    "The society—"
    that is the particular trade union—
    "can raise money for purposes which fall within the declared objects for which it exists. The first of these objects is to improve the conditions and protect the interests of its members. The question whether the maintenance of Parliamentary representation falls within that object or not is not a question of law but a question of fact to be determined by judges, and in our opinion the Court ought to hold that this society is entitled to require by properly made rules a contribution from its members or Parliamentary representation."
    It is by that legal view that we stand. It was in harmony with that legal view that we acted. During the recent years of our action undoubtedly party lines and tendencies have very much hardened. We hear hon. and right hon. Gentlemen talk in this House about their being all in favour of labour representation. They say it is a
    3014
    very good thing, and that it contributes to the value of your decisions. But we never find that that sentiment is followed or put in practice at the polls. There is not an attempt on the part of any one of my hon. Friends to enter this House which is not resisted to the utmost, and I think, in view of the limitless supply, and the secret supply, of the resources of those who oppose us, they should not object to our gathering a few coppers, and should not declare that coppers obtained in that way should not be taken. I take it from the speeches this afternoon that the objection is not to our taking part in politics, but to our politics. The objection is to labour politics and to Socialism. The two hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded the rejection of this Bill have found it impossible to get Socialism out of their heads. I say it is not a fair thing for one party to seek to set up legal difficulties in the way of another party merely because of its politics. I wonder if there would be any objection if we could be induced to sit on the other side of the House, and if we could adopt the views of hon. and right hon. Members opposite on Imperial, fiscal, and other matters, and range ourselves generally on their side? I wonder if there would be this strong objection to trade unions playing any part in politics? There is undoubtedly a strong representation of sectional, trade, commercial, and company interests in this House, and it is essential that the greatest interest of all—the human interest, the interests of labour, the worker, the wage earner, and the wealth maker—should be permitted to enter the House and to represent the greatest national asset in this country.
    In the last discussion on this subject—I think in May last year—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Walton Division (Mr. F. E. Smith) gave some figures to the House, after he had explained very candidly that his objection was not to labour representation, but rather to our methods and to the conditions of our election. I ask upon what ground we can be called upon to accommodate the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the manner of our election and the methods and procedure that we follow? Trade union procedure is the most open and the most democratic procedure followed by any political party in this country. By-elections apart, the process we have to follow is this: Meetings of delegates from every eligible organisation in the constituency, whether affiliated to the Labour party or not must be called.

    3015
    Weeks or months of time have to be given to consider whether they will have a candidate, and having decided that there shall be, they must have lists submitted to them for the free choice of the man who is to stand in the name of labour. There is no method comparable to this method pursued by the Labour party. There is no method at all of the kind followed by those who oppose us in the House and in the country. The figures given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Walton Division were designed to show that the trade union method was tyrannical. The figures, I submit, prove the very opposite. The right hon. Gentleman stated that in the case of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers there were 107,000 members, and that out of that number only 5,110 voted in favour of paying a Member, while 2,056 voted against that. There you have a proportion of five to two. That is a number which should be taken as decisive enough. It should be taken as the verdict of those who entered into the ballot. On what grounds can it be said that they should have the right to vote and then reject the decision when it is arrived at?
    If you go into an organisation and agree to take or not to take a certain course by the vote of the members, you have no right afterwards to depart from the decision to which actually you have been a party. If only 2,000 out of 100,000, care to take the trouble to go and use the ballot paper against collecting a few coppers for a certain purpose, that proves that there is no feeling of tyranny and no real interference with the liberty of the subject. If there were, you would have a very much larger number of the 100,000 trooping to the ballot box to protest against a levy inflicted on them against their will. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Weavers' Protection Society of Blackburn, thinking he had discovered a union1 that was representative, and that was really opposed to the Labour party. He showed that 2,009 members of that body voted against political action, while 466 persons voted for political action. He did not tell the House, probably he did not know, that this is really a Tory organisation established some twenty years ago for absolutely partisan reasons. It is not representative of the textile workers or the weavers' organisation, that class of work being represented by the very much larger1 body, the Weavers' Amalgamation.
    3016
    That amalgamation met in conference at Preston a few weeks ago, and their political attitude is shown by the fact that they passed a resolution to increase the number of Labour candidates from three to six. Therefore, after a considerable lapse of time, the tendency is in favour of seeking not less, but more direct, Labour representation. The levies are self-imposed. They are not tyrannically imposed, and all the talk of what would happen if you did not make the conditions and restrictions more stringent still, and as to how a man would be followed and pursued if he did not pay, is answered by what happens now. The man who does not pay is not pursued, molested, or persecuted. It may be that one or two instances can be found, but similar conduct can be found in other spheres as well as trade unions.
    The fact is that political action of a partisan character has forced itself into trade unions. Conservative agents are known to be endeavouring to organise and establish rival trade unions—constitutional trade unions, non-political trade unions, and all you have to do to be a non-political trade unionist is to be a Tory, and generally to associate yourself with the party known by that name. Let me give a few instances. Taken not for argument's sake, but because they represent great bodies of workers, large divisions of labour and big organised associations. These are instances of decisions come to either by conference or by ballot of representative classes of workers during the time when these bodies were deciding whether they should contribute to the Labour party or not Postmen, almost unanimous; shop assistants, absolutely unanimous; tailors, absolutely unanimous; miners, by a ballot vote, decided by nearly two to one—nearly 250,000 men voted in favour of joining the Labour party; and steel smelters two to one. I am told that by recent decisions of the steel smelters that they are going to contribute further support to the Labour party. Carpenters and joiners voted three to one; typographical association nearly four to one, and the furnishing trades seven to one in favour of joining the Labour party.
    Viscount WOLMER: What was the percentage of the membership?
    Mr. CLYNES: I have given already one or two instances of the percentages. It was considerable in the case of the miners. Nearly 250,000 of the membership voted in favour of joining the Labour party, and

    3017
    in the case of the textile workers 82,500 voted in favour of giving financial support to the Labour party. The railway workers voted five to one in a membership of 21,000 in favour of the Labour party. In the case of the boilermakers it was decided by eight to one to join the Labour party, the vote showing 33,000 in favour.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Can the hon. Member say what is the membership of the Boilermakers' Society?
    Mr. CLYNES: I am not able to do so at the moment; but I will undertake to prove that this was the largest vote given in any recent vote by the Boilermakers' Society on any question. I know it was a much larger vote than was given by the boilermakers when they had to come to a decision in their own recent dispute. I submit to the House that these figures prove that there are large masses of men who have decided in favour of joining the Labour party and continuing to support it. We are asked to accommodate the individual who has something on his mind for the time being, and who objects to something or other that the Labour party is doing, or who objects to some action on the part of an individual Member of the Labour party. The Labour party or the trade unions only ask for the same system of Government and the same right of administrative action as are enjoyed by the member of the Cooperative Society, by the shareholder of a company and the citizen of a city. In any one of these instances the majority rules, and whether it be a matter of money, rates, taxes, or contributions, in every one of these instances the majority vote decides the policy and action of the general body. We are convinced that it is impossible if we are to manage our business efficiently to allow the varying moods and the changes in views of individual members to obstruct the decisions of the majority. This view was to some extent sustained by another of the Law Lords, Lord James, who gave his judgment in this particular case; He said:—
    "I think it may well be in the interests of trade unionism and labour that the funds of a trade union should be devoted to the payment of the expenses of Members of Parliament who should represent such interests."
    That seems to be a very complete and deliberate opinion. How the legal mind can first express itself in those terms, and then give a judgment against the trade union doing anything of the sort is more than I can follow, but it seems that the legal mind fastened itself upon the fact
    3018
    that, the Labour party had a paper constitution, and the objection was that its Members not only got permission from unions to come to this House, sanctioned by the majority of a constituency, but that, having come here, we signed and accepted the conditions of the Labour party, and we are subject to their Whips. When did that begin to be a Parliamentary obligation? So far as we undertake and carry out the objects of our party we are not setting an example, we are simply following one. We are not attempting anything new. There are two things which the Labour party constitution aimed at. One was that we should all assume the same name—that is very simple, and, I think, proper—and that we should trade under the same title. The only other condition of the Labour party constitution was that we should act together to obtain the objects we aimed at. That is the very first thing you would expect a political party to do. It is not the maximum of the claim you may make upon this body of men; it is the minimum required that is imposed upon the units of every political organisation. When we see as we have in recent years hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House exhibiting too much of an independent frame of mind, we have seen their followers use various ways and means to prevent them; and men of exceptional capacity and brilliancy were flung out of this House, practically rejected by their party, because they exercised that independent frame of mind which it is said the Labour party seeks to suppress. The latest instance of what I mean will be recognised by hon. Members if I just remind them of three letters, B.M.G. When the leader or the followers of a party act more or less out of line with the wishes of the whole body the most stringent, if secret, courses are pursued to bring them into line, and the Labour party may then fairly claim its absolute right to seek to obtain the objects at which it aims by organised and united effort. But on matters of conscience on any point upon which a Member of our party feels deeply, we have never insisted that he must either vote against a pledge to his constituents or vote against his own honest conviction, and frequently, as the House will know, Members of our party have gone into the Lobbies against the decisions of our party because they represent constituents and because they have an honest belief that the party on that particular point was not right.

    3019
    We say you have, by the circumstances and events of the past generation, forced the necessity upon the country of labour representation. If we had the situation of thirty-five years ago to deal with we could treat this matter academically, but now, as the time of this House in this present Session clearly proves, the House is to be compelled more and more to deal with a man as he is circumstanced in the workshop, and to deal with strikes and unrest and with economic and social and industrial subjects which are becoming more and more matters for the deliberation and decision of this House. It is essential in view of these enormous changes that there should be a Labour party such as, however feebly and ineffectively, now seeks to voice the wishes of the industrial population of this country, and we claim that the whole bodies of the members of the trade unions should be made to act alike when they themselves by a majority vote have decided on a certain course. Their needs are alike, their general necessities are the same, their dangers are common dangers, the benefits they obtain from their action are alike and the pay should be alike. If they are to be the same in every respect then when it comes to contributing a copper which the majority decide upon we say that there ought not to be any exception. If the House say that we should provide for allowing every individual who wants it to be exempted from such a thing as this, what are you to do with regard to the other features of labour and trade union business? The Attorney-General put it to the House, and I think it is universally accepted, that it was impossible to distinguish clearly between what was political and what was industrial work. But there is some attempt to be made to accomplish the impossible. If there is a trade dispute everyone, will admit that the majority of members who may decide in favour of a levy should impose it upon the minority. There is not a Member of this House who will say that a man should escape a levy which a majority of his fellow workmen may decide in favour of if that levy is for the purposes of a trade dispute. A good many Members on the other side of the House opposed our recent stand in regard to the Port of London dispute; but yet levies were imposed and none of these hon. Gentlemen ever thought of objecting to those levies in the name of the minority who may not have wished to pay a levy.
    3020
    We know the trade unionists spend their money sometimes in building monuments to members. I live in a town in which there is a monument to a former Conservative Member of this House. That monument was erected out of trade union funds. The hon. Member for Bolton is associated with an organisation that has given a considerable sum of money in support of cotton-growing. There are individuals in these trade unions who dissent from the use of money in that way. If you are to provide for exceptions in the political cases, are you also going to provide for the exception in each one of these other numerous instances "where money is spent against the will of a small dissenting minority in a particular trade union? We require unity, and we go so far as to say that unity must sometimes be imposed upon men in their own interests. Why, free education, as it is termed, had to be forced upon many working class persons. Insurance and many other recent pieces of legislation have been more or less forced by all parties in this House upon people who have not desired them. You frequently have to compel men to do good in their own interest, and we are saying that the trade union, when it has got a majority, but never before; once it has got the right by the use of that commonly accepted method used in all organisations; once it has got that, then it should be left to pursue its own government, and collect the contributions for its avowedly proper objects. The individual who gains by political action, who may get, say, an eight-hour day, or have his old age pension improved, or may get anything he desires to receive, has no right morally to ask to be exempted from the contribution payable for the purpose of obtaining these particular ends. You would not think of making an exception, so that a man in another department of trade union business should escape the liabilities imposed upon him by the general decision of the majority of the persons who form those organisations.
    We have seen, already, why the voluntary levy has not been a success. There is no need to disguise the partial failure of that particular method. It is because workmen have a very homely, but, I think, wholesome principle in determining their action on these questions. When Jack sees that Jim does not pay, and both are alike receiving the same benefit, both meeting in the same room or working in the same shop, there is a natural tendency for the former not to contribute; and we

    3021
    know that hundreds of thousands of men have refused to contribute to the Labour party because we are not compelling others to pay who decided with them in the first instance that these contributions should be paid. The Bill which we desire asks for the three things which I think we have a right to obtain. One is that a union should avow its objects, and no Member here, in this House or out of it would say that political action and objects must be ruled outside the activities of trade unions. Activities of that kind are absolute necessities. The second is that the rules of the union must sanction these objects. Those rules must be approved by the members and must receive the sanction of the Registrar. You have very elaborate safeguards indeed for reducing any illegal or improper action to a minimum, if not absolutely preventing it from taking place. Lastly, that the money of the trade union is the property of its members, whether gathered in the form of weekly contributions or in the form of levies, and should be spent according to the wishes of the majority of the members. Talk about the consciences of members! Why there are Tories and Liberals paying now for the salaries of Socialists. Upon what ground does this House say, or does the law say, it is right that we should receive £400 a year contributed in part by men who detest our principles, and yet say that it is altogether wrong in the case of trade unions that minorities should be asked to contribute? At any rate, the law says it is right, and it will be right until the law is altered; and that is exactly our point. This House has decided that a certain thing should be done with regard to the payment of Members in this House, and we say that if a trade union desires the same thing it should have exactly the same right to continue in that course until those members themselves again decide that that thing should not be done. In short, we want government in trade unions by the trade unions, for the good of those who compose the trade unions; and, while we give a general welcome to this Bill, we trust that many of its defects will be wiped out altogether in its Committee stage.
    7.0 P.M.
    Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I should like to deal first with the arguments put forward by the hon. Member who spoke last. In the first instance, may I ask him this: Supposing the Bill is not improved, and
    3022
    stands as it is at the present moment, will he support the Third Reading or not? As I understand him, he thinks it is not right to include in the Bill this question of safeguards in respect of the minority. Towards the end of his speech he made the statement that in his view the property of trade unions belongs to trade unions to deal with as they like.
    Mr. W. THORNE: According to the rules.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: According to the rules made by the trade union. I will deal with the claim. Am I to understand the hon. Member (Mr. Clynes) to say that if trade unions are not given power in accordance with their own rules to deal with their own funds in any way they like, he will not support the Bill now brought forward by the Government, with its various safeguards? I do not know if the hon. Member will answer that question or not, though it appears to be the essence of the whole matter. I am one of those who believe that it would be wrong in principle, and inconsistent with both representative and legal principles, to give any such power at all. It is the essence of combinations that they should have certain statutory or fundamental limitations, and that is the only way in which you can give fair protection to the minority, whoever the minority may be. Then the hon. Member referred to other corporations and municipal bodies, but he seems to be under a complete misapprehension. There is not a corporate body in existence at the present moment in this country, as far as I know, which is entitled to use its funds for political purposes. I think there could be no greater source of political corruption than to give power of that kind to our various large corporations. Let me give an illustration of what I mean. The railway companies have as large a number of shareholders as they have of workers. There are about 800,000 railway shareholders and about 800,000 railway workers, and nothing could be more demoralising than to give a great corporate body like that power to use its funds to interfere with our political system. What possible reason can the hon. Member adduce for giving power of that kind to the workers of the railway companies'? Why should not a similar power be given to the shareholders of the railway companies? It is very often a great mistake, in arguing questions of this kind, to talk about great corporations on the one side and workers on the other.

    3023
    The fact is you are dealing with a question that applies to both sides. Nay, more, a large number of our railway shareholders are not one whit better off than the workers on our railway system. If the workers on our railway system were to have a special form of political combination and representation, it would be impossible on any sound principle to deny the same right to shareholders in the various great corporations and great companies.
    I am not going to argue in favour of shareholders in great corporations having those rights, and I hope they never will. I hope you will proceed in the way we have done in the past—that is, we have limited industrial corporations to industrial purposes; we have kept them out of the political arena, and kept them out of the current topics of political discussion on one side of the House or the other Let me put it to the hon. Member that if you are to give power of this kind to trade unions on the ground that people are allowed to deal with their own funds in their own way, without any limitation, how can you refuse a similar right to the great corporate bodies of this country? As regards municipal matters, I think the hon. Member was entirely wrong. No municipal body can use its, funds for political purposes. Can one imagine a greater degradation of our municipal life than that' the municipal majority for the time being might levy rates and use the funds to further the purposes of one party or other in the country? Yet the hon. Member refers to municipal bodies as an illustration in favour of his argument that trade unions should be allowed to use their funds as they like, without any limitation or any restriction at all. Another argument which the hon. Member used was as to the numbers who voted in favour of using funds for political purposes. It is impossible for me to follow the figures which he gave, but I caught one figure. He said that as regards the Railway Association, 21,000 had voted in favour of applying trade union funds to political purposes. I want to put this, and I believe I am right: that members of that society number more than 100,000. I have not got the exact figures, but I have seen them quoted lately at, I think, about 108,000; at any rate, it is above 100,000. There you have got about one-fifth of the body, 21,000, voting in favour of the application of the funds to political purposes.
    Mr. HUDSON: The hon. Gentleman is confusing the two things. He is referring to the ballot taken about seven years ago, and comparing that with the figures of the last return.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: I think the hon. Member must be wrong; but I take his correction, because on the question of figures there may be a mistake. I understood this at least, that the result of the ballot was that 21,000 were in favour of the funds being applied to political purposes.
    Mr. CLYNES: I may explain that those figures related to the ballot taken at the time when the various trade unions were asked to decide whether they would join the Labour party.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: That is a totally different thing altogether. I understood that the unions to which the hon. Member referred were asked whether they desired to see their funds applied to political purposes. That is an entirely different proposition from what he now states. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It may be quite right; they may decide to be members of the Labour party; I do not want to attack the Labour party or any other party in this House; but this is an entirely different proposition from asking the members of a particular trade union whether they desire to see their funds—contributed for other purposes—applied to political purposes. I think it is a great mistake when we are discussing matters of this kind, either on one side of the House or the other, to deal with questions of principle as regards the different parties in the House. It really does not matter whether the Labour party are right, or the Socialist party, or the Liberals, or Members on these benches. In neither one case nor the other can you justify the improper use, as it appears to me, of these trade union funds, be the result of the attempt in favour of one political party or the other. I can hardly believe that the Labour party is so poorly supported that its continued existence depends upon what I may call the improper use of funds, which have been raised for other purposes, for political purposes. There is one other point. Surely you could not have a better system, in spite of what the hon. Member says about the want of desire to contribute to these funds for political purposes, than that of voluntary support.
    What is the whole argument he was trying to state to the House? The hon. Member is really desiring to have compulsion,

    3025
    whether people wish to make contributions or not: that is the whole of his argument. Is it not rather a monstrous thing to compel people to contribute for political purposes because they are members of a trade union, of which the primary purpose is to deal with industrial disputes, and the secondary purpose to give sick benefit to the various members? Surely it is about the last case in which you should exercise compulsion. I noted the hon. Member suggested that other people might do wrong as regards the use of funds for political objects. I doubt whether he can justify any statement of the kind, but if he can, and if he wants to bring a matter of that kind before the House, I, for one, will support him on every occasion, because I look upon the application of funds—contributed for other purposes—to political objects as a source of the future demoralisation and degradation of political life in this country. Although the hon. Member did not use the same words as were used last year by the hon. Member for South Glamorganshire (Mr. Brace) he really brought forward the same idea. The hon. Member for South Glamorganshire claimed that a trade union ought to be a State within a State; in other words, it ought to be a law to itself as regards dealing with trade union funds and questions of that kind. I object altogether to an idea of that sort. A trade union is entitled to the same position as all other corporate bodies of the population. It is entirely wrong to give it a special privilege, and I think that the privilege which is now being claimed for trade unions is one of the worst features of modern times, and most inconsistent with the true principles of liberty and equality. If I may, I will now leave what was said by the hon. Member, and refer to what was stated by the Attorney-General. It cannot be denied that the Attorney-General did not attempt in any way to deal with the underlying principle of this Bill. He assumed, and assumed wrongly, that the principle was not going to be opposed.
    Of course, we have had no answer whatever to what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for North Hants (Mr. Clavell Salter). There were two points I noticed mentioned by the Attorney-General. He talked about the "non-debatable area," that is the area that lies between industrial questions and political questions. He called it "non-debatable," and he used the same expression last year. I want to ask the Home
    3026
    Secretary, or whoever may reply for the Government, this question: Assuming: there is this non-debatable area, and that there are difficulties connected with it, how are those difficulties touched in any way by this Bill? If there are those difficulties now, there will be exactly the same in the future, and so far as this Bill is concerned they are not touched one way or the other. I do not believe, that there would be the slightest difficulty in drafting a proper provision giving the trade unions such powers as are really industrial, and excluding from their powers such questions as are really political. I think the suggestion of difficulty which has been made by the Attorney-General is no difficulty whatever; and if you make up your mind what you want, a form could be drafted immediately which would have no reasonable chance of being misinterpreted. One other question to which the Attorney-General referred at some length, because there was some interruption as regards the legal question, was the sick benefits which are given by trade unions. I do not want in any sense to discuss the legal question. There is no doubt that a member of a trade union cannot successfully bring an action to secure those sick benefits at the present time. No one denies that proposition. I ask the Attorney-General whether he has done anything in his Bill to deal with an obvious injustice of that kind, because those who subscribe towards benefits ought to be assured that they will get those benefits when the time comes. Consequently it is peculiarly unsatisfactory to find that he, has done nothing of that kind in this Bill, because I think it cannot be denied that the temptation, I do not use a harder word, to deal harshly with a dissentient minority under this Bill as regards sick benefits, will be very much greater than it has ever been in old times. Therefore, if you throw an apple of discord of this kind into trade union organisation you ought at the same time to make sure that the dissentients, whoever they may be, may have a legal remedy to ensure to them the sick benefits to which they are properly entitled for the contributions which they may have been making for a number of years.
    As regards the objections on principle, let me state them shortly. The first is that it is a fundamental principle of our law and of our policy that you protect minorities by defining the statutory limitations within which a corporate body or combination can act. That is the fundamental underlying principle which is essential if

    3027
    you are giving true protection to minorities. At the present time that is exactly the position as regards the trade union bodies in this country, and that was the decision given in the House of Lords. People have joined those bodies because they knew their powers were limited by the Acts of 1871 and 1876, and everyone who joined was entitled to the benefit of the limited power because he knew that the trade union or corporate body could not use his funds outside the limitations laid down. The very object of those limitations is to safeguard the minority. It appears to me, in spite of what the Attorney-General said, that the moment you withdraw that statutory limitation you at the same time withdraw the whole effect of the security which the minority for the time being could possibly have in a trade union combination, because outside the statutory limitation, what is the position? I do not want to go into all the points which were dealt with by the hon. and learned Member who preceded me, but it is qutie clear that, apart from that statutory limitation which gives everyone in a minority the right to which he is entitled, the safeguards in the Bill itself are purely illusory. No one supposes, for instance, that the Bill, which requires only a numerical majority of the members voting, is any real security on a question of this kind. There is no security in having a separate political fund, contributed to in the same way and under the same conditions as the general fund of the union. As regards the exemption of the individual, surely it is impossible to suppose that the individual will really gain the exemption that he wants, coupled with the protection that it is necessary he should have, if he has got to give written notice to the officials of his union declaring that as far as lie is concerned no funds contributed by him are to be used for political purposes. What is the position of a person giving notice under conditions of that kind? Is it not impossible to suppose that he will not have the whole weight of boycotting opinion against him by perhaps a large number of his fellow trade unionists, and probably of all the officials of the union?
    It appears to me that there is no halfway whatever between these two principles, and I believe that the hon. Gentleman who spoke last really agrees with me. You must give trade unions absolute power to use their funds as they like—that is a proposition which I think ought to be opposed to the utmost. If you do
    3028
    not do that all these so-called paper safeguards are wholly insufficient and wholly illusory; they are simply for the consumption of weak-minded individuals who, not liking the tyranny which they know is likely to be brought about, console themselves by referring to the paper safeguards which are contained within the four corners of the proposed Bill. In reference to what was said by my right hon. Friend who represents St. George's, Hanover Square, it was pointed out last year on all sides that those safeguards were of an illusory character. After full consideration of a period of a year we find the same safeguards suggested as were suggested a year ago. I think that speaks forcibly for the proposition I am making, namely, either give trade unions the powers they are asking or do not introduce these illusory safeguards, which can only introduce difficulty and danger, and which will not take in anyone who really understands what is done in matters of this kind. I do not believe there is a member amongst the Labour party who believes if these safeguards are included in this Bill that they would have any effect whatever as regards safeguarding what I call the due rights and principles attached to minorities. On the question of principle I take a very strong view about all questions of representation in connection with principle. This House of Commons is the representative of the nation. The whole principle on which we act is that we come here for national objects, and whatever our different politics may be we desire, at any rate, to further national objects from a national standpoint. What is the first step in this Bill as regards the decadence of our representative system? The object of the Bill is to introduce sectional representation. The object of the Bill is to see that the Labour party are entitled to use funds in a particular way in order that their views may be represented by particular individuals.
    I have no objection whatever as regards the presence of the Labour party in this House. That is not the question. Every Member of this House, from whatever constituency he comes, ought to be under no consideration when he comes here except to further national objects and national aims. What is this the commencement of? My hon. and learned Friend referred to Tammany; we might have worse; we might have sectional representation of the Labour party, and sectional representation of shipping, and sectional representation of railways, and sectional representation

    3029
    of breweries, and sectional representation of landowners, and, in the end, instead of having a national representative body, you would have a body which avowedly would represent merely sectional interests, to the detriment of national and Imperial interests. I know it has been suggested, and I think by the hon. Member who spoke last, that in a certain sense those interests are represented now. That is quite true, and quite right, but that is a different thing altogether. Are you going to allow our great railway corporations to pay ten or eleven Members to represent them in this House out of their corporate funds, or are you going to allow brewery corporations to use their funds for purposes of that kind, or are you going to allow great shipping corporations to do that; or, again, are you going to allow the great municipal bodies of this country, which constantly have questions of great importance in this House, to pay Members, not to represent the country but to represent the sectional interests for which they are sent? We are standing, in my opinion, upon a precipice as regards this great constitutional question, and I think we are discussing it in the way the hon. Member did on what I may call low lines, to use quite a colloquial expression. They are always seeking to say that those who oppose this Bill are attacking the Labour party. We are preserving the honour of this House; we are preserving the representative principle which we believe underlies the freedom of this country, and I hope that this tendency will not begin with trade unions, and I am convinced if it does that other great corporations will rightly and justly claim similar privileges to our common disadvantage.
    Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: I rise with somewhat mixed feelings to speak upon this measure. At the outset I want to say that in my judgment this Bill would not have been necessary had it not been for the extravagant shape of the Bill of 1906. I believe I was at that time the only Liberal Member who opposed that measure and was in favour of a Bill which was promoted by my late lamented right hon. Friend the late Sir John Lawson Walton. The real grievance under which trade unions suffer in respect of actions of tort brought against them was as a result of the Taff Vale case through the ill-considered acts of their subordinate agents. I think my hon. Friends around me here will confirm what I say, when I state that during
    3030
    my long knowledge of trade unions, I have never known the executive authority of any trade union wilfully lending itself to a wrongful or illegal act, I mean a wrongful act from the point of view of the law. There may have been exceptions in the case of one or two obscure unions where that was done, but generally speaking trade unions have always conducted their operations not merely in the letter but in the spirit of the law. Therefore I regarded the scope of that Bill of 1906 as unnecessarily wide. In the decision of the Osborne case some of the judges stated they were largely influenced in the decision at which they arrived because they did not believe it possible that the Legislature would extend immunity to trade unions in respect of every class of business adventure or enterprise which they might undertake. Therefore they limited, by what has been termed judge-made law, the scope of the exercise of the activity of trade union simply to what has been called industrial questions or labour disputes. The result of that has been that the Osborne Judgment has been succeeded by this Bill which gives to trade unions absolute freedom to enter upon any enterprise whatever, industrial, commercial, political, or otherwise, and gives them the fullest power of enjoying absolute immunity, let the House observe that, from all responsibility for any torts which they make. Under those circumstances I am bound to confess that I rise with mixed feelings to say a few words on this measure.
    Speakers from the opposite side of the House have referred to the historical position of trade unions in this country. Trade unions date back, not as was said by one hon. Member, to some two or three years before the Trade Union Act of 1871 was passed, but to the early portion of the eighteenth century, and from then down to the present time they have been, sometimes intermittently, but with practically regular continuity, taking part in what may be called political propaganda, and endeavouring to promote the return of candidates to Parliament pledged to serve the interests of labour. In the period from 1830 to 1848 trade unions raised, by compulsory levies upon their members, money for the purpose of returning Members of Parliament. Therefore it was, as the Attorney-General said, a most extraordinary surprise to us lawyers when the Court of Appeal, influenced by the passage of the Trade Disputes Act of 1906, came to the conclusion that the activities of trade

    3031
    unions must be confined to their industrial departments; that is to say, looking after the interests of their members in the case of trade disputes. That is the historical position in regard to trade unions. I have listened with a great deal of interest to the extremely able speeches which have been delivered this afternoon. I have endeavoured to ascertain what reasonable grounds could be advanced against conceding to trade unions the larger scope of activity which this measure proposes to restore. My hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir A. Cripps) said that corporations, by which he meant joint stock companies generally, may not spend money for the purposes of political propaganda. That is perfectly true. But there is no reason why they should. A joint stock company is limited by its memorandum and articles of association to certain definite industrial or commercial projects which it may have in view, and it would obviously be ultra vires if it proceeded to do something which was entirely outside the scope of its powers. Parenthetically, I may observe that I am not at all sure that some of the great railway companies do not take very good care to have a director representing their interests in this House. At any rate, I have heard a rumour to that effect in the past.
    But there is nothing in the law of England, or, as far as I know, in the law of any civilised country, at any rate any country with constitutional government—certainly not in France, where the syndicalist law is extremely severe—to prevent a corporation, or qvasi corporation, or a voluntary association, being formed for the purpose of promoting the election of Members of Parliament. And that is precisely what trade unions were formed for in the larger sense. They were formed for the purpose of protecting the industrial interests of working men, whether by trade union action in the narrow sense, or by political action in the larger sphere. Therefore, that argument must necessarily fall to the ground. Another argument advanced by my hon. and learned Friend was that he objected to compulsion. Here, again, comes in the analogy of most organisations. Compulsion is an essential necessity to every organisation which possesses a large constituency of members in order to obtain its money. Take a commonplace instance, which I think will appeal to my hon. and learned Friend. We are both members of a club. Suppos-
    3032
    ing the secretary of the club "takes the hat round," and asks us to subscribe to some specific object. I venture to say, with great respect to the liberality of my hon. and learned Friend, that in nine cases out of ten the response would be very insignificant. But let the club call a general meeting, and authorise a compulsory levy upon its members. If it is not ultra vires, there will at once be a ready response and the money will be raised.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: There is no case where it would not be ultra vires.
    Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: I agree; but that does not touch the point of my argument. What I say is that if a trade union were to rely merely upon "taking the hat round," in their case, as in the case of every other organisation in different classes of the society, the response would be unsatisfactory and the means ineffective. Objection is also taken to the matter being decided by a bare majority of members.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: Of the members voting.
    Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: I am not certain, but I think that under the Municipal Corporations Act there is a provision requiring a larger majority than a bare majority. Even assuming that in one or two cases it is provided by Statute that there should be more than a bare majority, in the vast majority of cases it is merely a majority of the members voting. Members of Parliament are not elected by a compulsory vote of the electors. We are elected by a voluntary vote, and by a majority of those voluntary votes. It is really ludicrous to insist upon a different standard of organisation and management in the affairs of a trade union to that which you permit in the case of almost every other organisation, from the highest political organisation which we represent down to the smallest commercial or industrial organisation in the country.
    Let me turn to what I consider to be defects in the Bill. I regard with great jealousy the new departure of giving judicial powers to the Registrar. I hope the Attorney-General will reconsider that proposal. It may lead to the vexed question continually being argued in our Courts as to whether the Registrar is right or wrong in his refusal to grant a certificate. Hitherto the function of the Registrar has been purely ministerial. If he does not register, his refusal can be questioned in the Courts in the form of a

    3033
    mandamus to make him register. He has no judicial power. If he registers a company which he ought not to register, then there is a case which holds that the registration is void. I only throw this out; but I think it is well worthy of consideration whether or not my right hon. Friend should afford the opportunity for the registration of every trade union to become a matter to be argued before the Registrar, perhaps by counsel, and certainly argued in the Courts, perhaps the highest Courts afterwards. I have a second and more material objection. I am not at all sure that I agree with the provision that a fund must be set aside. With regard to the suggestion that a member who might be unjustly treated in not receiving his sick benefit should have power to sue for it I think that as inviting the Attorney-General to embark upon a very dangerous enterprise. The one thing which Parliament was most jealous about in the inception of the legislation of 1871 was to prevent litigation between a trade union and its members. If it is once started, heaven knows where it may end. I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend, who is a careful constitutional lawyer, would really desire to see that facility afforded to members of trade unions to continue at loggerheads with their officials and to carry on, it may be, protracted litigation.
    But although I am against setting aside a particular fund, I agree that, on the whole, the Government have done wisely in so doing, because it meets a formidable and, at any rate, a plausible objection. To say that after a union, by a majority, has solemnly come to the conclusion that they will avail themselves of the powers of this Act to subscribe to political objects, an individual man or a number of individual men belonging to that association may say that they will not pay, and not only that, but that they shall receive a persuasive circular from the association telling them that if they do not want to pay they need not do so, I believe that that is not fair or reasonable treatment, and it is treatment which a trade union may very reasonably resent. I shall most certainly support an Amendment on that point. The provision giving power to spend money on holding political meetings so long as they are merely in furtherance of statutory objects within the meaning of the Act should certainly be expunged. Nothing is more likely to lead to confusion. There would have to be an
    3034
    inquisition as to whether the money was spent ultra vires or not, an inquisition upon the most bewildering of grounds, as the Attorney-General rightly said, deciding whether a meeting was political in furtherance of a trade dispute, or whether it was political not in furtherance of a trade dispute. It would baffle the wisdom of any number of lawyers to come to a really practical and sound conclusion on such a point. On the whole I support this Bill, although there still remains behind defects which have not been met by the Attorney-General, and which I really think and feel it will be a great and difficult thing to meet. As has been pointed out by the hon. Member opposite—to the surprise, I think, of my hon. Friends who sit around me here—a trade union henceforth will be able to carry on any enterprise, political, scientific, if you like, commercial, industrial; anything in fact, from the publication of a newspaper to the running of a tramway line—so long as you have the dominant feature of the association it will enjoy complete immunity from the law. That, of course, is a very serious matter, and one which perhaps shocks the moral sense of my hon. Friends who sit behind me, and maybe gives more than they want. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] That has embarrassed me in the few observations I have to make. Otherwise I welcome the Bill as restoring to trade unions that freedom of action which they have enjoyed almost from time immemorial.
    Viscount WOLMER: I think trade unions have a very reasonable claim to be allowed to engage in politics. I am of opinion, although I am aware that on this point I do not agree with everybody on this side of the House, that the Osborne Judgment stands in some need of amendment. Therefore I do not propose to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. But I should like to say unless it is amended in the direction which I should like to see it amended I shall certainly vote against the Third Reading, because, as it is drafted at the present time, I do not think it gives any adequate safeguards at all to the minority. The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down has entered an eloquent plea for majority rule. Of course, majority rule is an institution which we all accept in this country. I venture to assert, however, that the analogies which the hon. and learned Gentleman quoted were entirely fallacious. He quoted the case of a club. The

    3035
    salient, to my mind the fundamental, point, about a trade union is that members of a trade union—rightly or wrongly is not the point—insist that every man in that particular trade, if possible, shall be forced to join his trade union. That claim is a feature of the situation which completely alters the case, and renders the analogies quoted by the hon. and learned Gentleman absolutely inapplicable. No one in this House denies that trade unionists force unwilling men into their ranks. They may be right or wrong in doing so. We have just seen the terrible dock strike, which has been brought about on this very question. What we claim is this: When you are dealing with free and voluntary associations of men who have met together, and who have decided to be bound by the rules of the majority, then the minority have no complaint. But when you have men forced into organisations against their will, and further forced to subscribe to the propagation of political principles which they detest, we say that that is absolutely inconsistent with individual and civic liberty. That is the point I should like to make this evening.
    Why cannot the Labour party be supported by their followers? If they have such a number of followers, surely there would be no great difficulty in that? The hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester said that the taxpayers were forced to contribute towards the salaries of Members of Parliament with whose politics they did not agree. Again, there appears to me here no analogy. The fact that the payment of Members has been passed has strengthened our opposition to the claim of the Labour party. Surely it is an utterly different thing to say that all the citizens of the State shall contribute towards the payment of Members of Parliament, and towards the payment of the salaries of the Government, although they may not agree with the opinions of those Gentlemen? We are not paid here for our opinions. We are paid here for managing the country. I think it is quite a reasonable thing, although it may be good or bad policy, to ask the electorate to contribute to the salaries of Members of Parliament. What the Labour party, however, are asking for now is that men should be forced to contribute to the propagation of political principles which they abhor. It is because this is a matter of principle, because political principles, I suppose, stand next in importance to religious principles in
    3036
    the sentiments and convictions of mankind, that we are here really on very much more dangerous ground than we would be in any question of pure administration. The hon. Member for Manchester took various instances in the administration of trade unions, and he said, "You do not insist that the minority should be able to appeal against the decision of the majority in cases of industrial moment." No, but we insist that when it comes to a question of the conduct of political propaganda then you have no right to cause a man to assist in that propaganda against his will. It is a very simple matter to say that a man must abide by a decision in matters of administration. That is not a question which affects the conscience. It is purely a matter of arrangements. When you come to great political questions, such as Home Rule or Welsh Disestablishment, two things which involve principles far dearer to free citizens than anything else except religion, then you have no right to force men to contribute towards a propaganda which they detest.
    Mr. KILBRIDE: Why did you do it in Belfast?
    Viscount WOLMER: That interruption is quite irrelevant. The hon. Member for Manchester chaffed us about minority rule in Crewe. An hon. Member reechoes that and says, "So it is," but how about the minority rule of trade unions? The hon. Member himself quoted the case of a trade union that had over 100,000 members, and in the instance quoted only 7,000 voted. It is, he said, not satisfactory. It is not right that the votes of 5,000 men out of the 7,000 who voted, when there are 100,000 members, should dictate the whole policy of those 100,000 members.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Would, you compel them to vote?
    Viscount WOLMER: No, I do not think it would be right to compel men to vote; but what I do think you ought to do is to say that no decision shall have effect unless it commands the support of a majority of the members of the union. That, to my mind, is the only fair and just solution. I heard the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley, as is his custom, interject remarks that in political elections we are elected to the House of Commons by a majority of those voting and not by a majority of the electors. Again, surely there is no real analogy, because we all know that 80 or 90 per cent, of the electors

    3037
    habitually exercise their votes at every election. If it was the same with trade unions then I think we should have no reasonable cause of complaint. But when you get a state either of such apathy or of such intimidation—I do not know which it is—it is not a very satisfactory state of things. It is not satisfactory that only about one-tenth or less than one-tenth of the members dare or care to exericse their votes and should exercise the control they do, and I say it is altogether monstrous that that infinitesimal minority should be able to coerce thousands of their fellow members in their trade unions. The hon. Member for Manchester said: "We are only demanding what every company demands." That case was dealt with by my hon. and learned Friend who spoke last from this side. Hon. Members know perfectly well that no company at the present time is allowed to vote money for political objects. I remember the case of the railway company, I think it was, that sent a subscription to a political party a few years ago. I remember the outcry that was raised. If railway companies are not to be allowed to do this, why should other bodies be so allowed?
    As is well known, a company cannot go outside its original objects without the sanction of three-fourths majority of its members and without an order from the Court as well. We are not asking that any such strict rules should be applied to trade unions. We are only asking that a simple majority of their members should decide what the policy of the union shall be. I have a question to ask hon. Members opposite to which I should like an answer. It is: Is this minority which they desire to coerce a small minority or a large one I If it is a small minority it seems to me they have very little to fear from these being given liberty to refuse to pay. If it is a large minority, so much so that the refusal to pay would seriously inconvenience the Labour party, then it seems to me that hon. Members opposite confess that they are indeed practising coercion and intimidation on a very large scale. It means that they are coercing a very large minority against their will. That is a point I should like to put to hon. Members opposite. So long as they maintain the claim that every man working in a trade shall be forced to join the trade union of that particular trade, then I say they cannot equitably maintain the claim that those men should be forced to subscribe to political propaganda with which they do not agree. Unless
    3038
    Amendments are put into this Bill which provide that the ballot shall be efficiently taken, and that only a clear majority of the members of the union shall decide its policy; that adequate safeguards are inserted against the intimidation of those who avail themselves of the privileges of this Bill, then I shall feel it my duty to oppose the Third Reading.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. ALBION RICHARDSON: One or two questions, I think, have been lost f sight of by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Hants, who moved the rejection of this Bill, spoke of the grave danger which the provisions, of this measure would involve if it became law. But he and hon. Members opposite who followed him seemed altogether to forget that for more than thirty years they have lived under a system under which trade unions exercised not the powers-given by this Bill, but the far wider and greater powers which it was universally believed that they possessed. I cannot find that on a single occasion during the whole of that period, from 1872 onwards, that the question was ever raised in this House, that a single objection was ever taken, or that any Act of Parliament was introduced by hon. Members opposite limiting the powers of trade unions by depriving them of the right of paying election expenses and salaries to Labour Members. The Osborne Judgment has not affected the moral position; of the matter at all. All the Osborne-Judgment has done is to decide that it was ultra vires for trades unions to so employ their money, and that decision was founded upon this fact, that the Act of 1870 which created trade unions did not contemplate that the funds should be employed for the purpose of paying the Parliamentary expenses of Members of Parliament. I dissent entirely from what hon. Members, whose opinions I desire to treat with the greatest respect, have said with regard to the powers of corporations. They say that they are willing to give trade-unions the same powers as other corporations. I speak under correction, but I think I am right in saying that there is no instance of any body of men who have been clothed by the Common Law or by statute with a corporate existence which cannot by a majority—sometimes a bare majority and sometimes a majority of three-quarters—extend their powers in order to carry out their main object, even

    3039
    against the will of the minority. In the case of trading companies there is an express provision in the Companies Consolidation Act that the objects of the company may be enlarged and altered and extended in order that the company, and these are the words of the Statute: "May obtain its purposes by new and improved means." What is the main purpose of trades unions? It is this: to improve the condition of their members—I do not think any one will quarrel with that—and. to that end to deal with such questions as the regulation of the hours of labour and such questions as workmen's compensation. That is admitted to be the main object of trade unions. How can they achieve that aim under the existing law? They can carry on a propaganda; they can run newspapers, although an hon. Member opposite did not think they could. They may promote a strike, they may paralyse the industrial life of the nation; they may drive millions of pounds worth of trade away to foreign ports, and incidentally they may bring misery and starvation to a hundred thousand homes. All that they may do under the law in order to achieve their main purpose, but this they may not do; they may not send a representative to this House by peaceful and lawful and conciliatory means to attain the very things for which trade unionism was brought into existence. I do not think I should have opposed this measure, indeed, I should have supported it if it had simply provided that the Osborne Judgment should be reversed. I think we should have some ground for supporting a measure of that wider scope and I hold myself free in Committee to support an Amendment of that nature.
    Let me ask the indulgence of the House for a moment or two while I examine one or two of the objections which have been taken to this very restricted measure which does not restore trade unions to their former position and which gives the fullest liberry to members who do not wish the funds to be employed for political purposes to be exempt from contribution. It is said by everyone who spoke upon the other side, "We want to see the Labour party in this House," but instead of exemption the money must be raised by a separate voluntary contribution, and they must do that because a system of exemption involves the difficulty of the marked man and coercion and intimidation, and so forth. Does not exactly the same state of objection apply to the man
    3040
    who is asked to contribute voluntarily to such a fund. If he is intimidated because he applies for exemption, will he not be equally intimidated under a system of voluntary contribution when he refuses to contribute. In fact, we have either to accept the system of exemption or practically to do away with Labour representation in this House. There seems to me to be no via media. The hon. Member for South Bucks, who spoke on the other side, took the point which he pressed very hard when he spoke on this subject last Session. He spoke of the right every man has either to refuse to pay or to pay subscriptions to the fund which is provided for labour representation, and he said that any man who wants to subscribe and is in favour of political representation would voluntarily subscribe to the funds if they were entirely voluntary. I do not think that argument was a very sound one. Nine out of ten men in this country are in favour of maintaining the Army and the Navy. Would it do to leave that to voluntary subscription? I think if the hon. Member examines that view a little more closely he probably will not desire to repeat it and pledge himself to the extraordinary proposition to which I have referred. His last objection was to paid nominees coming to this House under pledges. I think I am right in saying that we are all at the present time paid nominees who give pledges, unless we are numbered amongst that gallant and anonymous band of nine who return their salaries to the Exchequer. We are all paid. We all come here under pledges. There is not one of us here who has not pledged himself to support or oppose certain of the measures introduced into this House, and I would point out upon that part of the case that the objection is quite as strong if the money is raised by voluntary subscription as if it is paid directly out of the funds of the trade union. A man is under a pledge and he is paid: whether the money is paid out of funds of the union or out of voluntary subscriptions cannot possibly affect that point.
    What about those Tariff Reform workman candidates who were run at the last election? Where did the money come from to pay for them? Why are not they exposed to the same criticism that they were paid nominees, paid by organisations and placed under pledges to support or oppose certain measures which were placed in the forefront of the various programmes at the election? I think the attitude of the Tory party in this matter can be

    3041
    summed up in this: "We cannot for obvious reasons avow our desire to destroy the Labour party: we desire to see them in this House; all we wish to do is to close every avsnue by which they can obtain access to the House." I think casuistry of that kind directed to an important measure is rather worthy of the school men of the eleventh century than legislators of to-day. Let me say, in conclusion, that I think this Bill raises a short and clear issue between those who wish to see the Labour party remain in this House and those who wish to see it abolished and destroyed. Its career in this House has been a distinguished one. Its Members have devoted themselves with unceasing toil to grave social problems profoundly affecting the lives and happiness of millions of our fellow men. They have brought to the consideration of those problems a ripe experience and in many cases an unrivalled knowledge. I should regard their exclusion from this House, and that is what the rejection of this Bill involves, as a disaster not only to the interests they particularly represent, but to the whole progress of our civilisation.
    Mr. ERNEST JARDINE: All the speeches that have been made upon this Bill, with the exception of that of the hon. Member who has just sat down and that of the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General, have condemned the Bill more or less, and to anyone sitting on this side it is very difficult indeed to know whether hon. Members opposite are going to vote for or against the Bill. The Member for North-East Manchester, who made an extremely able speech and one which we were all delighted to hear, referred to the speech of the hon. Member for North Hants and accused him of speaking of the Labour party as a corrupt body. He withdrew that afterwards, no doubt feeling, as we all felt, that the speech of the hon. Member for North Hants was an extremely moderate and by far the most capable speech made upon the subject to-day. The real trouble in the mind of the hon. Member for North-East Manchester was the accusation that this Bill is a bribe to the Labour party, not in the nature of personal bribery, because every one in the House feels that the Labour party are a good party, a sound and an honest party. There is no one in this House but is proud of the personal character of the Labour Members, but the Labour party have always left themselves open to the accusa-
    3042
    tion because they have by their conduct in the past made it absolutely clear to every one that they are practically a tail, a little tail if you like, of the Liberal party. They get most furious from time to time against the Government, but I remember the first Session I was in this House and the first speech I made in this House was in support of Mr. Haldane, who was subjected to a very severe attack when the Labour party threatened awful things if the Government did not accept their Amendment. I supported the Government then because I did not want them to be terrorised by the fear of losing the Labour votes. I am sorry to say that many Members upon this side, possibly feeling there was a chance of defeating the Government, voted for the Labour party's Amendment, and what was the result? As soon as these gallant Gentlemen below the Gangway found that this side was going to vote for their Amendment they changed round, and simply bolted into the Lobby to vote against their own Amendment. The hon. Member for North-East Manchester should not feel offended if we think that this Bill, which is not worth having, is thrown out to them as payment for services rendered. Referring again to the speech of the hon. Member for North-East Manchester, the hon. Gentleman made no excuse or no pretence as to whether the working man who differs from the others is to have any rights on this question at all. He was not to be at liberty to think for himself unless he happened to think with the Socialist party, who are ruling so many of the trade unions, and that man was to be brought into submission. He was told he should be made to act like the others. Is that the liberty of the Liberal party? One can understand and one knows, even Liberal Members know, that the strength of the Labour party—and it is not much if it is tackled—depends entirely upon force and coercion.
    I do not want to be personal, and I apologise to the House for bringing in any personal matters; but wherever any employer of labour requires highly-skilled workmen, and wherever he is prepared to treat them rather better than the other fellows, not only in regard to wages but in regard to general treatment, he can snap his fingers at trade unions or Labour leaders anywhere; he can get full liberty for his workmen and better results than if they were under the fear and tyranny of any trade unions. That is the case with my own people. I do not expect hon. Members opposite to agree with me; but

    3043
    I have no hesitation in saying that the free labour which I employ is better paid, more faithful, and more skilful than could be obtained by any other method. I want to give a word of advice to the Labour party on this matter. I wish to point out that if this Bill is forced forward at will bring a new element into the calculation which will be a very formidable opposition. Many employers have not been forced, as I have been forced, to adopt free labour. I have been forced to adopt it because people have come to me and said, "You pay us well, the conditions are good, either for a week or for a year; we have not the slightest complaint to make, but when you say you want some more help, when you want us to train up people in this trade, we shall never do it, because there are enough people in our trade already, and whatever you offer us you will never have any more people." In cases like that I was forced to adopt the attitude which I am proud of, and now I employ no trade unionists. If any Labour Members think they are so strong, or anyone in the House is afraid of the trade unionist vote, I ask them to come down into my Division and try to knock me out. The danger of this Bill is that it will create another class of employers who are politicians, or who are deeply interested in, shall I say, the Imperial party or the big England party, and if you compel that man's workpeople to become members practically of Socialist organisations and make them subscribe to Socialist funds, then there will be a great danger of creating an opposition to trade unionism, which will do a great deal of harm to the trade union movement. Again, there is the danger, that if this Bill is forced on, of employers forming trade unions. Why should not an employer form a trade union and compel the workpeople to subscribe to the Tory party.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Why not?
    Mr. JARDINE: This Bill is giving him the power. Let me give another instance if anyone doubts this power. The Trade Disputes Act was passed in order to promote peaceful picketing, and everyone knows what that means to-day. What was one of the first results of that? Not only were trade unions formed amongst the men, permitting them to do illegal acts, but the employers also formed trade unions, particularly and specially to perform illegal acts. I will give one instance, There is a particular trade in which certain
    3044
    buildings are required before one can start in that particular line. Certain people had a monopoly in that trade, and they found that a particular manufacturer, in. the interests of his own business and of his town, was going to start in that business. The employers immediately formed themselves into a trade union, took advantage of the Trade Disputes Act, and they went to that man who was going to build, and said to him, "If you dare to put up that building in competition with us we will, ruin you; we will stop supplying you with, what you absolutely need." That employer, tyrannised over by his fellow employers, and sheltered by the Trade Disputes Act, had to crawl down and accept the terms of that union.
    Mr. W. THORNE: That is what you call commercial morality.
    Mr. JARDINE: That is the example trade unions set to an employer. What I ask the Government to do is to drop this Bill which the people they are giving it to are not satisfied with, because it will have bad results on trade unions, and will further degrade that independence which is rapidly passing away from our people, because they are gradually coming more and more to Parliament in matters which they ought to settle by their own efforts. The trade unions are now simply crawling to Parliament asking us to tax the whole of the workpeople whom they cannot coerce into the trade unions, and they are asking for power to use their hard earned money for Socialistic purposes.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Why are the employers here?
    Mr. JARDINE: One of them, at any rate, is here to expose the tyranny yoit are attempting to inflict upon honest, independent, and courageous workmen.
    Mr. W. E. HARVEY: I have listened to many debates in this House, but I have never listened to speeches which have contained more misrepresentation than those which have been delivered from the other side of the House to-day. If they could prove half of what they say, then I venture to say this House would be justified in rejecting the Bill. I am going to give a sample of what took place during the debate on 30th May last year, and I think it could be multiplied ten fold. The Noble Lord (Viscount Wolmer) then said:—
    "The federation have decided that this union must be stamped out altogether. They have been alarmed at the number of men who have left the federation, and

    3045
    therefore they have decided to force every working miner in Lancashire to join their own union. How do they set about it? In the first place, they chose pits at Bamfurlong, near Wigan, which were specially favourable for their tactics—pits where there were only tour men working who did not belong to the federation. The mine is such a delicate one that it could not have been left vacant without the roof falling in. By threatening the masters with a strike, they forced them in this case to dismiss the men because they would not toe the socialist line and would not become members of the Lancashire and Cheshire Miners' Federation. Now they have gone on to some pits called the Park Lane Colliery, also near Wigan, and there they have forced over 250 men to join the union by threatening the masters that the pits would be closed down unless these men were either forced to join the union or discharged.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th May, 1911, cols. 994–5, Vol. XXVI.]
    That is a strong statement to make in this House. The agent of the Miners' Federation was summoned for his action, and the case was tried in Manchester. It went against the employer. It was then tried in the High Courts before three judges, and they found there had been no threatening and that nothing had been done except what was done legally. The man was acquitted of what he was charged in this House on 30th May, by the Law Courts of England, and the other side had to pay all the expenses. I want to know whether those statements made in this House on 30th May last year were justified. If there is anybody who will say that, I think he has very little conscience left.
    Mr. UARDINE: I shall be very pleased to prove up to the hilt to the satisfaction of the hon. Member for Leicester any statements I have made.
    Mr. W. E. HARVEY: I was myself in the Court and heard the case tried, and that was the judge's finding. My point is that there are statements made in this House to mislead the public and bolster up an opposition to this amending Trade Union Act. I stand here as an old trade unionist. We have been charged in this House with being socialists. I suppose we are in a degree. Every man is a socialist in a degree, though some may be more advanced than others. I have never yet declared myself a socialist. I have been connected with one of the best trade unions in the country for over thirty years, and a ballot has been taken as to whether I should contest a seat or not, and I am here as the result of the ballot. I should like the hon. Member who last spoke to give other people the credit for honesty as well as taking it for himself. I do not know that there is an over-abundance of it on that side of the House. I have no knowledge of it. I have a knowledge of acts by Tories at elections which do not
    3046
    warrant me in saying they have an abundant supply. Therefore, when we meet to debate these questions, I wish we could leave passion and temper out. It began almost in that strain, though I have no fault to find with the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill. There has been one point left untouched. I am a member of the Conciliation Board of the Federated Area of Great Britain. We have an independent chairman—we much regret the death of Lord James who was our chairman for many years—and the negotiations on that Conciliation Board regulate the wages of over 250,000 workers. When we ask for an advance in wages, we do not ask for the union men alone. There are various grades in the mines with some non-union men, and there is not always the coercion, and not always that following of men ruining them and making it impossible for them to get work that has been talked about in this House.
    We do not negotiate alone for the men who are in the unions. We negotiate for all the men, whether unionists or non-unionists, and I venture to say since 1893 we have raised the wages 50 per cent, on the 1888 prices by negotiations. Those men who are not in unions have had the benefit of that. They have received higher wages at the week end. That has made their whole life better, and they have had it as the result of the work and negotiations of the association with which I am associated, in the county of Derbyshire, which is attached to the Miners Federation of Great Britain. Will hon. Gentlemen say they are to have that for nothing? If they say they are to have all the advantages of the trade unions and not pay anything, then they are preaching the doctrine that "a man shall reap where he has not sown." Everyone knows there has been more progressive legislation during the last six, or shall I say seven years, than there ever has been in the history of Parliament. I am not going to say, I have never said, and will never say, it is all the result of Labour men being here; but we have assisted in shaping and improving that legislation and in bringing into existence things that would not have been if we had not been here.
    Take the Workmen's Compensation Act. We know who introduced and carried it, but it was only a part measure after all, it had to be improved upon, and, of course, the Conservatives claimed, when it was introduced, and before it was amended,

    3047
    that it was going to ruin everything in this world, and that the trade of the country would disappear. But by the action of the trade unions and of the progressive forces in this House the measure was amended, with the result that it has brought untold blessings into the homes of the people. But the amendment of it was fought night after night, and the working men of this country know how little they have to thank the Conservative party for. It is not your Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is a Unionist Bill."] I admit that the Unionists brought in a Bill, but it was a lame, limp thing, and the amendments to it came from this side, which made it a vital, living power, of which the working men got the advantage. Prior to the Osborne Judgment we had certain rights; we want those rights restored to us. We want the power we originally possessed to use our trade union funds for political objects. There is a good deal of talk about the ballot. Suggestions have been made that it can be interfered with and manipulated so as to induce the men to do exactly what their leaders desire. Now, in an organisation with which I am acquainted we have 40,000 men and to them we sent 40,000 ballot papers. The ballot papers are put into their hands and they record their vote. If that is not a true expression of opinion T do not know what is.
    Majority should rule in everything. They rule in this House. They rule on county and town councils; they rule on all public bodies. Why, then, should a different law apply to trade unions? I object to the principle which is embodied in this Act with regard to majorities not ruling. Majorities must rule, and I hope that, during the discussions in Committee, we shall be able to convince the House that we are entitled to the right which we have enjoyed for thirty years, and which has been taken from us by judge-made law. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester hit the nail on the head when he said that this decision was the result of a feeling that we were getting too powerful, and, consequently, money was found in certain quarters in order to attack the trade unions, injure their progress, and prevent them continuing to do the good they have been doing. I may mention only one organisation, but it has 600,000 members, and I venture to say that those members will support that party which gives its sanction to this Bill with Xo. 3 Clause taken out, because working
    3048
    men have opened their eyes to this fact that their best interests will be served on the floor of this House by having men of their own class representing them. Whenever the next election comes you will have to answer for some of the things that have been said in this House. You have misrepresented the working men. You have not treated them fairly. You have represented them as almost the worst creatures under Heaven's sun. For all these things you will have to answer. Working men are as honest as anybody in this House. They are asking for their liberties; they ask that the majority shall rule in any great organisation, and they resent being subjected to heavy costs with the idea that their unions may be crippled, so that they shall not be in the future such a force as they have proved to be in the past. If this Bill be carried the trade unionists of this country will be found still progressing and fighting for the elevation and betterment of the working classes.
    Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOW: We have listened to an extremely interesting Debate on a most interesting subject. In the speech just delivered an appeal was made which I heartily support. It was an appeal for the absence of misrepresentation; for what used to be called in the old days "reasonable construction." The hon. Member seemed to think that misrepresentation was rife, and he desired to see it done away with. I entirely agree him. But unfortunately he himself was a rather bad example of the fault of which he complained. He spoke of the Workmen's Compensation Act. I had not the honour of being in the House at the time that that Act was passed; neither, I think, had he. The Act was introduced in 1896 by Mr. Chamberlain. It was brought in as a great experiment, it was applied to half the existing labouring classes. It was estimated that the labouring community at the time numbered 15,000,000. The Act was applied to the engineering and mining trades and to railways—to, in fact, about 7,000,000 of the population, in the hope that, if it worked as it should, it would eventually be extended to all artisans in this country. I have reason to know those were the facts because I was a lecturer at the School of Economics at that time.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: Only about 2,500,000.
    Mr. BARLOW: They were half the industrial classes of the community. The other point mentioned by the hon. Member

    3049
    was that of coercion. To my mind that question is the most difficult question in the whole trade union controversy. He said that to suggest that coercion was asked for was to cast a slur upon honest trade unionism. I should be the very last man to cast a slur upon honest trade unionism, because I have the greatest admiration and respect for the principle of crade unionism.
    Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: Will the hon. Member explain honest and dishonest Lrade unionism?
    Mr. BARLOW: I think there is a certain amount of dishonest trade unionism so far as one can gather from the speeches made in this House. It is a claim put forward quite frankly—one hears it every day—that there should be some power of coercion. I should have thought it was not arguable otherwise. I am prepared to say that there is a good deal to be said, not for violent action, but for some kind of pressure, for the obvious reason that if you are fighting for a standard or a minimum wage, some members would have influence out of all proportion to their numbers. To say that the claim is not made seems to be misrepresenting the issue. What is the real issue we are discussing? It is this. Is or is not a trade union to have freedom to engage in political work. I am one of those who think that subject to certain safeguards, which I will mention later one, that all trade unions ought to have such power. I know that is not a view held by many of those who sit around me, but I think that if you have a body of capable industrious Englishmen, as you have in the great trade unions in this country, who have subscribed funds, you must allow them to have, within limits, powers to regulate their own affairs. If they say they desire to have power to intervene, either directly or indirectly in political matters, subject to the full protection of the rights of minorities, it seems to me very difficult to refuse them that right. We have had proofs of trade union legislation in the past. We had the great Act of 1825. Up to that time unions were liable to be proceeded against under the criminal law. You had the group of Acts from 1871 to 1876. Up to that time they were liable to civil proceedings for conspiracy, and those Acts relieved them from that liability. The Osborne Judgment, so far as it restricts the activities of the unions, seems to me to call for modification somewhat on the same lines.
    3050
    What are the limitations which I suggest, supposing that greater freedom is secured to the unions than they now enjoy as a result of the Osborne Judgment. The restrictions imposed by the Osborne Judgment were very severe indeed. Under that judgment as it stands it is impossible for any union to subscribe to a library, or to aid the cause of education among the labouring classes by means of scholarships, objects which are obviously desirable in themselves, however you may regard the question of the political activity of the unions. Supposing the Osborne Judgment was maintained in strictness, it would be impossible for a deputation to come up to London and have its expenses paid, although it might be to see the President of the Board of Trade on a subject definitely concerned with the interests of the union, or, it may be, a strike. If that is so, it seems that some modification of the strictness of the Osborne Judgment is inevitable. The question arises as to what the safeguards should be, and how far this Bill provides those safeguards. In discussing this matter with my own constituents, who are very largely trade unionists, I find a general consensus of opinion—I do not think this will be disputed by any member of the Labour party—that you must have some protection, some conscience clause for the minority. The point we shall have to discuss at greater length is, how far the protection provided by the Bill is satisfactory or not. Of this I am quite certain, treating the matter broadly as a Second Reading matter, that unless the leaders of the great organised forces of labour are prepared to accept adequate safeguards for the minority, they will go a long way towards smashing up the unions, a result I should view with the greatest possible dissatisfaction. I believe they are the only chance for bettering industrial conditions in this country. Take the recent dock disputes on the one side and the magnificent organisation of the trade in cotton in the North. You have an instance at the docks where labour and capital are not properly organised, and another in the cotton industry where both labour and capital are highly organised. I am certain that the only chance for the industrial peace of this country in the future is high organisation on both sides.
    If you accept that, the very first condition you must lay down is that your organisations, both of employers and employed, can only proceed on such general lines as will secure equity and fair treat-

    3051
    ment to all those who belong to the organisation on one side or the other. Let me give an instance of what I mean. Those who have anything to do with Lancashire will know what I am referring to. There is a very strong feeling among those connected with labour in Lancashire in support of religious education in the schools. There is a resolution passed by the Trade Union Congress year after year—it is one of those standing dishes which pass without discussion—in favour of secular education. If that resolution means anything, and if it could be made effective by the forces of organised trade unionism, it would mean that you would be causing offence to the consciences of men in a way which must inevitably lead, I will not say to retaliation, but to the weakening of trade union forces. One can see the beginnings of that even now, because the Catholics themselves have formed trade unions of their own, because they say that the trade union movement does not treat them fairly in the matter of religious education. It is just the kind of inevitable reaction which will come if the trade union movement is so misguided as to take upon itself to coerce minorities in a way which I do not think the members of any country will stand, and I am perfectly certain the members of this country will not stand. Any man of sense and responsibility would repudiate coercion with violence, but, although some kind of pressure might seem an easy weapon, it is bound to bring its own nemesis. If there is one lesson in history more obvious than another, it is that those who take the sword will perish by the sword, and if pressure with violence is put upon minorities by the trade union movement, I believe they will be laying up for themselves a great and very serious retribution, and it is because I believe in the trade union movement, because it is in itself in the future, as far as I can see, the only hope of bettering industrial organisation, that I would ask trade union leaders to be extremely cautious before they embark on a course which may seem to them at the moment to be advantageous, but which, I am perfectly convinced, in the future will be to the serious detriment of the trade union movement as a whole.
    Then there is the question of the separate funds. These two things are essential—the protection of the minority, the protection of the conscience clause, so to speak, and the separate funds. I do not
    3052
    think this Bill secures the separate funds. I do not wish to speak as a lawyer—we have had appeals to lawyers to forget their profession—and I do not wish to go into the minutiæ of Clause 6, but it is quite obvious that Clause 6 is not as clear as it might be, and, if the funds are to be kept separate, very much more careful means must be taken, in that or some other Clause, of saying so. Subject to these two safeguards being better defined than they are at present—and that must be secured in the course of discussion in Committee or I may have to take a different course on the Third Reading—I believe the broad principle of the Bill to be not unsatisfactory, namely, that some greater liberty must be secured to trade unions. That is the feeling that I have about the Bill, and it is a feeling which is somewhat different from that of those who sit on the benches around me; but I think, from some considerable study that I have given to this subject, that it is the inevitable conclusion if you accept the great principle of trade unionism, as I do.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. DEN MAN: The hon. Member has given the House an example of the best 1911 form of the Conservative party. The Debate then took this general form, that the Bill was, on the whole, a bad Bill, but we do not propose to vote against it. The hon. Member has perhaps gone a shade further, and is very nearly in the same position that I occupy, that this is a very good Bill, which I hope will in Committee receive a certain amount of amendment. But, congratulating the hon. Member upon keeping intact the ancient form of the Conservative party, I must refer to what, with all courtesy, I regard as the most interesting speech made this evening, the very brief speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Alfred Lyttelton). Last year he told us that this Bill was correcting evils which had been created by the Osborne Judgment, and that those evils were badly in need of this correction. He congratulated himself upon not having to vote against the Second Reading. He doubted whether the machinery for the exemption was quite adequate. He supported the general principle of the Bill, to give trade unions power once more to exercise that sort of political activity they had exercised before the Osborne Judgment. Indeed, in one place he went so far as to indicate the kind of amendment which was needed to make it a thoroughly good Bill. He said it merely required the inversion of the

    3053
    Schedule and notice to be given by those who wished the political policy to be carried through to this effect: "I hereby give notice that I am willing to contribute to the funds of so-and-so union for such-and-such an object." That is to say, provided the Schedule were reversed and put in a positive instead of a negative form, he supported the Bill. Because in 1912 the Government and those who support them have not seen fit to change their opinions on this Bill the right hon. Gentleman proposes to oppose the Bill, and apparently has fundamentally changed his views on the whole question. The big, simple question on which we are voting today is just this—Are trade unions to be able freely to participate in politics or are they not? The House last year decided by a majority of over 200 that they should, and I think very many Members on both sides of the House feel that that decision was right.
    The new view of the Conservative party has consistently been put forward to-day by Members representing rural or residential populations. The two Members who have spoken from that side who represent industrial constituencies have been careful to revert to the old style. Really, the Debate to-day has centred upon the question of the safeguards—whether the methods of protecting the minority are adequate or not. It is only fair to the Government that those of us who wish to amend the Bill in this matter should take this opportunity of expressing our opinion, and I should like to call the attention of the Home Secretary to the fact that the only three Liberal Members who have spoken have all expressed precisely the same view, namely, that they hope that the provision by which the minority are exempted will be withdrawn. In this matter there is a considerable feeling in the Liberal party that the views put forward by the Labour party are right. The hon. Member (Mr. Barlow) suggested that this was not in the interests of the trade unions themselves, and that unless there were some adequate safeguards for minorities the trade unions would break up. He may be right, but leave that to the trade unions. Let them look after themselves. If they choose in their rules to safeguard minorities let them do so. If they choose to walk straight into the disruption that the hon. Member fears for them, I should deem it presumptuous in me to attempt to preserve them. Personally, I am wholly opposed to all these provisions which purport to secure exemption for the individual.
    3054
    There are two grounds of objection to these proposals, theoretical and practical. It would not be a suitable occasion to attempt to lay down the precise amount or value of the rights that should, on the one hand, be reserved to individuals, and on the other hand should be reserved to the societies to which they belong, but I want to remind the House of two considerations. Firstly, no individual can join a society without an appreciable loss of some liberty or personal taste, or whatever you like to call it, for the general good. Secondly, surely in modern times the whole tendency is to exaggerate the rights of individuals as against the rights of the societies to which they belong. I venture to suggest that that tendency has gone somewhat too far, and needs to be checked. I believe most people in this House consider that at the present time, as a matter of political theory, the prime necessity of our social condition is a higher degree of association and organisation, and far more perfect social discipline. There are, I know, a certain number of sentimental individuals who want individual licence to run mad, but I believe the general feeling in this House is directly against that trend in politics. While it is a feeling in this House, there has undoubtedly grown up in recent times a perverse sympathy with outbreaks of individual lawlessness which have become extremely common. One can take existing cases, and think of people who will say that they will not pay the Stamp Duty in respect of insurance on the ground that the Act is unjust. In all these cases you see just the same tendency of the individual thinking he has private rights which are superior to the decisions of the community to which he belongs. That tendency, I think, has been totally bad.
    I do not see any need in our society to emphasise the rights of minorities. I believe we ought in all ways to emphasise the rights of majorities. In applying these considerations to the Bill before us, the House will notice that it begins by authorising a trade union to include political objects among its lawful objects. No adequate reason has yet been given why, if a political object is a lawful one in this kind of community, the decision of the majority shall not bind the whole membership. It is admitted that the fruits of the political object will come to the whole society. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not of every political object."] Yes, the actual results of the political endeavour of the union is shared by the whole of the union in com-

    3055
    mon, whether good or bad. Then we are told that we must think of the conscience of the individual. As to that, I should like to ask one question. Has anyone in this House met a man whose conscience was offended by contributing to a fund which was to be used for politics? I agree that there are many who may be offended by the fact that the fund to which they have contributed is used to promote doctrines to which they are personally opposed, but that is quite a different point, and that is not the ground given in the Bill for exemption. The conscientious objector objects not to the nature of the policy the union adopts, but to the fundamental fact of the union taking any part whatever in politics. That is quite a different point. It is one thing to object to a trade union taking part in an education controversy, and it is another thing to object to a particular doctrine of secular education which a union may adopt. But I would remind the House that it is the latter sort of objection that hon. Members have in their minds when they talk about conscience. They instance many occasions of conscious wrong done to a man who finds his funds being used for Socialism when he himself is a Liberal or a Conservative.
    I confess that I have no sympathy whatever with the man who is willing to pay for a union entering into politics, and who then says, "Because my party has lost in the union, and is not in the ascendant, I will not pay." Surely that is not a very worthy point of view. Is not his real task to set about converting the union to his own way of thinking, paying, as all of us do, for objects with which we do not directly sympathise, in the hope that we shall be able to persuade the organisation to which we belong to come round to our view in the long run? From statements made in this Debate it would appear that some hon. Members think the minority were being in some way coerced. The opinions of the minority would remain what they are. The only question is whether they shall pay Is. a year to the union. I think the hon. Member for Manchester very appositely described the difference between a Conservative contributing to the salaries of a Liberal Ministry and a Conservative trade unionist contributing to a trade union. I really do not know what the difference is if you once admit that in the case of a large community a political object is a lawful object for that community. I wish to give
    3056
    one or two practical suggestions as to the difficulties which are caused by the system of separate funds, and: then allowing exemption. Take the case of the Railway Clerks' Association: which has recently sent a deputation to Belgium, I think, to inquire into the question of railway nationalisation. Under this Bill all that process of inquiry will certainly be payable from the general fund, and therefore the members will contribute to it. When the deputation reports and the union decide upon a campaign in favour of railway nationalisation, any political meetings, or the distribution of literature on behalf of the nationalisation of railways, will have to be contributed for out of the political fund. Surely the whole-process is the same throughout. We all know that they are merely collecting matter to assist their propaganda. That is not a very unreasonable arrangement.
    The Act seems to me to produce greater difficulties when you come to questions of local political propaganda. Suppose a trade union desire to induce the local authority to adopt the Housing and Town Planning Act I suppose the normal way in which that would be done in most towns is by persuading the Trades Council to take up the subject and then by having more or less a public propaganda. Under this Bill it is quite obvious that a branch of the trade union would not be able to contribute anything to the trades council which proposed to undertake such a propaganda unless the union as a whole had decided that political objects should be undertaken. Secondly, I suppose the local branch would have in some way to secure out of its political funds a contribution to local expenditures incurred in this sort of work. Of course, if a branch, though itself desiring to assist the trades' council in its propaganda, happened to be a branch of a union that had not undertaken political activity then that branch would be powerless altogether. It could do nothing. The trades' council itself must find the assurance of a great deal of support in undertaking the work. Then a federation of employers may be a trade-union under the definition of this Act. It is possible they might awaken to the fact that technical education is exceedingly valuable, and that it is cheaper to train labour at the public expense than in their own workshop. They cannot support a public propaganda in favour of technical education unless they have gone through all the process of special ballot and

    3057
    separate funds. Suppose on the other hand this federation of employers had been storing up a fund for some years, then as far as this Bill is concerned by a mere vote of the majority all that fund could be devoted let us say to Tariff Reform. That is to say, though a minority might very bitterly dislike that propaganda they would find that because they had contributed in the past funds were being used for an object to which they were bitterly opposed. I would really suggest to the House that these provisions for separate funds and for having a special ballot are not really worth preserving.
    What seems by far the most important argument for not attempting to separate the minority is that every one who has had practical dealings with trade unions knows that what you want to arrive at is an organisation which would be really representative of all the men. The most dangerous kind of union is the weak union which represents few people in which there is carefully separated off what I may term the frothy element from the substance. What you want is a union representative of all, and you can be sure then of getting an expression of the general opinion; but by this method of separating off the minority and the majority you make it far more likely that the political sections will be much more extreme than they would be if the political side of the union were really representative of the whole. That is the inevitable result when you deliberately allow a number of people who object to a particular policy to depart from it. The remainder will be far more extreme than the total union would ever be. On that ground, while I very cordially welcome this measure and hope that the Government will pass it in this Session, I am afraid that I shall have to support Amendments proposed by the Labour party. From the Debate which we have had to-day I anticipate support from those concerned who are convinced that the minority representation cannot be very effectively carried out.
    Mr. DENNISS: I understand that this Bill is not a party question, and I also know from experience in my own constituency that trade unions are made up of Unionists as well as Socialists, with a sprinkling, of course, of Socialists. In the main they are not Socialists. Unfortunately the executives of some trade unions have been captured by the Socialists, but I think the time will come, especially after this Bill passes, when the
    3058
    working men will insist that they shall be represented, not by Socialists, who are after all a very great minority, but by either Liberals or Conservatives, and I think that this House will have no reason to complain if a Bill like this, when thoroughly amended so as to safeguard minorities is passed into law. Trade unions, properly led, are of the greatest possible service to the community. Nowhere is that fact more strikingly exemplified than in my own Constituency. In the cotton trade we have avoided strikes and industrial disputes in a manner which does the greatest possible credit to the sterling common sense of the Lancashire men, who just at this moment have avoided what might have been a complete paralysis of the cotton industry by a strike which originated in a dispute among the ring spinners. What appeared to be a very serious dispute has been settled in a marvellous manner by the common sense of the leaders of the trade unions of the cotton trade. They are men for whom I have the greatest respect. I agree with the hon. Member for Durham that trade unions have always been political bodies. They were political in their inception. The right to combine was originally illegal. They claimed to alter the policy of the country in that respect; they succeeded, and ever since that time the funds of trade unions have been used for political purposes. It was Benjamin Disraeli, Leader of the Conservative party, a humble admirer of whom I am, who passed the Trade Union Commission Act. He instituted a Commission to inquire into the organisation and rules of trade unions and other associations, and the direct result of that was that when the Commission reported in 1868, Mr. Gladstone happened to be in power, and the first Trade Union Act in 1871 was passed. But when Mr. Disraeli came into power again shortly afterwards he passed the Trade Union Act of 1876. I think hon. Gentlemen opposite will admit that trade union privileges have been given to them by the Conservative party, led by Benjamin Disraeli. As a humble follower of him, I am a great believer in and a great supporter of proper and right privileges for trade unions. As long as the leaders of trade unions were either Liberals or Conservatives nobody made any fuss about the funds of trade unions being used for political purposes. It was only when the executives were captured by the Socialists that trade unionists objected to having their funds used for political purposes, and

    3059
    that Osborne and others voted against trade union funds being used for Socialistic purposes. The real cause was distrust of the Socialist policy of some of the trade union leaders.
    In these circumstances I feel that I must vote for the principle of the Bill, leaving myself perfectly free in Committee to vote upon such Amendments as I think will be necessary to safeguard the rights of minorities. The first point in the Bill to which I wish to refer is that the funds which are to be used for political purposes are not only to be separate, but the contributions must be ad hoc, and no other moneys must be used except those which are specifically contributed for political purposes. If the strike funds, benefit funds, and funds for political purposes were collected in one lump—collected, as it were, like a rate—with the different items indicated, that for political purposes would be car-marked and would be a separate fund. Under no circumstances then must the strike fund or the benefit fund be encroached upon. It is a merit of this Bill that it will for the future prevent any part of the strike fund or the benefit fund from being used for political purposes. If it does not do that, I shall vote against the Bill on the Third Reading. I take it that there will be an honourable claim on the part of the Labour party that they accept the position that under no circumstances shall the strike fund or the benefit fund be used for political purposes, but only those sums which are actually contributed to political purposes. The next point of the Bill is Clause 3 (c) which must be capable of being easily enforced-Clause 3, Sub-section (1), paragraph (c), is that a member who is exempt from the obligation to contribute to the political fund of a union, shall not be excluded from the benefits of the union or placed in any respect, either directly or indirectly, under any disability or disadvantage compared with the other members of the union.
    At the present moment it is extremely doubtful whether that can be legally enforced, but it is a condition of my voting for the Third Reading of the Bill, that some provisions should be inserted to make it perfectly clear that legal sanction shall be given to the provisions so that minorities may be protected, and so that those who do not wish to subscribe to the fund for political purposes may not be subjected to exclusion from benefit or to any disability or disadvantage. A further point is with
    3060
    regard to the ballot. The ballot must be made really secret. The secrecy must be so strict that the members can rely upon it, so that they may be able to give a perfectly free and unbiassed vote. Lastly, no man is to be compelled, either directly or indirectly, to contribute to the political fund. That should be made a reality by inverting the notice which is inserted in the Schedule of the Bill, that nobody shall be compelled to contribute, and nobody shall be called upon to contribute unless he gives explicit assent, and he ought not to be put in any position of disadvantage for having expressed his dissent. The hon. Member for North-East Manchester (Mr. Clynes) was all for compulsion. I do not believe in compulsion. The very base of the argument of the hon. Member for North-East Manchester is the base of most of the legislation of the Radical party. The leaders of the men arrogate to themselves this position: they say, "We know better than you do yourselves what is good for you, and you are going to have it whether you like it or not." In my opinion, that is entirely wrong. The leaders should find out what it is the men want, and it should only be by the men's permission and with their sanction that they put measures before the country for adoption by Parliament. Subject to these four matters, I approve the principle of the Bill. I believe that it will be a great benefit to trade unions, whose funds, which are for strikes and for benefits, will never be encroached upon for political purposes, as they have been in the past. With these remarks, I beg to say that I shall support the Second Reading of the Bill.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I am sure we were all glad when the hon. Member who has just sat down was able to make the confession which he did in the earlier part of his speech. He told us that so long as the trade unions' political activities were confined to Liberals and Tories no objection at all was taken to using trade union funds for political purposes. But the moment, he said, the trade unions' executives were captured by Socialism then the change came, and the law, which I always assumed was based upon principle and not upon political expediency, began to be put into operation, and trade unions were deprived of the opportunity of doing the work which they had done from the beginning. That is a very important, interesting, and suggestive statement.
    Mr. DENNISS: I said that the members of the trade unions themselves revolted.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: The point is, whether they revolted or not, that the power was taken away from trade unions for doing work which the hon. Member himself admitted they had done since the beginning, and which consequently at all times is essential to the operations of trade unions, and, being essential to the operation of trade unionism, ought not to be subject to a minority clause, and would not necessarily be subject to a minority clause so long as the only kind of politics within trade unions was Liberalism or Conservatism. That is a contention we have been making for some years, and I am very glad that in making it in future we can rely on the support, the voting support, of the hon. Member. Let us take the general question raised by this Bill. I am not going into details, because it is far more convenient they should be entered upon in Committee upstairs. This Bill attempts to establish a certain principle, and the question we have to decide is whether that principle is right, and, to a minor extent, whether the Bill carries it out under such conditions. The Osborne Judgment, may I say parenthetically, did not merely affect political action, or what is commonly called, at any rate, political action. The Osborne Judgment affected a very considerable body of trade union effort which by no stretch of the imagination could be called political. For instance it is very doubtful whether a trade union can now spend the funds subscribed by its members in sending two or three of its members to study at a college at Oxford or anywhere else. The works of trades councils has been greatly hampered by the Osborne Judgment, and so on.
    But I assume that we are not so much interested in that aspect of the Osborne Judgment, and that what we really want to discuss to-day and the consideration which is going to influence our vote a little later on, is not going to be those questions at all, but the question of the political activities of trade unions. It was on that ground the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Salter) moved the rejection of this Bill, and, if he will allow me to say so, in a speech which, although we did not agree with him, we certainly admired. It was controversial undoubtedly, but nevertheless it was just one of those speeches which raise important questions which must be settled, and which we must answer if we are going to establish our
    3062
    claim at all. I want to confine myself to two main questions, first of all, why we want a Bill like this, and secondly, how we would draft the Bill ourselves. I want this Bill, I want the right to take political action restored to trade unions, because the fundamental and characteristic purpose of all trade unions is not to give unemployed benefit, and not to give friendly benefit of any kind. The characteristic function of trade unions is to regulate the relations between employer and employed. From the very beginning of the trade union movement it was regarded by the Legislature as an army in the industrial field. It was a kind of organisation and a combination of labour meant to oppose, and, if possible, to conquer combinations of capital, and combinations of capital which were not always political and not always definite, but which, from the very economic conditions under which capital operates, must be a combination, the individual capitalist being the equivalent of a combination of working men. Those were the conditions under which trade unions were regarded, and it was upon that point of view that the whole of our trade unions code of legislation has been built up.
    Let us begin with that fundamental proposition that the characteristic object and function of trade unionism is to regulate the relations between capital and labour. How is a combination of workmen going to regulate the relations between capital and labour? We have been occupying ourselves in this House for the last eighteen months very largely in regulating those relations ourselves. We did it when the railway men came out on strike, and we did it when the miner's came out on strike, and we have been busying ourselves in connection with the Port of London Dock Strike. The Government has appointed a committee of inquiry, or, rather, charged the Industrial Council to conduct an inquiry into how labour disputes can be avoided in future. In fact, this House has definitely and specifically taken upon itself the responsibility to step in and regulate, of its own accord and of its own will, the relations between employer and employed. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square (Mr. A. Lyttelton) is going to follow me. I put it to him, how can he or how can anybody who is going to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill argue, or think he can prove, that the combination of workmen under modern political conditions and in

    3063
    the teeth of the responsibility which this House has taken upon itself within the last eighteen months, that that combination can fulfil the functions of the Trade Union Acts of 1871 and 1876 without being represented somehow or other in this House. I do not see how it is possible.
    Legal technicalities, of course, come in. We have heard them narrated to us in a very alluring and delightful way by the hon. and learned Member who moved the rejection. I candidly confess I am one of those laymen whom I suppose he had in his mind when he said we would hear legal opinion by those not qualified to express them. I candidly say I could not follow the Attorney-General in those very subtle distinctions which he made, but I have had to try to understand them, and I could not follow the points that the hon. and learned Member opposite made, and I am bold enough to confess that because I have had some experience of lawyers on these very points. I have been with a lawyer, I have had his advice and discussed the matter with him; I put the points to him and got his settled opinion. I have gone to another lawyer, and I have found that he disagreed with the first, and then, although not personally concerned, but more or less in a representative capacity, I have heard judge after judge throw over all the lawyers. I am bound to say, if my experience of the advice of the lawyer and the opinion of the lawyer had been more consistent than it has been, I would have treated far more seriously than I did the somewhat gloomy prognostications of the hon. and learned Member who moved the rejection of this Bill. There is one thing I am perfectly certain about. Although he may be perfectly right in what he has said, before ten years are out lie will find that other interpretations, and, assuming this Bill is carried in its present form, things he has not foreseen will be seen by lawyer-judges, and others, and the only safe thing we can say when in the hands of the law is, "Goodness alone knows what is to happen to us." But it is not really the legal objection that most frightens the hon. and learned Member. I feel quite sure that he experienced a good deal of hesitation and mental reservation in laying down the law, and he always came back—I think I noticed it running right through his speech—to what is fundamental. He does not believe that the ordinary member of a trade union would do the fair and
    3064
    honourable thing. He says, "You can insert rules in your trade union rule book; you can make pledges in those rule books; you can impose by those rules obligations upon your membership; you can gather a mass meeting or a representative meeting of your members in accordance with those rules; but I have no belief and no confidence that the mass meeting or representative meeting would carry out those rules." I do not think that that is quite fair.
    Take the very worst. There are times, when a trade dispute is on when feeling runs very high, and we get temper shown and things done which we regret very much, but that is not a peculiarity of trade unionism. That is not a pecularity of the working-class mind, or of the working-class character, or of working-class, conduct. Even when statements are made specifically, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derby (Mr. W. E. Harvey) pointed out in connection with a statement made twelve months ago, in regard to occurrences that happen under those unfortunate circumstances, they are made with exaggeration, without knowledge, and without a sense of responsibility. To assume that they are as bad as they are stated, that they are typical and representative of the normal state of trade union conduct, is really to inflict a very grave injustice upon the trade unionists of this country. If this Bill is passed, with or without safeguards, it is not going to operate when passion runs high. It will operate in normal conditions such as we have to-day. It is going to operate every day, every week, every month. I know my colleagues very well; I know the people whom they represent here; I know the people whom they lead as presidents and secretaries in the trade union movement; and nobody will contradict mo when I say with knowledge of these men that this Bill in normal times—that is nine years and eleven months out of every ten years—will be accepted, will lead to no oppression, will lead to no unfair pressure, but will become part and parcel of ordinary trade union habit. The man who wishes to subscribe will subscribe, and the man who does not want to subscribe will not be interfered with in the exercise of his liberty.
    Then there came the political considerations against this Bill. They were expressed by the hon. and learned Member opposite (Sir A. Cripps). I will take a case typical of the kind of idea that he

    3065
    had in his mind—the parallel which he tried to draw between a corporation like a railway company and a trade union. There is no parallel between the two cases. It is perfectly true, as he says, that there is no corporation like a railway company directly represented in this House. But in life the real is not always the nominal. Take, as an example, what may happen twelve months from now when we are discussing the next Finance Bill. Supposing there is an Amendment interesting to brewers or distillers. The chances are that the tellers in the Division on that Amendment will belong to that particular section of the community. It has happened over and over again. If there is a railway Bill before us, the chances are that railway directors will speak on behalf of the railway companies. I admit that none of these men are sent here on the funds of brewing or railway companies. But that is not necessary. The whole point is that a particular set of political circumstances suits capital but does not suit labour, and in order that labour may be put on terms of equality with capital it must be allowed to use a liberty which is of the same equivalent value to them as the particular liberty which capital enjoys now is to capital. As a matter of fact, the hon. and learned Member, in asking labour to conduct its political work in precisely the same forms as capital, is like the stork asking the fox to dinner, and serving the food in a dish out of which only the stork could eat heartily and with satisfaction to himself. The only suggestion that I make to the hon. and learned Member is, not that the stork's dish should be abolished or broken and made unusable, but that he should be good enough to come and help me to put the fox's dish alongside of it, so that both of us may have an ample meal at the end of the day. That is all that I want, and, while I do not think the Bill goes far enough, and it is open to many objections in detail, I suggest that, at any rate, the intention of the Bill is to put two unequal dishes alongside of two persons who have got to be unequally provided for in order that they may get on terms of equality in the political feast.
    What we have to do is to forget the corporations on the one hand, and the trade unions on the other, and to remember that the representation of corporations in this House is a representation of capitalism in general, and that the representation of trade unions in this House is a representation of labour in general. What is the use,
    3066
    for instance, of our asking for a constituency to send a boilermaker here as a boilermaker, to vote as a boilermaker, and as a beilermaker to bring pressure to bear upon the Government? That is not, and never was, our idea. As a matter of fact, we have always opposed that idea. The more antiquated people amongst our friends outside, and amongst our critics as well, have assumed that that was the purpose and the basis of the Labour party. That is a profound mistake. Capital is represented here as capital, and when its sub-divided interests come up—brewing, railways, land, and so on—then the sub-divisions of its representation in this House take the lead, and when we are imposing taxes, as in the Budget, upon land the landlords in this House rise up, and say, not "You are taxing the landlords," but "You are taxing us." And they identify themselves with the particular tax. That is how it is done. So on this side of the House we want the representation of the Sub-sections of labour, not standing separate and distinct amongst themselves, but co-ordinated together into a party, so that the whole of labour's experiences, labour's interests, and labour's needs may be available for deliberation on the floor of this House. There are two views that can be taken of Parliament. There is the view that hon. Members sitting around here are very impartial men; that we have no personal interests, no class interests to serve; that we are simply like gods looking down upon the strife in which men are engaged; that we are standing apart, dealing out even-handed justice. That is one view of the House of Commons. That is not my view.
    10.0 P.M.
    We cannot attain to it. There is, therefore, no use talking grandiloquent nonsense about it. The House of Commons represents the various interests of this country, and the only way in which the House as a whole can become impartial is that the various interests of the country should be adequately represented. So we shall be blended in the discussions as to our rights, our influence, and so the House may be a microcosm of the great nation outside. In order that this may be done labour cannot be represented by forty-one Members. That is not representation. That is not democracy. Labour must be represented by far more than forty-one Members. Consequently our idea of the Labour party in the House of Commons is not a party of forty-one men, three or four railway servants, two or three engineers, and one or two

    3067
    Socialists as a sort of binding link. That is not our idea at all. That is not our conception of party. Our conception of party is that we should have here representation of labour experience, labour interests, labour ideals, so that we can put that experience, those interests, and those ideals into the common stock of the House, and meet hon. Members face to face, as we are doing to-day, and discuss matters with them, and trust that the result will be for the enlightenment of the country, and for wisdom on the occasions for which this House may make itself responsible. That being so, it is absolutely necessary that organised labour should find its way into this House, not as a series of trades, but as the expression of the great producing class—sub-divided in such a way that sometimes it is in conflict with itself—necessarily represented by the large number of people in this House. What, if I am going to follow in the line I have taken, what is the answer given to us and to that contention? I have never been able to see, and I do not see now, how it is possible, if you go on certain assumptions, if you proceed on the assumptions I have made, if you agree with certain propositions that I have made, that the object of trade unions is to regulate the relations of employers and employed, that anyone can say that it is not necessary for the well-being of this country, for the well-being of the nation, that all interests should be adequately represented in this House. I do not see, therefore, how you can resist the conclusion to which I have come, that the trade union must have restored to it the right of political action and of political conduct that it was believed it had, and which, as a matter of fact, it did exercise until what is known as the Osborne Judgment was delivered by the House of Lords.
    There is just one point left that I want to deal with in a sentence. I have been dealing with the "Why." I now come to "How." This raises the question of the minority. I want to lay down a proposition. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman who is to follow me resists it or not, but again I do not see how it can be resisted. It is this: When one speaks of the rights of the minority or the rights of the individual—for that matter, whether in a majority or minority—one can only define the rights in relation to the nature of the organisation of which the individual is part. If the individual joins an Army
    3068
    his rights are limited and denned by the nature of the Army organisation in which he has enlisted. If an individual joins a trade union he joins that trade union as an organisation which has got certain nature, certain functions, and a certain utility. It is mere moonshine, mere abstraction, and without any meaning at all to talk about individual right within that organisation, which means the paralysis of that organisation. If a trade union is such as I have been trying to define in the former part of my speech, then the individual member of a union has no right which would paralyse that union in its political activities, for the protection of its members who require it, and in connection with the relation between employers and employed. That is my general case so far as these minorities are concerned. I do not believe there is anything oppressive in saying to men who join the union, "You know what it is for; you know why you joined it." The trade union is fundamentally a fighting organisation. You know all that; and you. have joined it, and when you have you cannot possibly set up a claim for individual right that is contrary to the nature of the organisation, that you have joined voluntarily and open eyed.
    That being so, it conies to be a mere question of government by the majority. If the majority decides that the union ought to take part in political action, then the minority must obey. The right of the minority is to express its opinion and to carry on a propaganda so as to turn this minority into a majority. That is the good old fashioned individualist doctrine. I do not think the safeguards are necessary. I think they are rather insulting. I think that the trade union movement has shown that it can exercise the rights given to it in a general way by this Bill without these safeguards. But as I said when I rose, I do not propose to deal with any Committee points. I am interested in laying down, or trying to lay down, a doctrine which I think really is a fundamental principle of this Bill. That being so, I believe that the House will give us this Bill by a large majority, so that the particular details that have been so interestingly discussed by some hon. Members this evening may have a chance of being met face to face in the Committee room upstairs.
    Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: I wish, before I answer one or two questions which the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down

    3069
    has put, to brush away one or two observations that have been made at an earlier part of the evening. Speaking for myself, and I am sure for those who act with me, I may say we have no objection to trade unions—on the contrary, very much the reverse. For forty years or more, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend behind me our party supported trade unions in all that is legitimate, and to Mr. Disraeli and other prominent Members of our party trade unions owe very much of the charter of liberty that they have now. Nothing that we have done in the past, or shall do in the future, will in any way fetter the legitimate function and liberties of trade unions. Neither, again, have we said anything against the Labour party, nor do we regard the subject of the Labour party as relevant to this Bill at all. There are many interesting lessons which we may lay to heart with regard to the Labour party, but at the present moment in discussing this Bill the position of the Labour party is not in issue. The hon. Member who has just sat down has asked me how I can possibly say that without this Bill trade unions can be represented in this House. There, are two answers to that. The first answer is that the Osborne Judgment with which this Bill deals was delivered in 1908, and the Labour party and those representing trade unions are here still. That is the first answer.
    The second answer is this, and it is a curious thing that it was wholly ignored, or at any rate scarcely mentioned throughout the whole of the Debate, yet it is a matter upon which the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down made an extremely eloquent speech before, namely, the payment of Members. I remember the hon. Gentleman's speech. It burned itself into my recollection. The hon. Gentleman then advocated the payment of Members, and his main case, and very forcible argument, so far as it went, was that it was undesirable and contrary to the public interest that men should come here representing peculiar interests, such as trade unions and particular trades and the like, and he urged how much better would it be if the Bill for the payment of Members were passed, if salaries were allowed to Members, not excessive salaries in his view, and if everybody on the benches where he sits, as well as everybody else, should represent not a particular section of interest but the interest of the public at large. The hon. Gentleman agrees with my recollection of his speech.
    3070
    He asked, how is labour to be represented? I answer that he pointed out labour was to be represented by the payment of Members, by facilities given for the great operative classes in this country to come here unfettered by sectional interests, free to vote as they thought right in the interests of the nation, made free by the fact that they were made pecuniarily independent of those who in general supported them. These two answers may be unsatisfactory" to the hon. Member, but I submit them to the House in the belief that they are fair arguments addressed to fair questions. The next point upon which the hon. Gentleman invited my agreement or disagreement was this. He said the fundamental reason for the existence of trade unions if I quote him rightly, is to regulate so far as they may the relations between employer and employed. I accept that as one of the most important functions. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is the most important function that trade unions can fulfil. I do not see myself how that carries the hon. Gentleman to the decision which he has sought after as resulting from it. I have always laid it to heart in considering trade union questions that it was desirable that so far as possible labour should be rendered equal in its contests with capital, that the arms of labour should be made equally long with the arms of capital, and throughout the whole of the legislations from 1871 up to that ill-omened day of 1906, after which we had the Trades Disputes Bill and other disastrous Acts, for the whole of those years I submit to this House and I think I could call ample authority to back me up that the efforts especially of the Conservative party were directed to abolishing the ancient and harsh rules against the combination of labour with the definite intention of placing labour on even terms with capital in industrial disputes.
    I draw a totally different conclusion from the hon. Member from that history. I say that legislation between the dates I have given did in point of fact render so far as it is possible to render equal the conflicts of labour and capital, and I myself and I think all my friends behind me, believe that so far as the Osborne Judgment conflicts with certain expenditure not political, which trade unions were wont to incur on behalf of university extension and technical education that this House would almost unanimously pass a Consent Bill which would liberate the funds of trade

    3071
    unions for these admittedly beneficent objects. But this is a far more drastic and comprehensive measure than that. This Bill really does this. It takes trade unions as they now stand equipped with the formidable powers which we know they have, with privileges and immunities which do not exist with regard to any other section of the community; it takes these bodies and organisations thus equipped, endowed with these powers not for purposes of politics but for purposes of industrial conflict and launches them avowedly into the political arena, there to use these opportunities and privileges in a manner which no one who was a party to that legislation ever contemplated or thought possible. It is perfectly true that my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke in his admirable speech said—and no one knows it better than hon. Members opposite—that the political views which trade unions at this moment would advocate are Socialistic. For my part I trust the House will believe me, I care not what political interest is favoured, but the danger is that these organisations should be used for party purposes. You might have organisations for Free Trade, you might have organisations for Tariff Reform, you might have organisations for some religious or antireligious purpose. It was an axiom with all the old trade unionists, men like Frederick Harrison and the present right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Thomas Burt) to keep politics and religion out of trade union discussions; otherwise you will get a disintegrating influence which was sure to operate against the interest of trade unions. Directly you make it a really effective political organisation, and directly you make your trade union effective as a political organisation, you remove the whole lynch pin out of the fabric which has been so patiently reared, and you inflict a great blow against organised labour. Experience has shown in the last fifteen months how much demoralisation there has been with regard to opinion in industrial conflicts and political conflicts. The passing of the Act of 1906 placed the trade unions above and outside the law, and it has created an atmosphere of unfairness and tyranny and oppression about trade unions. Men who were thus favoured by the legislation came to think that whatever they might desire in the interests of labour and trade unions must be right. The hon. Member for North-East Manchester made a very interesting and ex-
    3072
    ceedingly candid speech, and he most frankly avowed what I have said. He said that the objects of trade unions were proper objects. If those objects were avowedly proper why need we discuss anything at all, and why should we not at once obey their demands'? He said the unity of trade unions must be imposed on every member of trade unions in their own interests. He went on to say, with a singular disregard of the facts, that shareholders in a company had a perfect right to dictate the policy of the company in which they were shareholders. Really it is no such thing, because a limited company is limited in its action by its memorandum of association, which lays down what its functions are, and any shareholder who observes the company of which he is a member going outside of its functions would have an immediate right to go to the Courts and restrain the company from so doing.
    Mr. CLYNES: After all, shareholders have to submit to whatever is decided in their name by those who have authority to come to such a decision.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: That is precisely where the hon. Member is entirely wrong. If a railway company chooses to embark in some business absolutely foreign to its constitution, any shareholder can restrain that company from so doing, and that is really elementary law. I can quite understand how it is that the hon. Member is under a misapprehension on that point. A trade union is not formed for the purpose of political agitation, but for the benefits of industrial agitation for regulating the relations of labour and capital. When the hon. Member gives the instance of a company or corporation, and imagines that the members of those bodies have to submit to the ipse dixit of the majority, he totally misapprehends the position of affairs, because it is the absolute right of any shareholder to restrain a company or corporation from acting beyond the scope of its original constitution. Do I really exaggerate his position in any degree when I say, if the principles which he lays down for our guidance with regard to trade unions were to prevail, there would be absolutely nothing to prevent this state of things happening outside. If a Conservative Member were to be returned by a majority for a constituency, the circumstances that he represented the majority would enable and entitle him to levy upon his Liberal opponents that sum of money which was necessary to maintain his

    3073
    organisation. I do not desire to exaggerate the point at all, but when the hon. Member says that unity must be imposed in their own interests and that the trade union must be regarded and must always act as a solid whole and that the minority, notwithstanding their opinions, must pay for actions which they dislike intensely and distrust, it is equivalent to saying that a Liberal having been returned by a majority in a constituency, is entitled to make a levy upon the Conservatives for maintaining him in that position.
    Perhaps I may be allowed a personal reference. The position I took up last year was that it was possible in Committee this Bill might give such safeguards to minorities in trade unions that at any rate we could afford to discuss it in Committee and allow the Second Reading to go through. That was the attitude of many of us last year, and that was the Attitude of one of my hon. Friends this evening. It is perfectly clear the hope we then had was illusory. This Bill has been before the Government for fifteen months, and it has been widely discussed in the. Press and elsewhere. We hope such arguments as we laid before the House last year have been considered by the Government, but, whether they have considered them or not, the only effect of our adopting an attitude of not absolute hostility to he Bill last year has been that the Bill has, with the exception of an Amendment consequential upon the payment of Members, been brought in again this year without the alteration of a single comma. I think, the Government having had fifteen months' consideration of the Bill and of the arguments we addressed to them as to the unfairness with which a very large proportion of the House thought large minorities were treated, and not having yielded a single point, it would be childish for us to suppose they intend now upstairs or anywhere else to alter the position they have taken up. They admit, and every hon. Member opposite has admitted, that trade unions cannot get voluntary subscriptions for the purposes they desire. They admit they cannot get votes from trade unions as a whole to alter the fundamental policy of trade unions and to enable them to become political and partisan organisations, and the plain English is they seek by the machinery of this Bill to beguile members into contributing for these political purposes without definitely and manfully ascertaining whether they wish those political purposes to be
    3074
    attained. It is an enormous weight to take upon themselves. The Government have taken a great weight upon their shoulders in wishing to make these bodies definite political bodies. They have failed to have the courage of their opinions. If they really believed that it was the object of the rank and file of the great democratic masses in the trades unions to have this power why have they not put to them the plain question, "Do you, or do you not wish the constitution of your trade union altered so that political purposes shall become part of an organised trade union?" Why have they not put that question to them? Because they have known that the answer would be in the negative. All the talk about the application to the Registrar and about the secrecy of the ballot is absolutely futile in view of the fact that a man has to obtain exemption from the liability to pay this contribution. He has to claim exemption on a written form so that it is known to everybody, and every single dissenting member of a trade union would become obviously a marked man. The Attorney-General, to whom I am indebted for his exposition of the provisions of the Bill, did not really advance more than one argument in its favour. He pointed out—a little unfairly, I think—that there would be quite sufficient protection in the circumstance that the Bill itself enacted that no disability should lie on any man who had claimed exemption. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggest to the House that that is sufficient protection for those who are claiming merely elementary rights? Suppose the headmaster of a school declared there was to be no disability on a boy who refused to play cricket?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: What I pointed out—and I think the right hon. Gentleman has, of course unintentionally, misrepresented me—was that no one was to be excluded from the benefits of the Bill by reason of claiming exemption.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: The position is that there is to be no disability attaching to a man who does an unpopular thing against a very large majority of his fellows, and the hypothesis is that the mere fact that the Registrar is to make rules to prevent a feeling of dislike operating upon that man is really quite absurd. We know how these things are done. A man is sent to Coventry. There are, in fact, innumerable ways by which a powerful body, very keen indeed to get its particular policy

    3075
    enforced, can demonstrate its feeling to the disadvantage of the dissenting member. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really think this House can make provision to prevent the operation of this well known force? The real test of the sincerity of this Bill and the purposes it seeks to carry out is, Which party is willing to take the real opinion, under real secrecy, of the members of the trade unions? That measures the sincerity of the opinion that the working classes are in favour of this measure. If they are in favour of this measure, and trade unions are in favour of it, why should not every possible step be taken to make the decision really secret, and to prevent it being known who has claimed exemption from its provisions? That is the real test. Hon. Members shrink from every hostile inference which is legitimately drawn from that fact. It is useless to bandy words with hon. Members opposite about who is in a majority. The only way you can test who is in a majority on this subject is by ascertaining, in confidence and in secrecy, what are the real opinions of the members. Until you find that out the subject is still at large. Those who object to the seal of confidence being placed upon these matters cannot complain if their opponents say, and say with confidence, that the people who shrink from that test are the people who are wrong about the opinion of the working classes.
    The hon. Member who preceded me, as every one must do who heard the speech of my hon. Friend who moved the rejection of this Bill, spoke with great respect of his arguments, and complimented him, with great courtesy, upon them, but it would have been a greater compliment still if he had attempted to answer some of those arguments instead of postponing them to a more convenient season. My hon. Friend adduced arguments in his speech, and, so far as I can gather, no one has attempted to answer them. He argued that a trade union hereafter, if this Bill were passed, so long as it kept its original functions of a trade union predominant, would be able, collaterally with those functions, to embark upon commercial and political pursuits. He said it might start a newspaper. Those under its authority might write defamatory articles upon Parliamentary candidates. He might have added that its members might enter into a conspiracy to prevent the candidature, or grievously impede the candidature, of anybody opposed to their side. My hon.
    3076
    Friend pointed out that by the operation of Section 4 of the Trade Disputes Act. 1906, which is law still, if these grievous wrongs were committed by a trade union, there would be no remedy, because under Section 4 it is made immune from all civil proceedings. The Home Secretary is going to follow me, and I should like to know what is his answer to that. I do not think it is possible to say that my hon. Friend's statement of the law was not absolutely correct. The Attorney-General says it is not.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The trade union under that Section is immune from liability as a trade union from damages in an action for tort, but there is another Section under which the trustees of the union are liable for anything which is done in respect of their property provided it is not in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. If they are running a newspaper and libel a person, not in connection with a trade dispute the trustees would be liable, as they were in the well known action which took place before the Osborne case.
    Mr. A. LYTTELTON: If the right hon. Gentleman will contrast the language of Section 2, which makes peaceful picketing legal when it is done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, with Section 4, which leaves out altogether the words "in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute," he will agree that there is very considerable ground for saying that no matter what tort is committed by the agents of a trade union, whether or not in furtherance of a trade dispute, their position of immunity will be very difficult to prove. I am glad to have the Attorney-General's view upon the point because no one else has attempted to say that Section 4 would not apply to the case brought forward by my hon. Friend. Certainly it would be a monstrous and outrageous thing that a trade union should be invited into the arena of politics and should be subject to passions which are quite as great as those which exist in trade disputes, unfettered by the law under which we all have to be governed.
    I have only this one word more to say. It is surely an instructive thing, when you look at the history of the whole matter, that we should have arrived at the pass we have now. A hundred years ago employers had it all their own way, and they pushed" their way under the doctrines of the ex-

    3077
    treme Free Trade school ruthlessly in industrial matters. But since then, largely under the inspiration of the Conservative party, the Factory Acts and the machinery which is now imposed by the Home Office and the Board of Trade, have arrested these methods which had deteriorated the health and vigour of the nation. The employers of labour in this country now never could carry on their business without being constantly faced by the thought of the community, and having forced upon them at every turn in their industry the requirements of the community and the necessity for its safety and well being. Contrast the position of the other side—the employés. A hundred years ago, by their very existence, they were in danger. They were an unlawful organisation. During the last four or five years they have gradually attained a position of great power and freedom. Privilege, which hon. Gentlemen opposite have always declared to be monstrous when it was used by landlords or capitalists, is now sought to be extended out of the field of industry and into the field of politics. It is astonishing how different privilege looks when it is exercised by yourself and when it is exercised by your opponents. Cannot hon. Gentlemen opposite take a warning? I have often heard them say that privilege and special power and immunity is demoralising in the class which was then supposed to be the wealthy class. If they thought that genuinely they ought to be the first to reject these privileges when they are asked on behalf of the class whose voting power now makes them unquestionably the predominant power.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The right hon. Gentleman charged my right hon. Friend with having devoted only a very small portion of his speech to the defence of the principle of the Bill. I think that charge was one which the right hon. Gentleman ought not to have made. He ought to have remembered the history of this Bill. My right hon. Friend who spoke first could not possibly know what the new attitude of the party opposite was going to be towards this measure He had fully in mind that in May of last year the right hon. Gentleman, in speaking upon this Bill, did not raise any objection to it in principle, although he complained of it in detail. My right hon. Friend assumed that the right hon. Gentleman was still of the same mind. When the question of the Second Reading went to a Division, only
    3078
    eighteen hon. Members opposite voted against the Second Reading, and the great bulk of the party, including the right hon. Gentleman, abstained from voting against it. In these circumstances my right hon. Friend was absolutely justified in asssuming that the principle was accepted on both sides of the House. In the few words I am going to address to the House I could wish, as far as possible, to get away from the legal difficulties of this problem, and to state the matter as it occurs to a layman. By the Act of 1871 certain new legal entities were created—trade unions, with disabilities, immunities, and privileges. From time to time Parliament has amended and extended the Act of 1871, and has always continued that condition to trade unions of special privileges, immunities, and disabilities. From time to time the Courts of Law, by their interpretation of the Trade Unions Acts, have either extended or limited the popular interpretation for the time being of what these privileges, immunities, and disabilities were. There was one privilege which trade unions believed they possessed for upwards of thirty years—the privilege of engaging in political activities. For the first time that privilege was taken away from them in 1908. For thirty years every Member of Parliament believed that trade unions still enjoyed that privilege, and Parliament never interfered, because, no doubt, in the first instance, it was the action of the Courts of Law that deprived the trade unions of that privilege.
    Let me remind hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that they themselves believed that trade unions enjoyed this particular privilege in 1906, when they refrained from opposing the Trade Disputes Act. They were themselves content to allow Pelion to be piled on Ossa. Trade unions to their knowledge then enjoying all the privileges of full political activities, and they did not oppose the Trade Disputes Act. Though the right hon. Gentleman now is good enough to describe the year 1906, the year of that Act, as a terrible year, he never voted against that Act. With the exception of the hon. and learned Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Salter), who took a different view in his very interesting speech, it is a matter of common agreement on both sides of this House that trade unions ought to be continued in their present anomalous position, under which they have enjoyed their special disabilities and special privileges. The hon. and learned Gentleman stated that in his

    3079
    opinion if trade unions were to have political activities restored to them on any terms they ought to be brought under the full ordinary provisions of the law. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Is that view general on that side? This is the first time it has been expressed in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] To-day is the first time that this view has been expressed in this House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—that trade unions should be given their full rights under the law if they are to be deprived of certain of the privileges which they at present enjoy. If that was the view it was not taken up by the Opposition in 1906 when the Trade Disputes Act was passed.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: That was the opinion of the Attorney-General, Sir Lawson Walton.
    Mr. McKENNA: No matter what opinions may have been expressed in the course of the Debate, the final, fundamental fact stands good that not a single one of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench who are now interrupting me divided against that Bill. I am sorry to remind them of that lamentable fact, but it is a fact. At any rate, we on this side of the House do not suggest that the special position of trade unions should be altered. Therefore Parliament has to consider now if we, notwithstanding the decision of the Courts, should restore to trade unions the power to enter into political activities which they had recognised and enjoyed prior to 1908, and, if so, on what terms and under what restrictions. My hon. Friends below the Gangway expressed the opinion that they ought to have the full rights which in practice they enjoyed prior to the decision of the Courts in the Osborne case. I agree with them that there is much to be said for that view, based on the experience of thirty years, but there is also a very strong argument against it.
    It must be admittedly a condition of the enjoyment by the trade unions of these special privileges that they should also be under certain disabilities, and it is impossible for trade unions to claim the privileges of corporate bodies, governed by majorities, and at the same time have the peculiar privileges which they enjoy under the trade union Acts. Parliament is bound to consider, in giving trade unions special privileges, the proper limitations under which they ought to be enjoyed. What is proposed here? It is proposed
    3080
    under the safeguards of Clause 3 that trade unions should have the right of entering into political action. Those safeguards are devised in the interests and for the protection of the minority, whose interests are as specially dear to hon. Members on this side of the House as to hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Clavell Salter) asserted that trade unions did not need the ballot which is provided in the Bill as a means of securing the protection of the minority, any real protection. He founded his argument upon certain facts. He showed, what is perfectly true, that in certain of the ballots affecting the internal affairs of the union very important issues have been settled by the vote of a comparatively small proportion of the total number of members of the union. He stated with perfect truth that in several cases the views of the Socialist party in the unions have predominated. He then reminded the House that in some well-known political contests between the Socialist party and one of the other political parties in the State, and in which the very same trade unionists were concerned, the Socialists had been beaten. From that he argued that the ballot affords no sufficient protection. I think I have stated the hon. Member's argument fairly. What are the facts? It is quite true that in political warfare and in public contests, the Socialists have frequently been defeated by other parties-in the trade unions. That only means that in politics the trade unionists are as a majority not Socialists. I think that is true. I think that trade unionists, as members of trade unions, are not Socialists. But when you come to local affairs, the management of their own affairs, those very same unionists will vote for Socialist members of the union in the government of their own concerns. Many of them do not vote at all, but that only means that they are quite satisfied with the existing government of their union. I believe that to be true. It is pretty clear that when the members do care they turn up and vote and smash their opponents. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] They do at political contests. The hon. Member is not going to assert that the ordinary ballot taken in a trade union is not a secret ballot. He surely will not assert that.
    Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: As a matter of fact, my belief is that each voter writes his name and address on the paper.
    Mr. McKENNA: I think there is some confusion on this point. There are ballots conducted by the unions which are secret ballots. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Indeed there are certain ballots taken by the unions which are secret ballots. I have known certain cases where the ballot has been taken and where secrecy might not have been observed, but I have known a far larger number of cases in which secrecy was most scrupulously observed, and certainly in all the most important ballots secrecy is invariably observed. The fact that members of the union after the ballot say which way they voted does not in any way militate against the actual secrecy of the ballot itself. I can assure hon. Members, with personal knowledge, that they are not correct when they allege that the ordinary ballot taken by the unions is not secret. I submit the securities given for the protection of the
    minority in Clause 3 are ample. That, at any rate, must be a Committee point. The only real issue which we have to decide on this occasion is whether we shall in any degree, and under any limitations, and under any proper safeguards for the minority revert to the position in which the trade unions stood before 1908; or whether we shall say to-day that Parliament, the public, and the trade unions were all on the wrong course from 1871 to 1908, and that wisdom was only restored to Parliament by the action of the Law Courts. I submit upon that issue there can be only one answer, and that is that we shall give a Second Beading to this Bill.
    Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    The House divided: Ayes, 232; Noes, 132.

    Division No. 207.]

    AYES.

    [11.0 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Dillon, John

    John, Edward Thomas

    Adamson, William

    Donelan, Captain A.

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

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Duffy, William J.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Alden, Percy

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Armitage, Robert

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

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

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary)

    Jowett, F. W.

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Joyce, Michael

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Keating, M.

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Barnes, George N.

    Field, William

    Kilbride, Denis

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Flennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    King, J.

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

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

    Bentham, George Jackson

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Gill, A. H.

    Lansbury, George

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Glanville, H. J.

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Black, Arthur W.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Boland, John Plus

    Greenwood, Granville (Peterborough)

    Leach, Charles

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Greig, Col. J. W.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Lundon, T.

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hackett, J.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hancock, J. G.

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Maclean, Donald

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

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

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

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

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

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

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Clancy, Joseph

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Clough, William

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Clynes, John R.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock).

    Hayward, Evan

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.).

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hemmerde, Edward George

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

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Cotton, William Francis

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

    Molloy, M.

    Crooks, William

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Crumley, Patrick

    Higham, John Sharp

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Cullinan, John

    Hinds, John

    Mooney, J. J.

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

    Hodge, John

    Morrell, Philip

    Dawes, J. A.

    Hogge, James Myles

    Morison, Hector

    De Forest, Baron

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Delany, William

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Muldoon, John

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Munro, R.

    Denniss E. R. B.

    Hudson, Walter

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Devlin, Joseph

    Hughes, S. L.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Tennant, Harold

    Nuttall, Harry

    Reddy, Michael

    Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

    O'Brien, Patrick Kilkenny

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Richards, Thomas

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    O'Grady, James

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Wadsworth, J.

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

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    O'Malley, William

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

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

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Wardle, George J.

    O'Shee, James John

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Webb, H.

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Rowlands, James

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

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

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

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

    Pointer, Joseph

    Sheeny, David

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Shorit, Edward

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

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

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

    Smyth, Thomas F, (Leitrim, S.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Goldsmith, Frank

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

    Ashley, Wilfrid

    Gretton, John

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Bagot Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Guinness, Hon.W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Baird, J. L.

    Gwynne, R. S. (Eastbourne)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Hamersley, A. St. George

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Harrison-Broadley H. B.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

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

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Beresford, Lord C.

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Royds, Edmund

    Boles, Lieut.-Col Dennis Fortescue

    Houston, Robert Patereon

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

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Boyton, James

    Jardine, E. (Somerset, East)

    Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Stanier, Beville

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Kerry, Earl of

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Campion, W. R.

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Cator, John

    Knight, Captain E. A.

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Swift, Rigby

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

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

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

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

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

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Chambers, James

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Lloyd, George Ambrose

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

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

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

    Touche, George Alexander

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Cripps, Sir C. A.

    Macmaster, Donald

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

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Malcolm, Ian

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

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Winterton, Earl

    Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.)

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

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

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Newman, John R. P.

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Fleming, Valentine

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Younger, Sir George

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Nield, Herbert

    Sanders and Mr. Eyres-Monsell

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Bill read a second time.

    Mr. A. LYTTELTON: I beg to move, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."
    Question put, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."
    The House divided: Ayes, 143; Noes, 227

    Division No. 208.]

    AYES.

    [11.10 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Gibbs, George Abraham

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

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Glazebrook, capt. Philip K.

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Ashley, W. W.

    Grant, James Augustus

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Gretton, John

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Baird, J. L.

    Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

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

    Gwynn, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Balcarres, Lord

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hamersley, A. St. George

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Barnston, H.

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

    Rolleslon, Sir John

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Royds, Edmund

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Hohler, G. F.

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

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Sandys, G. J.

    Bird, Alfred

    Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Boles, Lieut-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Stanier, Beville

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Boyton, James

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Kerry, Earl of

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Stewart, Gershom

    Burn, Col. C. R.

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Swift, Rigby

    Campion, W. R.

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Cassel, Felix

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cator, John

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

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Lewisham, viscount

    Thompson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

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

    Lloyd, George Ambrose

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Chambers, James

    Locker-Lampson, G, (Salisbury)

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Touche, George Alexander

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Edgbaston)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

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

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

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Macmaster, Donald

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

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Cripps, Sir C. A.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Winterton, Earl

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

    Denniss, E. R. B.

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

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Worthington, Evans, L.

    Faber, George D.

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

    Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.)

    Newman, John R. P.

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Nicholson, William G. G. (Petersfield)

    Younger, Sir George

    Fleming, Valentine

    Nield, Herbert

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Sanders and Mr. Eyres-Monsell.

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Clynes, John R.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Adamson, William

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Alden Percy

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Armitage, Robert

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Glanville, Harold James

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn, A.

    Cotton, William Francis

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Crooks, William

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Greig, Col. J. W.

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Cullinan, John

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Barnes, G. N.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Hackett, J.

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

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

    Dawes, J. A.

    Hancock, John George

    Bentham, G. J.

    De Forest, Baron

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

    Delany, William

    Hardle, J. Keir

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Devlin, Joseph

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Calthness-shire)

    Boland, John Pius

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Dillon, John

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

    Bowerman, C. W,

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Duffy, William J.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Hayward, Evan

    Bryce, John Annan

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Essex, Richard Walter

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

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Higham, John Sharp

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Field, William

    Hinds, John

    Clough, William

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    3086

    3087

    Hodge, John

    Montagu, Hon. E, S.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Mooney J. J.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Morgan, George Hay

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Morrell, Philip

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Morison, Hector

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Hudson, Walter

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Muldoon, John

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Munro, Robert

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    John Edward Thomas

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Rowlands, James

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

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Norman, Sir Henry

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

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Sheehy, David

    Jowett, F. W.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Shortt, Edward

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Connor, J. (Kildare, N.)

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    O'Grady, James

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Kilbride, Denis

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

    Sutton, John E.

    King, J.

    O'Mailey, William

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon,S.Molton)

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

    Tennant, Harold John

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

    Lansbury, George

    O'Shee, James John

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Lardner, James Carrlge Rushe

    O'SuIlivan, Timothy

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Tire, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Leach, Charles

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Wadsworth, John

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Lundon, T.

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

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Lyeil, C. H.

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Wardle, George J.

    Lynch, A. A.

    Pointer, Joseph

    Webb, H.

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falklrk Burghs)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Maclean, Donald

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh Central)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. T. J.

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

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Williamson, Sir A.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

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

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Reddy, M.

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

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

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leltrlm, N.)

    Richards, Thomas

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland

    Molloy, M.

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

  FINANCE BILL.
  As Amended, Considered.
  [SPEAKER in the Chair.]

  FINANCE BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Reduction of Tobacco Duties.)
    (1) The duties of customs payable on tobacco shall as from the day of the passing of this Act be reduced to the same duties as would have been leviable thereon if the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, had not been passed.
    (2) The excise duties payable on tobacco grown in Great Britain or Ireland shall as from the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twelve, be reduced by one-third.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: In moving this new Clause I fully appreciate the difficulty of starting a discussion upon a new subject at this time of the night and at this season of the year, but I have a serious case to present and I am obliged to do it, not only on my own behalf, but on behalf of others
    3088
    outside. I will endeavour to do it as shortly as I can. I protest against the Tobacco Duties in the first place because they are excessive and secondly because they are disastrous to the tobacco trade. I do not think there is any other article so highly taxed as the cheaper forms of tobacco. It is true that tobacco is not a necessity of life, but it is a luxury which is taxed upon no principle of graduation. It is true that there are luxury taxes on cigars and cigarettes, but tobacco, in comparison, is taxed heavily and without any reasonable graduation whatever.
    The natural cost of tobacco is 4d. per pound. When you get to the best Turkish tobacco it rises to 10s., and the best Havannah goes up to 20s. If you work that out it means that the best Havannah pays 18 per cent., Turkish, 36 per cent., whilst the lowest quality pays 1,100 per cent. Surely that is quite an irrational method of taxation on any article whatever. If I were to go into details, it is still more in the case of cigars. The duty on the

    3089
    higher kinds of tobacco cannot be passed on. The profit on the more expensive kinds of tobacco, although the turnover is smaller, is greater, and the manufacturer, rather than lose his market for his special article, will cut some of his profit; but the tax on the cheaper kinds of tobacco which are consumed by the working men is, as a matter of fact, passed on. In the higher kinds a firm has a speciality, and it wants to keep its name, and will sacrifice something; but, when you get to the lower kinds of tobacco with the minimum profit, it is no use firms competing with one another, and they agree that the burden must be passed on to the consumer. The tobacco is very often sold in such small quantities that there is no coin equivalent to the extra amount of the duty, and the consequence is the whole of the duty is passed on to the consumer. On that ground, it is an inordinate tax, and it is an unjust tax because it falls on the comforts of the poor, and does not fall on the comforts of the rich.
    Apart from that, it has a very serious effect on the tobacco trade. The number of manufacturers of tobacco has been very greatly reduced of late years. In 1907–8 it was 415; in 1909, when the new Tobacco Duty was introduced) there was a slight fall to 407, but in 1910, when the full effect of the duty was felt, it was reduced to 383, and in 1911 to 364. I know it is said this is all on account of the operations of the Imperial Tobacco Trust. I do not deny that the operations of the Trust have had a prejudicial effect on the workings of independent manufacturers, but the Trust has been in operation for a considerable number of years, and its natural effect seems to have touched bottom some years ago, because, although it was in operation for some time before 1907, in 1907–8–9 the number of manufacturers, licences was practically the same. There was a slight fall in 1909, and they were absolutely the same in 1907–8. What has happened is that the extra duties of 1909 have turned the scale, and the smaller manufacturers, working on a small margin, have not been able to hold their own. It has been the last straw which has broken their backs.
    I do not say a word against the Imperial Tobacco Trust. It was started at a time of great emergency in the trade, and they took no doubt what was their only means of self-protection, but taxation cannot be right which in its effect operates in favour of a great trust like this, and which does not give the smaller manufacturers a chance, as the diminishing figures show,
    3090
    I ask for relief in this Amendment. I ask for relief because the yield of the extra Tobacco Duty has been greater than was estimated at the time. The estimated yield was £2,000,000; last year it was £3,346,000. I know part of that increase is automatic, owing to the increase of population. But suppose 2 per cent, is allowed for that growth of population that leaves over half a million sterling to be accounted for. I hope that that will be taken into account and some remission given. To ask that the whole of the extra duty be taken off is to ask a great deal, but if the right hon. Gentleman would consent to take 2d. off it would be a great assistance and would give breathing space to those smaller firms which by the double pressure of the competition of larger rivals and open competition are in danger of being squeezed out. The difficulty would not be so very great. The right hon. Gentleman has a much greater margin than he anticipated and I make an appeal to him on behalf of this section of the trade.
    In the second part of my Amendment I ask that the Excise shall be reduced by one third. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will dissociate this particular case from the ordinary Tariff Reform case. Here we have a native industry and all I ask is that it shall not be strangled in its infancy. The ordinary objection to the difference between Customs and Excise is that it involves putting on a new Customs Duty. But here no such question arise, no revenue would be lost and it will be a long time before the tobacco growing industry can take anything like a firm hold if there is the actuality or even the prospect of a crushing Excise Duty, and there will never be any industry from which you can derive any Excise revenue. I want the Government to give it a chance in its babyhood; so to speak to gradually wean the tobacco until in the future it will be able to bear its fair share of taxation. I know there is a somewhat complicated system of grants and subsidies in the case of tobacco growing in Ireland. But that is not the best system. The tobacco growers want their industry to establish itself, and it is necessary, therefore, to give them confidence in the future, so that it may bear its fair burden of taxation and at the same time afford greater opportunities of employment. It is on these grounds that I move the Amendment.
    Major WHITE: I beg to second the Motion.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: I desire to say a few words on this Clause because db is a matter in which I have taken considerable interest for a great number of years. With what the hon. Gentleman said as to the advisability of encouraging the tobacco industry in Ireland, I am in thorough agreement. Hon. Members on both sides of the House would be very glad to see an industry growing up in Ireland which would give considerable employment to the people. But I think the hon. Gentleman was hardly fair in not stating exactly the position with regard to Irish-grown tobacco at the present time. Listening to his speech one would imagine that nothing at all had been done.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I did say that there had been special concessions and abatements, but the point I urged was that these were provisional and might be done away with, and that there was no confidence in the future.
    Mr. W. REDMOND: Listening to the hon. Member's speech one would imagine that, in spite of what he has just said, nothing had been done in recent times under the present Government to entourage this industry. That is not the case; something has been done. The hon. Gentleman, if he will forgive me for saying so, is somewhat late in the day in his advocacy of this industry in Ireland. His own party were in power for a great number of years when this industry was started, and yet they did not adopt the proposition which the hon. Gentleman now makes. I freely acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), when Chancellor of the Exchequer, in response to a request made to him by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Butcher) and myself and others interested in Ireland, did something in this matter, but he did not do what the right hon. Gentleman is now asking the House to do. He did not reduce the duty on Irish grown tobacco, but he made what the hon. Member complains of now, a temporary arrangement whereby a rebate of something like 1s. in the pound was given to the growers of tobacco in Ireland. That was a temporary expedient, but at the time it undoubtedly encouraged this industry. When the present Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer he continued that system, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, I do not say he did it himself, but he certainly recommended a more substantial encouragement to the industry than has yet been given.
    3092
    At present the rebate of Is. in the pound is to come to an end next year, and some time ago the tobacco growers were anxious to know what would happen when the number of years for which the rebate was given came to an end. An application was made by the tobacco growers in Ireland to the Development Commissioners, and a case was made to the Department of Agriculture in Ireland to help in regard to the industry, with the result that the Commissioners have recommended the grant of a sum of £35,000 for the growers in Ireland, to be extended over five years, with the understanding that a similar amount will be given for another five years if the industry showed that it was benefiting from this provision. That would amount to more, almost than what the hon. Gentleman proposes, and it is only fair that that should be stated. I quite agree that this matter ought not to be placed altogether on the same basis as Protection, broadly considered. This is a very special thing in Ireland, and it has special claims which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has acknowledged. The special claim of this industry is that it was one of those industries which was deliberately stamped out by Act of Parliament. Of all the extraordinary things which were done in the repression of trade in Ireland nothing was more extraordinary than the action of the House, in defiance of the entire public opinion in Ireland, passing an Act in the year 1831 to make it illegal to grow tobacco in the country, although it had been grown with very considerable success up to that.
    The party opposite was in power for a great number of years, but they never thought it worth while to repeal that Act. I do not remember hearing a single member of the party express any interest in the matter until it was brought forward by the Irish Members who secured its repeal. If the industry was put down by Act of Parliament it is clearly the duty of Parliament to make reparation by giving some encouragement to the resuscitation of the industry. I am not going to be led into the question of Free Trade and Protection. The hon. Member has very cleverly laid a trap for me to fall into, but I am not going to fall into it. Protection of the tobacco industry or of other industries in Ireland is a thing which, other things being equal, I should certainly approve of, but I am not going to sacrifice other and larger issues in order to vote in the Lobby with the hon. Member. He must forgive me if I am inclined to look with

    3093
    some suspicion on this new born interest in the industry of Ireland evinced by the hon. Member in regard to tobacco.
    The Development Commissioners, I hope, having taken this matter up, will see that it is properly dealt with and fair play given to the industry. What the hon Gentleman said about Irish tobacco growers does not at all tally with the information I have received. He says that tobacco growing in Ireland can never hope to compete with the foreign article and that it must always be subsidised. The growers have said over and over again that they can see their way quite clearly before them to build up this industry, upon its merits and make it succeed provided it is fairly started, and no one suggests that the industry is to continue in the future simply as a bounty fed industry. If it is once started, if Parliament undoes what it did when it suppressed this industry we believe it can be made to stand upon its own legs and it is upon that basis that we appeal to the Development Commissioners. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether it would not be possible in view of the trouble and expense caused to the growers by the Excise regulations to further extend the rebate which is given in respect to the Excise regulations already. The duty on tobacco in this country is 3s 8d. per lb., and in Ireland it is 3s. 6d., 2d. being allowed to growers in order to meet the expense that may be incurred by the regulations. It has been proved that this 2d. is not sufficient for the purpose, and while I do not expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer to go the length of reducing the duty as suggested in the new Clause, I do say that, having regard to all the trouble, annoyance, cost and inconvenience of the Excise regulations, he should consider whether he cannot extend the rebate from 2d. to 4d. per lb., because really that is necessary if the growers are not to be put to extra expense by the regulations which have been made. Further I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to continue the good work he has done in this matter. The Development Commissioners, so far as I know, have done their part. Having heard the case, they have recommended that the demand made by the Board of Agriculture should be granted. They have recommended a grant of £35,000 for the first five years. The matter now rests entirely with the Treasury.
    I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to assure us that the recommendation
    3094
    of the Development Commissioners will be carried out, and that the Treasury will advance this money in order to enable the area of tobacco growing in Ireland to be extended as proposed. Many members of this House during last summer visited some of the tobacco farms and were immensely pleased with what they saw. They are impressed with the possibilities of this trade, and they are in favour of its encouragement. I say quite frankly to the House that I for one would not ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do anything in this matter if I did not seriously believe that this industry, once it is fairly started, can stand on its own legs. We can produce tobacco in Ireland which, if not equal to that which comes from America, is of very good quality. There is no reason in the world why a large proportion of the rough tobacco consumed in Ireland and in this country should not be produced in Ireland by Irish labour. That is something which everybody would approve of, and I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he does not accept this Clause, to at any rate assure us that the Treasury will carry out the recommendation which the Development Commissioners made after full inquiry into the whole subject. This is a matter I have taken an interest in for a good many years.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: This Amendment is interesting, particularly because of the object stated by the hon. Gentleman who proposed it. As in most cases of Amendments of this description it is alleged that it is really for the sake of the poor people of the country, and in order that their luxuries should not be subjected to unfair duties. That is very interesting, but it was only a few nights ago that the Opposition including the hon. Gentleman who proposed this Amendment, allowed a Bill to go through applying to the Isle of Man, under which not only the duties in the Budget but additional duties are imposed. There is no member of this House representing any constituency in the Isle of Man, and therefore I take it for granted that is the real reason why additional duties are imposed in one part of His Majesty's dominions and reduced duties are proposed in others.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is the hon. Member aware that the duties imposed under the Isle of Man Customs Bill had been approved of by the Isle of Man Legislature before they came here?
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Yes, and they were approved of here without discussion.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: They have been confirmed here because they have got Home Rule.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: All I hope is that when similar proposals come from another place which will soon have Home Rule, they will have the same facilities given. But the hon. Member for Sheffield has admitted that the Import Duties on articles consumed by the working people of the country are paid by the working people of the country. That is a very illuminating proposition from the hon. Member, who is a very ardent Tariff Reformer. I am reminded of a circular issued in my own Constituency by the Tariff Reformers, I think in 1908. It was called "A word to smokers," and it said:—
    "Smokers, do you know how much tax you pay on every pipeful of tobacco you smoke? Suppose tobacco is 3d. an oz., you pay ½d. for the tobacco and 2½d. tax."
    That leaflet was issued to show how the foreigner pays Import Duties. I suggest to the hon. Member and his friends that lie will have to bring forward some other argument than that which he has given to-night to show that the duties do oppress the working people, or that the working people have clamoured for their removal. The hon. Member probably was right in suggesting that certain gentlemen engaged in the manipulation of this trade have made application to him and others for such reductions; but not with the intention of improving the working people or satisfying their grievances, because if the wealthy people are prepared to pay their share of the taxation of the country, the poor people are always prepared to pay theirs; and whether they are prepared or not, they will always have to pay the lion's share. At any rate, the argument of the hon. Member seems to me to be entirely wide of the mark. If it is admitted by the hon. Gentlemen opposite that those who consume an article do pay the Import Duties placed on that article, then we shall have made a very great step forward with the proposals that are considered as the first plank in the programme of hon. Gentlemen opposite, if ever they come into power. I should like to know what is the difference between a duty upon tobacco, or a duty on, say, fowl or bread, or anything else coming into the country? Is the economic effect different? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] And, if so, why? I mean so far as the consumer is concerned. I want to have some better illustration than the hon. Member has given that it is anyone else than the consumer who pays
    3096
    the Import Duties, and if the argument is correct in this case, why is it not correct in the others?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I rather deprecate the discussion which my hon. Friend has entered upon on the ground that I cannot think that it is quite relevant to the Amendment before the House. I shall certainly not pursue that line of argument, and I think the occasion for it is inopportune. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member he himself is quite prepared to admit that the Government could not face the reduction of the Tobacco Duty by the amount involved in his Amendment. The loss would be something like £3,000,000 of revenue, which would be effected by the reduction. That I certainly could not face, and I do not think the Government would be justified in accepting a proposal of that character. After all, it is a tax upon a luxury, and if indirect taxes are to be imposed at all, I cannot conceive of any tax which would be fairer to impose on the industrial population of this country than the tax on tobacco. The hon. Gentleman suggested that it had the effect of damaging the business and the profits of the smaller tobacco manufacturers of this country. I have never been convinced that the contention was justified.
    As a matter of fact, those powerful companies with capital at their disposal, with machinery at their command, with better arrangements, and with agencies established in every part of the world, and who are very powerful competitors, are bound sooner or later to affect a good many of their rivals who have not the capital to enable them to compete with them. After all the duty paid on tobacco is a duty which is paid by those great combinations as well as by the smaller traders. With regard to the second part of the Amendment, I think it will be admitted that the Government have done a great deal, and I think my hon. Friend will admit that. Up to the present a real advance has been made in Ireland. I stated last year, or the previous year, in answer to a Question or in Debate in the House, that if a real and genuine attempt is made in England or Scotland of the character that has been made in Ireland, it will be the duty of the Government to treat those experiments exactly in the same way as the Irish experiment has been treated. I still adhere to that pledge which was then

    3097
    given. I can only say to my hon. Friend that if the same demand is made for England or Scotland, I feel sure that the Development Commissioners would treat it in a generous spirit. I may also add that the hon. Member for Devizes has got an Amendment down in reference to tobacco grown in this country for agricultural purposes. I will accept an Amendment. I have already handed it to the hon. Member, and if he moves it in that form I hope I shall be able to accept it. That will be, I hope, some encouragement to the growth of tobacco, and with that assurance I trust the hon. Member for Sheffield will see that we are dealing with the matter in a sympathetic spirit, and have gone as far as we possibly can go.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I had no intention of taking part in this Debate until the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward) rose and made the speech which he delivered just now. I will not pursue that subject. I refrain with some difficulty, and I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give me credit for doing so. If I do not answer the observations of the hon. Member it is merely because of the arrangement come to between the two sides of the House last night, when in consequence of certain concessions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made, I promised I would do my best to facilitate the passage of the Bill. Under these circumstances I will confine my reply to the hon. Member to a single sentence, to say
    that he has shown himself as ignorant of the elements of economics as he has of the Constitution of the Isle of Man.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to make an attack on. my hon. Friend without a word of protest. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward), was perfectly clear. He said, why, if you are Tariff Reformers at all, do you now ask to reduce the duty on tobacco in order that the consumer may get it cheaper, when you say that if we put a duty on goods the consumer will not pay the tax? That is a perfectly simple conundrum, and one which they have never been able to answer.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On a point of Order. I submit that a discussion upon tariffs and upon the effect of tariffs is not relevant to the proposal which is before the House.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is too small a point to bear so large a burden.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I will not pursue the subject. I am very much obliged to you, Sir, for giving me the opportunity to reply to the right hon. Gentleman, who made an absolutely unfounded attack on my hon. Friend.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 104; Noes, 201.

    Division No. 209.]

    AYES.

    [12.0 m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Fleming, Valentine

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Newman, John R. P.

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Baird, J. L.

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Parkes, Ebenezer

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

    Grant, J. A.

    Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gretton, John

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

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Barnston, H.

    Hamersley, A. St. George

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

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

    Rawson, Colonel R. H.

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Boyton, J.

    Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

    Royds, Edmund

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

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

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Cassel, Felix

    Kerry, Earl of

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Cator, John

    Knight, Captain E. A.

    Sandys, G. J.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Stanier, Beville

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Starkey, John R.

    Chambers, James

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

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Lloyd, G. A.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

    Mackinder, H. J.

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Macmaster, Donald

    Thynne, Lord A.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Touche, George Alexander

    Falle, B. G.

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

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

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

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

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Wood, John (Stalybrldge)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Worthlngton-Evans, L.

    James Hope and Major D. White.

    Winterton, Earl

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

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

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

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

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Malley, William

    Adamson, William

    Hayden, John Patrick

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

    Armitage, Robert

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

    O'Shee, James John

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Hodge, John

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

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

    Hogge, James Myles

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Pointer, Joseph

    Black, Arthur W.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Boland, John Plus

    Hudson, Walter

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

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

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    John, Edward Thomas

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Brady, P. J.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk)

    Joyce, Michael

    Reddy, Michael

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Keating, M.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Richards, Thomas

    Clough, William

    Kilbride, Denis

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Clynes, J. R.

    King, J.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon,S.Molton)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Leach, Charles

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Crooks, William

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Rowlands, James

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lundon, Thomas

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Cuillnan, John

    Lyeil, Charles Henry

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

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

    Dawes, J. A.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Sheehy, David

    De Forest, Baron

    Maclean, Donald

    Shortt, E.

    Delany, William

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

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Dillon, John

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Sutton, John E.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Duffy, William J.

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Tennant, Harold John

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

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

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Wadsworth, J.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Molloy, M.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Ffrench, Peter

    Mooney, J. J.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Field, William

    Morgan, George Hay

    Webb, H.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Morison, Hector

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Muldoon, John

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Munro, R.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Gill, A. H.

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Glanville, H. J.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Norman, Sir Henry

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

    Hackett, J.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    Hancock, J. G.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    OGrady, James

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Preferential Duties on Wines the Product of and Imported from His Majesty's Dominions.)
    The duties of Customs payable upon wine which is entirely the product of, and is imported into Great Britain or Ireland
    3100
    from, any part of His Majesty's dominions shall be subject to the following reductions, that is to say:—
    Not exceeding 30 degrees of proof spirit, the gallon, 9d. in lieu of 1s. 3d.
    Exceeding 30, but not exceeding 42 degrees of proof spirit, the gallon, 2s. in lieu of 3s.
    and Section two of the Finance Act, 1899, shall, as from the passing of this Act, take effect subject to the provisions of this Section.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: I beg to move that the Clause be read a second time.
    This particular matter has not been debated in this House since 1899. The late Sir Howard Vincent's Amendment gave the power to exempt British Empire-grown wines from increased duties. Since then the subject has been brought up at the Colonial Conference of 1907. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a very notable statement, which I have no doubt he has repeated to this House in relation to Tariff Reform. He said:—
    "We heartily concur in the view that has been presented by the Colonial Minister that the Empire would be a great gainer if much of the products now purchased from foreign countries could be produced and purchased within the Empire."
    Dr. Jameson said:—
    "Since the reduction of the duties in 1860 the Cape has developed enormously. We are producing infinitely better wine, and if we get a preference on Cape wine it would give an enormous impetus to one of our most important interests in Cape Colony."
    The principle of a preference on wine has been adopted by Australia, which itself grows wine largely. They give Is. preference upon brandy imported from the Cape. Canada also gives a preference to Cape wines. In this country we used to give a preference to wines grown at the Cape. The preference was as great as 2s. 11d. per gallon. The duty was 5s. 9½d. for foreign wines, and 2s. 10½d. for Colonial wines. In 1860 Mr. Gladstone made it 3s. on foreign wines, the 2s. 10½d. remaining on Colonial wines. He reduced it again in 1861, then the rates were flattened out, and ever since they have been the same, and no preference has been granted to wines grown within the British Empire. It is interesting to observe the figures of the wine grown within the British Empire. They have gone down steadily since the preference was abolished. In 1825 we used to import a great deal more wine from the Cape of Good Hope than from France. We imported 670,000 gallons from the Cape as against 525,000 from France; in 1837, 500,000 gallons as against 439,000 from France; in 1858 we imported 634,000 as against 623,000 gallons from France. Directly we abolished Preferential Duty upon Cape wine the result was an enor-
    3102
    mous increase in the importation of French, wine and a great diminution in the importation of Cape wine. To-day we import 3,500,000 gallons of French wine as against 3,000 gallons of Cape wine. During the last few years trade with Australia in. wine has grown to a very large extent, and last year we imported nearly one third as much wine from Australia as from France.
    If we import so much wine as that from Australia without a Preferential Duty the-case seems perfectly clear for a preference, because here is a case where there would be hardly any loss to the revenue. The amount collected on Australian wine last year was £50,000. By the proposal in this new Clause the duty would be reduced by two-fifths, and that would mean a reduction if there was no increase in importation of Australian wine of £20,000 in the revenue; but as wine from Australia could be sold in very much larger quantities, the-loss to the revenue would not amount to-anything like that figure I mentioned. There is no question of Protection or Free-Trade in this case because wine is not produced in this country, and we would be giving a preference to an existing industry in our own dominions. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have been very keen during the last few weeks in getting the dominions to help us in our defences, and they know perfectly well the dominions are asking us-to give a preference in our markets here to one of the very few articles in which we can give a preference. I also ventured to-put this case to hon. Members opposite from a temperance point of view. It would be a very good thing to promote the sale of light alcoholic drinks like claret and hock rather than heavy wines and brandies. That is a matter that can be defended from the temperance side as well as from the preferential side. I would therefore ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he cannot make some concession this year at any rate to look upon it with a favourable eye in next year's Finance Bill.
    Mr. G. LLOYD: I beg to second the Motion.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the hon. and gallant Member is wrong in assuming that there has not been a discussion on this tax since 1899. My recollection is that there was a discussion upon it during the Debate on the Address not many years ago, and it was discussed at considerable length. I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument that this is not

    3103
    quite in the same category as duties on some other articles he has mentioned, but I think he has exaggerated the effect his proposal will have. There are 800,000 gallons of Australian wines consumed in this country out of a total of 12,000,000 gallons imported from the Colonies and from France and other countries. I do not want to say anything about the relative merits of Australian and French wines, but I do not think that the slight preference he gives to Australian wines would make any considerable difference in the quantity consumed in this country. Anybody who has been at the Board of Trade knows that questions are constantly arising with regard to duties on wines from France as well as from Australia and I have no doubt that the whole scale will have to be reconsidered. I think it is a mistake to insert in the Finance Bill a proposal of this kind with reference to the general scale and the effect it will have upon our treaties with Portugal, Spain and France. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not with Portugal."] We have not exactly a treaty with Portugal, but she is pressing very hard for a reduction of the duties on her wines. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman opposite knows how difficult it is to revise the wine scale, because while you may be granting relief to one country you may be inflicting injury on another country. The real difficulty is the position of French wines, and naturally they are very sensitive about any change which would be detrimental to their interests. When we deal with these duties we ought to deal with the whole of the problem, and I should be very sorry to attempt to do it in this piece-meal fashion.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I only wish to express my views on the points raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The effect of this proposal on the sale and consumption of Colonial wines probably would be much greater than the right hon. Gentleman anticipates, bearing in mind that after all this is a port drinking country and Scotland was made to drink port by the effect of tariffs. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, claret."] Does the hon. Member not recollect the famous lines:
    "Firm and erect the Caledonian stood,
    Old was his claret and his mutton good.
    'Let him drink port,' the Saxon statesman cried,
    He drank the poison and his spirit died."
    Mr. Pitt made them drink port, and you will find, if you choose to read the memoirs of the time, how port came in and took the place of claret, just as earlier it had
    3104
    come into England in consequence of our political and commercial relations with Portugal. I think the effect of the preference would be greater than the right hon. Gentleman supposes. The second observation I have to make is that any rearrangement of the duties on foreign wines adversely affecting one foreign nation as compared with another is no doubt a very delicate operation in regard to which you might have difficult negotiations with foreign countries, but I entirely decline to recognise the right of foreign countries to remonstrate with us about the internal fiscal arrangements of the British Empire. They have no more right to object to our admitting Australian or Cape wine free if we like than we have to object to Portugese wine passing from one part of Portugal to another, or French wine passing from one province of France to another, or German wine passing from one part of Germany to another. That is purely a domestic subject for the British Empire and for no one else to meddle, and whenever it is said in this House that we are not to arrange the internal economy of the British Empire as we please for fear of remonstrances from foreign countries, I shall enter my protest against it.
    Question, "That the Clause be now read a second time," put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision for Abatement in Cases of Frequent Succession.)
    In the case of property of any person dying on or after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and twelve, passing to a wife or a husband or a lineal descendant, or a brother or a sister, or a father or a mother, or an uncle or an aunt, such property shall, if during any time during the ten years next succeeding it again pass by death to any successor in title of the relationship above mentioned, become liable only to a reduced rate of Estate Duty calculated on the following basis: If the property pass in the same year in which duty has already become leviable there shall be chargeable only one-tenth of the amount leviable under Section one of the Finance Act, 1894, or any Amendment thereof; if in the second year two-tenths; and so on for each additional year an extra tenth of the amount chargeable under the said Section until the limit of abatement is reached.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. S. ROBERTS: I postponed this Clause last night for the convenience of

    3105
    the Committee, but I wish to move it now so as to keep this important subject before the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is no new subject. It was dealt with at the time of the Harcourt Duties in 1894, and I myself moved a similar Clause three years ago. Sir Samuel Evans then replied, and the only reasons he gave for refusing to accept this Clause were that the Government could not afford the money, and that death and death alone must be the principle with which the tax is paid. It is unjust that the tax should be extracted from the same property, it may be, every year. The recognised basis of the Death Duties, I believe, is that they should be taken on about an average of a generation is just over twenty-five years, but under present circumstances cases of hardship occur where a family property can be entirely taken away if death occurs frequently.
    There was a case in Scotland a few years ago where a family had been in occupation of their property for 300 years. The owner had been very anxious to develop his estate, and to give employment. He died, and the property devolved on his eldest son and Estate Duty was paid. The eldest son died within three years of his father. The estate passed to the second son who found himself in this position. He had the jointures of two widows to pay and he was so hampered in financial matters that he had to give up living there not only to the disadvantage of himself but also to the very great disadvantage of the people in the neighbourhood, for a very large number of persons had been employed in plantation work and they lost their employment. It was, therefore, not only a family grievance but also a question of public policy. Next take the case of a business in which a man's whole capital is invested. The owner dies. The business passes to the son, and Death Duty is of course paid. The son dies and Death Duty has to be paid again out of the business with the result probably that that has to be wound up altogether. Here again you have a grievance not only on the part of the individual but also on the part of the public, which loses by the discontinuance of the business.
    The question has got more acute in consequence of the steepening of the Death Duties. If it mattered in the old days it is a far more important matter to-day that some remission should be made. I find that before Harcourt's scale was instituted, in the year ending March, 1894, the
    3106
    total net yield of Death Duties, including legacy, succession and Probate Duties, amounted to £9,941,000. When the present Government came into office in 1906 the yield for the Harcourt Duties had risen to £17,344,000 but in the twelve months ending March last the total yield had increased to over £25,182,000 and that represents the sum we are now yearly taking from the nation's capital which has been accumulated by the industry of the people. That amount is being taken year by year by the State from the population and from individuals, and I say that from the point of view of public policy some provision ought to be made by which some reasonable abatement can be allowed in the case of deaths occuring within a certain period. I am not pledged to the plan I have ventured to put down on the paper. My suggestion is simply that there should be an abatement in cases where the death occurs within ten years of the payment of death duties, and that that abatement should be a decreasing abatement from nine-tenths in the event of the death occurring in the same year, with a proportionate abatement year by year until after ten years, the full duty again becomes payable. The recognised period is twenty-five years—a generation, but my proposal only provides for an abatement up to ten years. I do not expect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to accept my Amendment to-night, but I bring it forward in order to keep this question before the attention of the Government in the hope that next 3pear the right hon. Gentleman will have this grievance in mind, and make the much-needed provision for it. They are exceedingly hard cases, and I think they are hard cases which ought to be remedied.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think I am right in saying that this is an old and hardy annual. It is one of those questions which, when they come before us at first sight look like real grievances which stand in need of redress. What, however, is the other side of this state of things? I think it will be found, although I cannot speak with the same experience as the hon. Gentleman, that he has only put one side of the case. I do not say that he did not present the side which he did present clearly and fairly, but I think he should put something on the other side. What happens in these cases? It means that a man has come into property

    3107
    sooner than he would ordinarily have expected to do so. Take the case the hon. Member has given. The father dies, and the whole business devolves upon the eldest son. That son dies; it is an unexpected death, and the second son who would not have a right or an expectation to come into the property comes into it in the course of a year or two. I do not agree with the hon. Member that considerable property would not come to him in that case.
    Mr. S. ROBERTS: The property, as I have said, probably disappears altogether.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It would not disappear altogether. I want to point out that the man, to whom in the ordinary course the property would not come, when he would have no right to expect that property at all, gets it. It is hard to talk about a case like that as a hard case. From the point of view of property, it is more like a piece of luck. When a man gets property when he has no right in the ordinary expectation to get it, I do not think it is too much to ask him to pay a contribution to the State. In this case there is also the extraordinary difficulty in tracing the assets. If it was land you could do so, perhaps more easily, but you could not do it with a business. How are you to say that the property which came to the third man is exactly the same as was left by the first?
    Mr. S. ROBERTS: Because the owners would be the same.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It would be very difficult for the State to check it, With regard to land you might do it, but it would be difficult with regard to a business or any sort of personality to do it satisfactorily. Then there is my third argument against you. If you are to give an abatement calculated on the number of years, how are you going to give it at the other end of the scale where there elapses more than a generation, where the time between the collection of the duty is abnormal? Is the amount going to be doubled in that case? Unless it is, the State suffers. It is hit all round. The individual gets the advantage in cases where the person comes into property which he had no right in the ordinary course to expect. I think if the hon. Member will investigate the cases he will find there is no real grievance. I have seen a good many of those cases and most of them are cases in which a man gets
    3108
    property which he never expected to get. and often he is very glad to pay the Death Duties.
    Proposed Clause put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Extension of Time, for Objection to Provisional Valuation.)
    It is hereby declared that, for the purposes of Section 27, Sub-section (2). of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, the words "the first claim for Increment Value Duty or Undeveloped Land Duty" shall be inserted in place of the words "the copy of the provisional valuation," and this Section shall be amended accordingly.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. ROYDS: In moving this Clause, I have to apologise for asking the House to deal with the comparatively dry subject of valuation. Under Section 27 of the Finance Act of 1910 objections to provisional valuations may be sent in after sixteen days from the service of the valuation. By Section 33 an appeal cannot be if an objection is not sent in at the time. The object of my Amendment is to extend the time within which objections may be sent in up to the assessment of the owner of the land. Nine-tenths of the land of this country consists of agricultural land, and nine-tenths of the objections which are made to provisional valuations are objections in respect to the site value of land, not market value, which is comparatively easy to ascertain. The objections to site values are in the main, objections to the refusal of the Commissioners to give credit for improvements in the nature of drainage, embankments, stone walls, dock works, reclamation, and so forth. If owners of agricultural land make this objection, they are met with the answer from the Inland Revenue that this objection cannot under any circumstances be entertained by reason of the construction placed upon the provisions of the Finance Act of 1910. The fact is that the whole of the agricultural land of this country is being valued as regards site value without any reference to the deductions for improvements made by the owners or their predecessors. In other words, totally false site values, fictitious values for agricultural land in this country are now being ascertained. I think under these circumstances there is no justification whatever for Parliament allowing this expenditure of money to ascertain a false site value.

    3109
    The object of the Finance Act as regards the Valuation Clauses was to ascertain the true market value and the true site value. I do not suggest that true market value is not ascertained, but I do say that the true site value of nine-tenths of the land of the country is not ascertained under the present conditions, as interpreted by the Government and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. I should like to put a plain question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Does he think that under present conditions the owners of land which is agricultural have no right to have credit for any improvements of the nature I have mentioned? Does he not think that unless that is done, it is not possible to ascertain the true site value of agricultural land? If he does not, what justification is there for the valuation proceeding until the law is amended? The improvements which are not allowed, are improvements of a nature which have themselves created the agricultural land or created the industry which is carried on upon the land. I have read through the Debates of 1909 when this question of deductions was considered. I tried to find out how it was that Clause 25 of the Finance Act came to be framed in this way. One feature stands out perfectly clearly in those discussions, namely, that hon. Members on both sides of the House, and hon. Members on the Irish Benches interested in agriculture, moved Amendments after Amendments in order to make sure that these deductions should be allowed, and that the true site value of agricultural land should be ascertained, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer over and over again assured the House that under the Amendment which he introduced at the end of Clause 25 those allowances were right.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman seems to me to be raising quite a different issue. This is a very narrow issue. It is the question of whether there should be an extension of time for the provisional valuation until the occasion arises, but the hon. Gentleman is raising the whole question of deductions upon agricultural land, and the merits of the Budget upon that subject. That has nothing to do with the question of the extension of time for the provisional valuation.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think that is so. I have just been looking up the Section and cannot follow the hon. Gentleman. The title of his own new Clause is: "Extension
    3110
    of time for objection to provisional valuation." The hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to that.
    Mr. ROYDS: My object is this. At the present time in the case of owners of agricultural land site values are being inaccurately ascertained. The reason they have been inaccurately ascertained is because they are not allowed these deductions. The object of this Clause is to enable owners of agricultural land to formulate their objections later on, and until these objections are formulated no final valuation of agricultural land can therefore be made. I think it is the only course that I could suggest should be pursued under the circumstances. I venture to think I am perfectly in order. I am giving the reasons why further time should be given for agricultural owners to formulate their objections.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member was not confining himself to that. On the assumption that the deductions are improperly made the hon. Member is entitled to found the argument that owners ought to have more time. That would be strictly relevant.
    Mr. ROYDS: In order to argue that owners of land should have more time, I thought it only right that I should show the House that when these Clauses were under discussion the Chancellor of the Exchequer assured the House that owners of agricultural land would have time to make these objections, and that they would have every opportunity of making them. I was anxious to show, therefore, that, on the construction of the Finance Act as taken by the Government, they were not able at the present time to make their objections. In that connection I would like to mention in particular a discussion which comes to the point at, once. It took place on 12th August, 1909. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, the then Leader of the Opposition, said:—
    "What the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, wants, is this: that where a landlord has spent money for the purpose of improving the land, very often creating land for either agricultural or building purposes, he should get full credit, not merely for expenditure, but for the value created thereby."
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is again arguing the point as to how the site value is to be fixed. That is not raised by this Clause at all. The only question raised now is whether the landowner has or has not got sufficient time to state his objection. If the hon. Mem-

    3111
    ber can show that the owner has not sufficient time, he can produce some arguments.
    Mr. ROYDS: What I am endeavouring to show is that the landowner at the present time is not able to state his objections at all. It is not only that he has not time, but he is absolutely precluded from making them under any circumstances whatever. That is the construction placed on the Section by the Government.
    Mr. SPEAKER: If an extension of time is desired the owner must have some ground for wishing the extension.
    Mr. ROYDS: The Finance Act of course says that owners of land, if they wish to formulate objections, must make those objections within 60 days after the provisional valuation has been served, but when the owners of agricultural land make those objection within the 60 days they are met with the answer from the Government that the objections cannot be considered because they are not authorised to be considered by the Finance Act of 1910. I therefore ask for an extension of time so that the law may be amended before any final valuation is made of agricultural land as regards site value. The Chancellor of the Exchequer smiles, but I think it is a most serious subject, and I shall ask him to deal with it seriously. This seems to me to be the only form in which I can raise the question. If I cannot raise it in this way, false values of agricultural land must be recorded in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Domesday Book, and I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman, when he rises in his place, will not be able to tell me that even in his opinion it is possible under the present conditions to arrive at the true site value of agricultural land when no allowance whatever is made for the improvements as he promised.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must again point out that that is not the question.
    Mr. ROYDS: I do not know that under the circumstances I can say any more. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I know it is exceedingly disagreeable to hon. Members to have this fact disclosed, but I am very glad of the opportunity of discussing it before we separate. I think it is an absolute scandal that this valuation should be allowed to proceed on the present basis.
    Mr. HICKS BEACH: I beg to second this new Clause, and I do so on a slightly different ground from that of my hon. Friend. I wish to have an extension of time given during which objection may be made to provisional valuation, chiefly on account of small owners of property. A great many small owners have had this provisional valuation made upon their property, and when they received it they had not the least idea what it really meant, and they did not begin to realise that this provisional valuation really meant something until a demand was made upon them either for Increment Duty or Undeveloped Land Duty, and the real object of this Clause is to grant an extension of time for making objections between the provisional valuation and the demand. I do not think this will in any way cause injury to the revenue provided the provisional valuation has been properly made in the first instance, but I do submit that there is a very considerable hardship on the small owner if he does not understand what this provisional valuation really is, and it is only when some demand is made upon his purse that he appreciates its full meaning. I do ask, therefore, on behalf of small owners, that this demand may be granted.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I consider that this is really a perfectly fantastical Clause, and the only excuse I can see for moving it is that the hon. Gentleman clearly did not understand it. There was not a single word of his speech which was germane to his proposal, and the only relevant suggestion was made by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Hicks Beach), with whose observations on the subject I will deal presently. What does this Clause propose? It proposes that there shall be no valuation except a provisional one until an occasion arises. Let the House mark what that may mean. An occasion may not arise for forty or fifty years, and it follows that you may not have a settled valuation for fifty or sixty years. Therefore, when the occasion arose you would have to go back and ascertain what the value of the property was fifty or sixty years earlier. I repeat that the hon. Gentleman clearly did not understand the Clause he proposed. I did not hear a single syllable in his speech which indicated that he had the faintest appreciation of the Amendment he has put down. I now come to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tewkesbury, and I am bound to say that he did make a relevant observation on the question of

    3113
    the extension of time. He very wisely did not commend this particular Clause, but he confined himself to stating that there was ground for an extension of time, especially in regard to small holdings. I think the hon. Gentleman will find if he looks at the statute that there is a provision in the Act of 1909 for an extension of time. It is always, I am assured, granted whenever there is any reasonable ground. For example, if a man said he was not in a position to present an appeal for reasons which on the face of them appear to be reasonable, then an extension of time is invariably granted. I am assured that this is interpreted very liberally and indulgently, and I am not sure that I have ever heard of more than one case where a refusal was made. The case I refer to was that of a very large owner of property who asked for a most unreasonable extension of time, because he said it was impossible for his agent to deal with all these valuations, as he had other things to do.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend's point is perfectly clear. I am not going to deal with the question of the extension allowed in the Act, which is purely that if you know you have a case on which to appeal and cannot present your appeal in time then, on due cause being shown, the Commissioners may grant you extra time. There have been cases in which we have had to make some criticism about the refusal to consider a point raised by a taxpayer, but I am not going into that now. There are, however, great numbers of small holders who have not the least conception of the meaning of the valuation and of the method of raising the tax on the valuation. Moreover they do not perceive what the effects of the valuation will be until the tax is raised. It is then they begin to see if an assessment is unjust or unfair, and it is then that my hon. Friend asks that they should have a right to appeal. Of course it is much more difficult to find out what the value of land was forty years ago than to find out what is its value to-day, but that all tells against the landowner who has let the original opportunity for appeal go by. I do not think when a few years had elapsed you would have many appeals, but I do think that in the earlier years you would have a considerable number of well founded appeals against an injustice which had been allowed to pass.
    Mr. HICKS BEACH: May I suggest that the Inland Revenue Department should issue a second notice after the provisional valuation has been served and before the period of sixty day expires. That would give the owner a reminder that the sixty days were drawing to a close, and that unless he raised any objections before that time expired his opportunity would have gone. I think the Government will admit that this would not be a very heavy duty to cast upon the Inland Revenue authorities and it would certainly be of some service.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will undertake to consider that.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and negatived.
    Mr. HICKS BEACH Mr. HICKS BEACH had on the Order Paper the following proposed Clause:
    Sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, shall read as if the words "and gates and gateposts, stone walls and post and rail fences, land drains and sea walls" were added to the end of the Sub-section.
    Mr. SPEAKER: This Clause is out of order, because it would impose new taxation.
    Mr. HICKS BEACH: With great respect, Sir, this Clause only deals with the valuation of agricultural land, and so long as agricultural land is not charged for Increment Value Duty or Undeveloped Land Duty, there could be no increase of taxation.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It may become building land.
    Mr. HICKS BEACH: Then this would not apply.
    Mr. SPEAKER: If you make these reductions, you will lower the datum line. There may come a time when the land to which the datum line refers may be sold and pass out of the category of agricultural land into that of building land. The effect of that datum line having been lowered will be to increase the Increment Value Duty. It will add to the taxation of some people, and that fact precludes us from dealing with it on the Report stage.
    Mr. ROYDS: My hon. Friend (Mr. Hicks Beach) said that Increment Value Duty and Undeveloped Land Duty are not payable while land is agricultural land. I suggest that when it gets out of that

    3115
    category and duties become payable, if a lower datum line had been fixed while it was agricultural land it would not have the effect of lowering the duty under the Finance Act when the agricultural land became building land. A new condition of things altogether would then obtain, and a new datum line is fixed.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That makes no difference.
    1.0 A.M.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is not the set of works which is provided for in the Clause. It is an independent set of works.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption of Allotments, Nursery, and Market Gardens from Undeveloped Land Duty).
    It is hereby declared that for the purposes of Part I. of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged on the site value of any land which is bonâ fide used and occupied for the purpose of allotments, nursery, or market gardens.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. NEWMAN: I beg to move this new Clause. For the third year in succession, I have to move it. It is a genuine misfortune that this important Clause dealing with a large class in the community should not be reached until the eve of the adjournment at an early hour in the morning. I have looked up what I said last year, and what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in reply to me, and I notice that he got me into a cleft stick very soon. I suggested that these taxes dealt very unfairly with market gardeners and those who work allotments. At the same time I rather rashly said that only £2,000 had been collected in respect to Undeveloped Land Duty. "Why did I complain of the tax," said the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "when it produced nothing." I can say that the tax went up this year to £28,947, and therefore it is more oppressive than it was last year, and I am sure the Chancellor of the Ex-chequed will be able to say that it will in future realise still more. I do not want to waste time upon arguments of that sort, but I want to appeal to the broad sense of justice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Members of this House. It is obvious that around every large city there must be building land which has a
    3116
    building value, actual or expected. When you come to take the value of the land, you will find cases; take a market gardener in my Division, ten miles from here, who has a plot. If you capitalise the value of that at £5 per acre at twenty-five years' purchase, you will get £125. At the same time that particular acre of land has a building value which is a great deal more than £125, something like £300 an acre. On that difference ½d. in the £ must be paid by somebody.
    My contention is that where the building land has been bonâ fide used for a great industry, like market gardening, nurseries, or allotments, that id. should not be payable. I know there are Members of this House who have an obsession about taxation of land values. I make no appeal to them. If they take an omnibus for 7d. to this particular land, there they can see this market garden. According to them every market garden is owned by a marquis, and every plot of vacant land is held up by some speculator. As they take their drives, they see crowded streets, and they say that were these people allowed to use the vacant land to provide houses there would not be this overcrowding, and it would all be reformed if it were not opposed by some marquis. Now I want to make an earnest appeal to the impartial man who has no prejudices of that kind. I ask such men to come out to these lands and see for themselves how things are. You may see a little bit of land almost ripe for building purposes, and it is lying idle. It is not paying what it ought to pay to the local rates. But that is only a small proportion of the building land; the vast majority of it is well cultivated; it is put to the best possible use as market gardens or allotments.
    Only a few weeks back I saw a piece of vacant land almost ripe for building growing thistles. Within 200 yards of that I saw a cricket and tennis ground with numbers of young people on it, and about 200 yards from that again I saw two acres of allotments. By what possible process of justice can you bring these three bits of land together? The vacant land of course has to pay the Undeveloped Land Duty. If that went to the relief of the rates of the district I would have nothing to say. There may be some justice in allowing the cricket and lawn tennis ground to escape; it may add something to the amenity of the district and make residence there more attractive, but even in that case it might be fairly said

    3117
    to these young people that they should go a little further out and pay 1d. or 2d. on the tram and allow this land to be built upon, so that people might get away from the slums into a more healthy spot. As a matter of fact the tennis ground escapes free. The allotment ground was equally crowded with people who were trying to get recreation, but that allotment is taxed. I say that is absolutely unjust. You may tax undeveloped land, if there is really a good case. If the community likes let it tax the cricket ground and the allotments; I mean the locality and not the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But in the present conditions the allotment should not be taxed, nor should land used for market gardens or for nurseries. These men work very hard and it is unfair to put a tax upon them. They have to face severe competition from abroad. I do not go about the country trying to make the Chancellor of the Exchequer popular, but if he wants to make himself popular let him take the tax off these market gardens and allotments. At any rate he will become more popular than he is at the present moment.
    Mr. W. PEEL: I beg to second the Motion.
    As regards the product of the tax, no doubt the yield of the Undeveloped Land Duty has not been very high but it is oppressive from the point of view of these holders of allotments and market gardens. The landlord is not liable to pay taxes on it if he uses it for any other trade business or industry excepting agriculture. Therefore it is a specially penal clause upon agriculture carried on by these people outside the towns. It is a tax on the business of the horticulturist and market gardener and it is a tax upon food. It singles out the agriculturist and the horticulturist and I want to make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give exemption to these classes which would not cost much to the Exchequer but would give great relief to these deserving and industrious people.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Three times I have had to resist this particular Amendment, and I cannot flatter myself I have anything new to say on the subject, although I have not looked up my former utterances. The hon. Gentleman who moved this new Clause gave the House to assume that no concessions at all had been made under this Act for market gardens, and the hon. Gentleman who seconded said this was a
    3118
    penal tax upon market gardeners. So far from that being the case, the Act as it stands at present exempts the full agricultural value of the market garden from any Undeveloped Land Tax at all, and the. only case in which the Undeveloped Land Tax arises is when the building value is greater than the full agricultural value of the place as a market garden, and then the Tax is only a halfpenny in the £ for the excess over the full agricultural value. The hon. Gentleman might have mentioned that the tax is a tax on the landlord and not on the tenant, and the landlord who is deriving a specially large rent for his land owing to its proximity to the town. He also omitted to mention that we have been so careful of the interests of the small owner in the matter that in the case of any land owned by a small owner less than £500 in value it is altogether exempted from the Undeveloped Land Duty. Of course, there are two fundamental objections to the Amendment. The first is that it opens unlimited opportunity for the deliberate evasion of the tax. A man who has a site in the midst of a city worth many thousands of pounds per acre, and who is waiting for that site to ripen, has only to convert it into an allotment or make some plantation of vegetables in order immediately to get out of the tax altogether. [An HON. MEMBER: "Bonâ fide."] He will have no difficulty in proving his bona fides. The second reason is the reason which is fundamental to this Undeveloped Land Tax, that it is imposed on capital values which are increasing in the neighbourhood of a town in which the landlord allows his land to increase in value and contributes nothing either to the rates or the taxes for that increase in value.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It may be or may not be.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: In the great majority of cases it is in that particular belt, which the hon. Gentleman has described, in the neighbourhood of a town where artificial values have been heaped up owing to the town spreading out to market gardens and ultimately absorbing them. Therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that in each case belts in the neighbourhood of towns are being greatly increased in value and accordingly come under the Undeveloped Land Tax. Under these conditions it is a tax which is being laid on an increasing capital value owing to the development of

    3119
    the town, and which would otherwise pay nothing either to the Imperial Exchequer or to the town which is making this progress. Under these circumstances I think this is one of the fairest and most just taxes ever imposed.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman has not made a single statement which is not open to dispute, and even to disproof. There is nothing in the Act as to any necessity for this land to increase in value in order to become taxable. It may have been stationary in value for many years, and may be so for many years to come, and yet is liable for the tax. I could go through all his other statements in the same way if it were not for the time of the morning.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should like to say a few words as representing perhaps the largest market garden constituency in the kingdom, namely, Brentford. I venture to suggest to the Government that market gardens are of the highest forms of development. The object of the Undeveloped Land Tax was to secure the highest development of the land, and I venture to suggest from an economic point of view, and from the point of view of employment, market gardens and allotments are really much more beneficial to the real development of land for the State even than buildings. That may be possibly the case in the belts surrounding our large cities, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary to the Treasury would go down to Brentford and Hounslow he would see there that intensive form of cultivation which is quite as high a development as building cheap cottages to which use this land would be put. I remember that one suggestion, made during the Debates of 1909, was that this tax might possibly have the effect of diverting land from allotments to building land.
    I will give one instance in my own personal knowledge where this has occurred. A series of allotments were promoted to the great benefit of the labouring population near a town upon land which was worth for building purposes £500 per acre and could have been sold at that price. The Undeveloped Land Tax upon that would be about £1 an acre annually. That land was let for allotments at £1 an acre, and I had the honour of collecting the rents. The owner was faced with this position, that if he continued
    3120
    to let his land in allotments to the great benefit of the labouring population of the town he would have to pay the whole of his rent in Undeveloped Land Tax. What was the result? I was bound to advise him: "You must get rid of these allotments and drive these working men further out of the town so that they will have to go to their allotments by tram or tramp it, and you must put up the land for building purposes." That is exactly what has happened. The labouring population in this instance—and I am quite willing to give the name of the owner—has been driven further out, and the land has been sold for building purposes. The owner of the land benefits and the working population in that town are the only people who suffer. I venture to suggest that instances of that kind can doubtless be multiplied many hundredfold throughout the country, and I therefore think the Chancellor of the Exchequer might give a little more attention to this Clause than the Secretary to the Treasury seems to have done.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Just one word, especially in view of the statement made by the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House with reference to the constituency he represents. I know personally a gentleman interested in building operations who was offered a very big price for some of that land which is being held up at the present time. I could give the hon. Member privately some definite information and facts relating to what I am now speaking about. I can give him a case in point concerning one of the very market gardens he may have in his mind where offers have been made, owing to the-fact that land is required for building purposes, of as much as £50 and £56 for a plot of land only seventy-five feet deep and nine feet frontage, and you will see what an enormous value that land has obtained owing to the development and crowding of houses. Yet the owner holds it up because he hopes to get considerably more. I should have thought that that was the kind of land that really ought to have the tax placed upon it.
    Mr. PETO: I want to point out one instance of what I can only term the absurd way in which this Undeveloped Land Tax operates at present. The case-I want to point out is not a playground open to the public, but a lawn tennis ground run for a profit.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Lawn tennis grounds-do not arise under this Clause.
    Mr. PETO: I was only mentioning that as a contrast to the allotment ground which is taxed, and if I cannot make the point as to what is not taxed in order to show that allotments ought not to be taxed, it is impossible, of course, for me to give the illustration I wish. It seemed to me that it is entirely to the point. However, I have said all I wished to indicate, namely, that it is not only ground to which the public have access that is not taxed, but even a lawn tennis ground run at a profit. I do not complain that it is exempt, but if such a thing as that is exempt it is surely right to exempt land which is utilised for the very best possible purpose, and to tax it in this way seems to me the most absurd thing that can possibly be imagined. Therefore, I cannot imagine a stronger case than there is for this particular Amendment, and it is impossible to conceive of any really valid reason why it should not be adopted. The only argument used from the Treasury Bench was that the whole agricultural value of the land would be exempt. The whole point of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield was, however, that the figures he gave did calculate the full agricultural value, and he was only dealing with extra value.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: All the arguments used from the other side in favour of this further exemption from Undeveloped Building Land Tax are really arguments against exemptions which have already been made. If and when this further exemption is granted hon. Members opposite will, I have no doubt, find just as many more forms of agricultural land in respect of which further exemptions should also be granted. All these difficulties—and I admit they exist—would be swept away if instead of the tax falling
    only on one particular kind of land, you had a tax generally on all land.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I wish, to say one word in support of the Clause, and to point out two fallacies underlying the arguments which we have heard from, the Government upon it. The first is that all land which has a potential building value could be and must be built upon. It is ridiculous to suppose that that works, out in practice, because although large plots of land may have a potential building value, it is obvious that you cannot proceed to build on them all at the same time. They must wait until the time is ripe for dealing with them. The second fallacy is this. The principle we were told on which this Undeveloped Land Tax is levied is that the owner of the land is not doing the best he could with it, and it ought to be used for the greater good of the community. But I submit it is an entire fallacy to suppose that if you want to get the best use out of a piece of land you must necessarily put buildings on it. In my own Constituency I should say there is not a piece of land left which is capable of being built on, and if there were only a few allotments there it would be a perfect God-send to the place. If the whole policy of the Government in levying this tax and in declining to listen to the proposal to insert the very reasonable Clause now submitted, is to drive every piece of land into the building market, then I say the ultimate result will be the creation of great areas of slums. I contend that such an object is not so good as one which aims at developing land for market gardens, and particularly for intensive culture.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 75; Noes, 163.

    Division No. 210.]

    AYES.

    [1.28 a.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Cassel, Felix

    Kerry, Earl of

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Cator, John

    Kyffin-Taylor, Gerid

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Lewiaham, Viscount

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxlord University)

    Lloyd, George Ambrose

    Baird, John Lawrence

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

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)'

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

    Chambers, James

    Mackinder, Haltord J.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Macmaster, Donald

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Eyrea-Monsell, Bo Item M.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, S.)

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Barnston, Harry

    Glazebrook, Philip K.

    Morrison-Bell, Maj. A. (Honiton)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Neville, Reginald J. Neville

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Grant, James Augustus

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Gretton, John

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Boies, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis F.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

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

    Boyton, James

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Peto, Basll Edward

    Bridgeman, William Cllve

    Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Burn, Col. Charles Rosdew

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. Edward

    Rawson, Col. Richard H.

    Starkey, John Ralph

    White, Maj. G. D. (Lanes, Southport)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Willoughby, Maj. Hon. Claud

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Sykes, Alan John (Knutsford)

    Winterton, Earl

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Worthington-Evans, Laming

    Royds, Edmund

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Younger, Sir George

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Touche, George Alexander

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Newman and Mr. Joynson-Hicks.

    Stanier, Beville

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

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

    O'Grady, James

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

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

    Adamson, William

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Malley, William

    Armitage, Robert

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Henry, Sir Charles S.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Barnes, George N.

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Shee, James John

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

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Sulllvan, Timothy

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Hogge, James Myles

    Outhwaite, Robert Leonard

    Boland, John Plus

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey W. A.

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    John, Edward Thomas

    Pointer, Joseph

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Jowett, Frederick William

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

    Bytes, Sir William Pollard

    Joyce, Michael

    Primrose, Hon. Nell James

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Keating, Matthew

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Clough, William

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

    Clynes, John R.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Reddy, Michael

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    King, Joseph

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, Molton)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Richards, Thomas

    Cotton, William Francis

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Cullinan, John

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Lundon, Thomas

    Roche, M. Augustine (Louth, N.)

    De Forest, Baron

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Rowlands, James

    Delany, William

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Devlin, Joseph

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

    Seely, Rt. Hon. Col.

    Dillon, John

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, S.)

    Sheehy, David

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Shortt, Edward

    Duffy, William J.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    McKenna, Rt, Hon. Reginald

    Smith, Albert (Lanes, Ciltheroe)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

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

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Sutton, John E.

    Esmonde, Sir T. (Wexford, N.)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Farrell, James Patrick

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

    Tennant, Harold John

    French, Peter

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leltrim, N.)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Field, William

    Molloy, Michael

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Fiennos, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Mooney, John J.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Morgan, George Hay

    Wadsworth, John

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    Morison, Hector

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Muldoon, John

    Webb, Henry

    Glanville, Harold James

    Munro, Robert

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Greenwood, G. G. (Peterborough)

    Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

    White, James Dundas (Glasgow)

    Greig, Col. James William

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Nolan, Joseph

    Wilkle, Alexander

    Hackett, John

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Hancock, John George

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Beds, Luton)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Definition of Increment Value Duty in the case of Agricultural Land.)
    Notwithstanding anything in Section two of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, in the case of land which on the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, was used bonâ fide for agricultural purposes and the value for such purposes then exceeded the original site value, the increment value of such land shall be deemed to be the amount (if any) by which the site value of the land on the occasion on which Increment Value Duty
    3124
    is to be collected as ascertained in accordance with Section two of the said Act exceeds on such occasion the value of the land for agricultural purposes.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. PEEL: I will propose this Clause very shortly, although there is a good deal to be said upon it. [Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway will not make any of those sounds I shall finish all the sooner. [Interruption.] The

    3125
    Increment Value Duty is levied on the difference between the value of the site on the original occasion when it was valued and the occasion when the duty comes to be levied. The duty falls very heavily on agricultural land which is rising into building land, and the object of the Amendment is to provide that in the case of agricultural land which on the 30th day of April, 1909, had a higher agricultural value than the assessable site value, the increment value shall be the amount by which site value on the occasion when the duty collected exceeds the value of the land for agricultural purposes. [Interruption.] It is liable to be heavily taxed by reason of the fact that it comes into the market as building land, and the tax is assessed not on the difference between the original value as building land and the present value as building land, but upon the original value of the land for agricultural purposes compared with its new value for building purposes.
    I will give an illustration. Take a farm worth £l,500. The site value of that farm is £l,000. That farm if placed in the category of building land has a site value of £2,000. The Increment Duty is charged not on the difference between £1,500 and £2,000, but on the difference between £1,000 and £2,000. That tax may be charged upon £500 extra value which may be due merely to the efforts of the owner of the land to improve the land, and in that case it is a rent charge upon improvements. It was stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that no part of the Increment Taxes would fall upon improvements due to the skill and foresight of the owners of land. [Interruption.]
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): Members below the Gangway should keep quiet whilst the hon. Member is speaking. It will conduce to the more speedy dispatch of business if hon. Members will refrain from interruptions.
    Mr. PEEL: The charge is levied, not upon values due to the acts of the community, but is directly levied upon value due to action of the owner himself. It is true that when the change took place agricultural land was converted into building land, but a large portion of the value as agricultural land disappears and is not replaced. [Interruption.]
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I hear hon. Members below the Gangway addressing one another. Any matter of order must be dealt with by the Chair.
    Mr. PEEL: From the point of view of the owner of the land all that has really happened is that a certain agricultural value as it were has been converted into a building value, and my contention is, and the argument in this Clause is, that we only lay the charge on the difference between the site value for building purposes and the full value of the agricultural land. It is matter of common knowledge that there is a great deal of land in the neighbourhood of towns which is in this double position, that it is and is not building land at the same time. Moreover, a great deal of peculiar hardship falls on agricultural land because this building land owes a great deal of its value to the fact that it can be let during the interval for agricultural land. Land worth, say, £100 an acre is let for £4 an acre. Because there is a speculative building value in it which may not be realised, or which may increase and be realised, a man is ready to give £150 an acre for it, as he knows that while waiting for that possibility he is getting 2½ per cent, on the £150, so that the mere fact of there being agricultural value there gives value to the building land. For that reason it is exceedingly hard to charge this man on the agricultural value when he ought to be charged entirely on the building value. I hope the Attorney-General will give the concession asked for and will confine the tax, as it ought to be confined, solely to that portion of the value which represents what he says is the gain to the community, which is arrived at by deducting the full agricultural value from the site value of the building land as it is ascertained on the occasion.
    Mr. ROYDS: I beg to second the new Clause, and in doing so I make only one observation—that in the case of undeveloped land duty at the present time that is only charged on the difference between agricultural value and building value, and the new Clause only asks that the same arrangement should be made with regard to Increment Value Duty, namely, that it should be charged on the difference between the agricultural value and the building value, as was conceded in the 1909–10 Budget in the case of Undeveloped Land Duty. I do not know why it should not be conceded in this case as well. I see no reason for the distinction. I remember when I first came to this House, in the Spring of 1910, there was a discussion on Clause 7, under which this Increment Value Duty is not charged on agricultural land, while it has

    3127
    no higher value than its value for agricultural purposes, and the argument seemed to turn on the suggestion that no improvements in agricultural value were being taxed. The House did not seem to realise that under this Clause agricultural values as they existed at the date of the passing of the Act were being actually taxed. It is not that an improvement in the land for agricultural purposes since the date of the passing of the Act has been only taxed, but it is the fact that the whole of the agricultural value, as on 30th April, 1909, except such part as is attributable to site value, is actually taxed under this Clause. It is impossible then for the Government to say that a very considerable tax is not being placed on agricultural land under the present arrangement. I respectfully suggest that the same conditions be made to apply to Increment Value Duty now, and that the duty should only be payable on the difference between the agricultural value and the building value.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am afraid this is not the first time we have discussed this point. When the Budget was passing through Committee of this House it was discussed again and again. I quite appreciate the point of the hon. Member who moved the Clause, but it raises a question which really goes to the root of the Amendment we have discussed. So far as we on this side are concerned, our contention has always been, and is now, that what we are taxing is building increment. We are taxing the value at which the land can be sold, and consequently we have to take into account whatever that value may be. We have justified it more than once, and I am afraid if we argued it for many days more we should
    not come any nearer to agreement. We have said what are our views with regard to it, and I am sure I could not satisfy the hon. Gentleman who moved this Clause if I were to discuss it at great length. All I can say with regard to it is that it is within the principle which we have asserted from the beginning, namely, that what we are taxing is the building increment. I regret, therefore, I cannot accept the new Clause.
    Mr. POLLOCK: It is really no answer to my hon. Friend to say that what the Government are seeking to tax is building increment and building increment only. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Peel) has pointed out that, although that may be their intention, the result is that they are taxing a great deal more than the mere building increment, and this Clause is designed, and I think accurately designed, to put into terms what are the aims and ambitions of the Attorney-General, namely, to tax building increment only. The Attorney-General said he has justified the Government's position by many speeches made when the Act was passing. He may claim to have attempted to justify it, but I submit he has not justified it, and his admission that his intention is to tax building increment only, is an admission that the position has not been justified. Although we have had a short opportunity, and not a very happy opportunity to-night, because my hon. Friend had great difficulty in presenting his argument fairly to the House, I hope he will proceed to a division in order that we may-record our protest.
    Question put, "That the Clause be react a second time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 65; Noes, 156.

    Division No. 211.]

    AYES.

    [1.50 a.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Pryce-Jones, Col. Edward

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Glazebrook, Philip K.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Grant, James Augustus

    Royds, Edmund

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

    Gretton, John

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Stanier, Beville

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, S.)

    Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Barnston, Harry

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Kerry, Earl of

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Kyffin-Taylor, Gerald

    Touche, George Alexander

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Boles, Lieut-Col. Dennis F.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Boyton, James

    Macmaster, Donald

    White, Maj. G. D. (Lanes., Southport)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Malcolm, Ian

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Burn, Col. Charles Rosdew

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Winterton, Earl

    Cassel, Fellx

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. (Honiton)

    Worthington-Evans, Laming

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

    Neville, Reginald J. Neville

    Younger, Sir George

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

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Chambers, James

    Newman, John R. P.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    William Peel and Mr. Pollock.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Peto, Basil Edward

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Grady, James

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Hayden, John Patrick

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

    Adamson, William

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Malley, William

    Armitage, Robert

    Henry, Sir Charles S.

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

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrlngton)

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Barnes, George N.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Shee, James John

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Boland, John Plus

    Hudson, Walter

    Outhwaite, Robert Leonard

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Illlngworth, Percy H.

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Pointer, Joseph

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    John Edward Thomas

    Ponsonby, A. W. H.

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Joyce, Michael

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Clough, William

    Keating, Matthew

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Clynes, John R.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

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

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Kilbride, Denis

    Reddy, Michael

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    King, Joseph

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon,S.Molton)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Richards, Thomas

    Cullinan, John

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Delany, William

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Lundon, Thomas

    Roche, Augustine (Louth, N.)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Rowlands, James

    Dillon, John

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel

    Duffy, William J.

    Macnamara, Rt. Hen. Dr. T. J.

    Sheehy, David

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-ln-Fumess)

    MacNeill, J. G. S. (Donegal, S.)

    Shortt, Edward

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

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

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrlm, S.)

    Esmonde, Sir T. (Wexford, N.)

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Sutton, John E.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Field, William

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Flennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

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

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrlm, N.)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    Molloy, Michael

    Tire, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Mooney, John J.

    Wadsworth, John

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Morison, Hector

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Muldoon, John

    Webb, Henry

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Munro, Robert

    Wedgwood, Joslah C.

    Gulland, John William

    Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

    White, James Dundas (Glasgow)

    Hackett, John

    Nannettl, Joseph P.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Hancock, John George

    Nolan, Joseph

    Wilkle, Alexander

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Beds, Luton)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Wedgwood Benn and Mr. Geoffrey Howard.

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

    O'Donnell Thomas

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Minimum Liquor Licence Duties.)
    There shall be substituted for the scale of minimum duty payable for publicans' and beerhouse licences in Great. Britain and in Ireland contained in Scale 3, Head C. of the First Schedule of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, the following scale (that is to say):—

    Population.

    Minimum Duty.

    Publican's Licence.

    Beerhouse Licence.

    £

    s.

    £

    s.

    In areas which are not urban areas, and in urban areas with a population of less than 10,000

    5

    0

    3

    10

    In urban areas with a population of 10,000 or above

    7

    10

    4

    0

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I wish to move this Clause very briefly. The object is to reduce the scale of licence duties in Great Britain to the level of that which prevails in Ireland, A long argument could be presented to the House in support of this proposal, but I do not wish to detain hon. Members at this late hour. I should like it to be understood at once that I have no wish to raise. Irish licence duties above the present scale, but I am strongly of opinion that the licence duties for Great Britain ought to be reduced to the same level as those in Ireland, so as to secure uniformity of treatment.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am quite sure the hon. Gentlemen will not expect us to say that we can accept the Amendment. It would mean a large reduction in,

    3131
    revenue, and it is impossible that we could entertain it for a moment. The proposal has been discussed before, and the hon. Member will, I am sure, see the impossibility of us accepting it.
    2 A.M.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman justify this: A particular minimum duty in Dublin is £7 10s.,
    whilst the corresponding duty in an English city is £35.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: They deal with totally different circumstances and conditions.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 63; Noes, 154.

    Division No. 212.]

    AYES.

    [2.0 a.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Glazebrook, Philip K.

    Pryce-Jones, Col. Edward

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Grant, James Augustus

    Royds, Edmund

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

    Gretton, John

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Stanier, Beville

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, S.)

    Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Kerry, Earl of

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Kyffin-Taylor, Gerald

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Touche, George Alexander

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis F.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Boyton, James

    Macmaster, Donald

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Malcolm, Ian

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

    Burn, Colonel Charles Rosdew

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Cassel, Felix

    Neville, Reginald J. Neville

    Winterton, Earl

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Worthington-Evans, Laming

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

    Newman, John R. P.

    Younger, Sir George

    Chambers, James

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Samuel Roberts and Mr. Barnston.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, S.)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Greenwood, G. G. (Peterborough)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Adamson, William

    Greig, Colonel James William

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Armitage, Robert

    Gulland, John William

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Hackett, John

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Barnes, George N.

    Hancock, John George

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Boland, John Pius

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Beds, Luton)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

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

    Bowerman, Charles W.

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

    Meehan, Rrancis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Molloy, Michael

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Mooney, John J.

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Morison, Hector

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Henry, Sir Charles S.

    Muldoon, John

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Higham, John Sharp

    Munro, Robert

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hogge, James Myles

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Clough, William

    Hudson, Walter

    Nolan, Joseph

    Clynes, John R.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Crumley, Patrick

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Cullinan, John

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Grady, James

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

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

    Delany, William

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Malley, William

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Jowett, Frederick William

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

    Devlin, Joseph

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Shaugnessy, P. J.

    Dillon, John

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Shee, James John

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Duffy, William J.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Outhwaite, Robert Leonard

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    King, Joseph

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Duncan, J. hustings (York, Otley)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon S.Molton)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Eliklbank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Pointer, Joseph

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

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Esmonde, Sir T. (Wexford, N.)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh Central)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lundon, Thomas

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

    Field, William

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Prlngle, William M. R.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Rattan, Peter Wilson

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

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

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Reddy, Michael

    Shortt, Edward

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Webb, Henry

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Ciltheroe)

    Wedgwood, Joslah C.

    Richards, Thomas

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim. S.)

    White, James Dundas (Glasgow)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoin)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Sutton, John E.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth, N.)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Rowlands, James

    Thwne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Wedgwood Benn and Mr. Geoffrey-

    Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Howard.

    Sheehy, David

    Wadsworth, John

    Resolution agreed to.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Definition of Premises for the Purpose of the Valuation of Licensed Premises.)
    The following definition shall be substituted as from the first day of April, nineteen hundred and twelve, for the definition of "premises" contained in Section four of The Finance Act, 1911:—
    The expression "premises" in relation to the annual value of licensed premises, means the house in which the liquor is sold, and includes any offices, courts, yards, and gardens which are occupied together with and are within the curtilage, or in the immediate vicinity, of the house where the liquor is sold, except any such offices, courts, yards, or gardens as are proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners not to be used (except indirectly) for the trade or business which is carried on in the house in which the liquor is sold by the licence holder under the authority of, and which could not be carried on by him without the authority of, the licence in respect of which the assessment is required, and also includes any building or place which, though not within the curtilage or in the immediate vicinity of the house where the liquor is sold, is used by the licence holder for receiving or storing liquor, otherwise than occasionally, intended for sale in such house.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. GRETTON: In moving this Clause I would point out that the Government have indicated to us that they were making a considerable concession, and would administer their Clause in the Act in such a way that it would cost something like £50,000. Until the last three or four days the utmost value of the concession amounted to £5 15s. in regard to two cases. During the last few days a further case has come in to the amount of £20, and the total value of the concession, therefore, instead of being £50,000, is up to the present £25 15s. I suggest that the
    3134
    form of words I propose is much clearer and much more definite than those now in the Act. I will not go further into the matter. The case has been admitted by the House and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The Clause proposed by the hon. Member is in substitution of the Clause adopted last year in the-Finance Act of 1911, which, in our view, is a better Clause. It is hardly fair to judge of the results of a concession in a Clause inserted in the Act of 1910–11. You must have a little more time to see the effect of the Clause.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: The wording of the Clause in the Act was strongly objected to last year on the ground that it took in distant premises which ought not to be taken in. Under that Clause, which was intended to be a concession, there have been many cases included in the Licence Duty which were not included before, and, therefore, so far from being a concession, it is in some cases a hardship.
    Mr. GRETTON: At this late hour I ask leave to withdraw the Clause, but would ask the House to take note of the value of the concession made last year.
    Proposed Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    Notice had been given of the following Clause:—

    (Amendment of Provision of Finance (1909– 10) Act, 1910, 10 Edw. 7, c. 8, in respect of Optional Payment of Duty on Basis of Annual Licence Value.)
    The provisions in the first Schedule of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, relating to the option as to Licence Duty in the case of premises the annual value of which exceeds five hundred pounds contained in Head 3 of the "Provisions applicable to retailers' on-licences" shall be read as if for the words "Five hundred pounds" were substituted the words "Two hundred and fifty pounds," and as if for the words "Two

    3135
    hundred and fifty pounds in the case of fully licensed premises, or in the case of a beerhouse One hundred and sixty-six pounds, thirteen shillings, and four pence," were substituted the words "One hundred and twenty-five pounds in the case of fully-licensed premises or in the case of a beerhouse Eighty-three pounds, six shillings, and eight pence."
    Earl WINTERTON: This Clause the Second Reading of which I move, proposes to apply to houses of the value of £250 the option on the present basis of houses have £500. The owners of these houses have an option of paying either oh annual assessable value or on annual license value, and the right hon. Gentleman in the course of discussion last year said he would consider this point. To save time I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE Mr. LLOYD GEORGE indicated a reply in the negative.
    Earl WINTERTON: Then I do not move the Clause.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Tobacco for Agricultural Purposes.)
    The Commissioners of Customs and Excise may issue licences to responsible persons within the United Kingdom to grow tobacco for the purpose of the use of the extract for the manufacture of insecticides or sheep-dips or other purely agricultural or horticultural purposes, subject to regulations to be approved by the Commissioners, such regulations to deal with the area to be grown, the varieties of tobacco to be used, and the manner of growing and harvesting the crop.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. C. BATHURST: The object of this Amendment, the Second Reading of which I move, is to require the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to issue a licence to grow tobacco for the extraction of ingredients for insecticides and sheep-dips without the payment of duty. All I would say by way of explanation is that what we desire to grow in this country is a coarse, unsmokable, tobacco, which has been denatured and which has been rendered impossible for anyone to stomach it, for the purpose of applying it as an insecticide, because it happens to be a most innocuous, non-poisonous spray. It is at the present time extremely expensive because Its manufacture is in the hands of four
    3136
    firms, to whom a licence is issued. There is a great and increasing demand amongst fruit-growers and hop-growers for this concession, and I have reason to believe the Government are prepared to accept it, although not in the exact form in which it is on the Paper. I desire, therefore, to move the Second Reading of this Clause, and then subsequently to move that it be accepted by the House in a somewhat different form as suggested to me from the other side of the House.
    Mr. WHELER: I beg to second the Motion.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree to the Clause, but I have an Amendment after the Second Reading.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: As the right hon. Gentleman is accepting this, I should certainly like him to explain, when he is speaking with reference to his suggested alterations, how it is on this occasion he accepts the Amendment, seeing that he opposed it last year, and succeeded in convincing the House to reject it.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. Friend is absolutely incorrect. Last year I promised consideration for the proposal, and I have given that consideration, and it is in consequence of the promise that I have accepted it.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I should like to say that the concession made by the right hon. Gentleman is satisfactory not only to Members on that side of the House but to the whole of us who are interested in getting this material used for the benefit of fruit growers throughout the country.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move to leave out all the words after "may" ["may issue licences"] in order to insert the words "authorise responsible persons, duly licensed to grow tobacco within the United Kingdom, to grow tobacco for the sole purpose of obtaining an extract therefrom to be used without payment of duty in the manufacture of insecticides or sheep-wash or for other purely agricultural or horticultural purposes. The authority shall be granted subject to such security and the observance of such regulations and conditions as the Commissioners may prescribe, and if any person so authorised acts in contravention or fails to

    3137
    comply with any of these regulations or conditions, the article in respect of which the offence is committed shall be forfeited, and the person committing the offence shall be liable in respect of each offence to an Excise penalty of fifty pounds."
    Proposed Amendment made.
    Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
    Bill to be read the third time to-morrow. (Wednesday).

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
    PROTECTION OF ANIMALS ACT (1911) AMENDMENT BILL.
    Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the third time, and passed.

    MENTAL DEFICIENCY [EXPENSES].
    Resolution reported,
    "That, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to make further and better provision with respect to Feeble-minded
    3138
    and other Mentally Defective Persons, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

    (a) contributions towards the Expenses of Persons detained in, or removed from, certified institutions for Defectives, and towards the Expenses which may have been incurred by any society in assisting or supervising Defectives;

    (b) the salaries or remuneration of the Commissioners and their officers, and other Expenses incurred in the execution of such Act."

    ROYAL SCOTTISH MUSEUM (EXTEN-SION (RECOMMITTED) BILL.
    Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
    And, it being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Twenty-eight minutes after Two a.m., Wednesday, 7th August.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  APPROVED SOCITIES.
  APPROVED SOCITIES.
  SANATORIUM BENEFIT
  SANATORIUM BENEFIT
  INSURED TRADES.
  INSURED TRADES.
  CASUAL LABOURERS.
  CASUAL LABOURERS.
  CONTRIBUTION CARDS.
  CONTRIBUTION CARDS.
  IRISH MUTUAL ASSURANCE COLLECTING SOCIETY.
  IRISH MUTUAL ASSURANCE COLLECTING SOCIETY.
  British Museum (Cleaning Work).
  British Museum (Cleaning Work).
  Land Valuation.
  Land Valuation.
  Scottish Estimates.
  Scottish Estimates.
  House of Commons (Scottish Sessional Volume).
  House of Commons (Scottish Sessional Volume).
  Expenditure of Local Authorities.
  Expenditure of Local Authorities.
  Civil Service (Pensions).
  Civil Service (Pensions).
  Motor Spirit Duty.
  Motor Spirit Duty.
  Labour Exchanges, Glasgow.
  Labour Exchanges, Glasgow.
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Irish Odes.
  Irish Odes.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  History Courses in Primary Schools (Ireland).
  History Courses in Primary Schools (Ireland).
  Road Improvement (Dunloe).
  Road Improvement (Dunloe).
  Workmen's Unemployment Act.
  Workmen's Unemployment Act.
  Convent and Monastery National Schools (Ireland).
  Convent and Monastery National Schools (Ireland).
  Crime Returns (Ireland).
  Crime Returns (Ireland).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  Industrial and Reformatory Schools (Ireland).
  Industrial and Reformatory Schools (Ireland).
  Turbary Rights (Kirk Estate, Queen's County).
  Turbary Rights (Kirk Estate, Queen's County).
  Pier at Portmagee.
  Pier at Portmagee.
  Congested Districts Board.
  Congested Districts Board.
  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Fish Landing Facilities (Burtonport Harbour).
  Fish Landing Facilities (Burtonport Harbour).
  Commissioners of Public Works (Ireland).
  Commissioners of Public Works (Ireland).
  Rosyth Dockyard (German Contract).
  Rosyth Dockyard (German Contract).
  British and German Fleets.
  British and German Fleets.
  Naval Manœuvres.
  Naval Manœuvres.
  Oil Fuel Committee.
  Oil Fuel Committee.
  Naval Retirements.
  Naval Retirements.
  Fleet at Tor Bay.
  Fleet at Tor Bay.
  H.M.S. "Hannibal."
  H.M.S. "Hannibal."
  Manning of Battleships.
  Manning of Battleships.
  Dockyard Accommodation.
  Dockyard Accommodation.
  Troops at Belfast.
  Troops at Belfast.
  Cadet corps' Officers.
  Cadet corps' Officers.
  Grantham School Accommodation.
  Grantham School Accommodation.
  Cattle Killing and Maiming (England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland).
  Cattle Killing and Maiming (England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland).
  Divorce (Royal Commission Report).
  Divorce (Royal Commission Report).
  Port of London (Strike).
  Port of London (Strike).
  Taxi-Cabs (London).
  Taxi-Cabs (London).
  Coal Mines Act, 1911.
  Coal Mines Act, 1911.
  Cotton Cultivation (India).
  Cotton Cultivation (India).
  Putumayo District.
  Putumayo District.
  Brussels Sugar Convention.
  Brussels Sugar Convention.
  Housing Schemes.
  Housing Schemes.
  Cost of "Titanic" Inquiry.
  Cost of "Titanic" Inquiry.
  Advisory Trade Committee.
  Advisory Trade Committee.
  Dublin Labour Exchange.
  Dublin Labour Exchange.
  Railway Carriage Fastenings.
  Railway Carriage Fastenings.
  Continental Beet Sugar.
  Continental Beet Sugar.
  Sugar Imports.
  Sugar Imports.
  Strikers Re-engaged.
  Strikers Re-engaged.
  Railways Bill.
  Railways Bill.
  Crew Spaces, British Merchant Vessels.
  Crew Spaces, British Merchant Vessels.
  Lough Swilly Railway Company (Fares).
  Lough Swilly Railway Company (Fares).
  Postal Facilities, Glenahilt, County Donegal.
  Postal Facilities, Glenahilt, County Donegal.
  Telephone Service.
  Telephone Service.
  Dublin Post Office (Subsidiary Repairing Workshop).
  Dublin Post Office (Subsidiary Repairing Workshop).
  Irish Post Office (Printing Press).
  Irish Post Office (Printing Press).
  Trunk Telephone Lines (Reduced Rates).
  Trunk Telephone Lines (Reduced Rates).
  Correspondence to Hong Kong, China and Japan (via Siberia).
  Correspondence to Hong Kong, China and Japan (via Siberia).
  Postmen (Sale of Postage Stamps).
  Postmen (Sale of Postage Stamps).
  Post Office Factories (Great Britain and Ireland).
  Post Office Factories (Great Britain and Ireland).
  Misappropriation of Trust Property (Scotland).
  Misappropriation of Trust Property (Scotland).
  Testamentary and Marriage Trusts.
  Testamentary and Marriage Trusts.
  St. James's Street (Permanent Pavement).
  St. James's Street (Permanent Pavement).
  Royal Park Employés (Sick Pay).
  Royal Park Employés (Sick Pay).
  Houses of Parliament (Terrace Lighting).
  Houses of Parliament (Terrace Lighting).

H.I.M. THE LATE EMPEROR OF JAPAN.
The King's answer to the Address of Wednesday last reported by the Lord Steward (E. Chesterfield) as follows:—
"I thank you for your loyal and dutiful Address.
I join most sincerely in your expression of deep regret at the melancholy tidings of the death of My illustrious ally and friend His Majesty the Emperor of Japan, and I shall without fail communicate to His Majesty the present Emperor your message of profound sympathy with the Imperial Family and the Government and people of Japan in the loss which they have "sustained."

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.

SEAL FISHERIES (NORTH PACIFIC) BILL. [H.L.]
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (LONDON No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (LONDON No. 2) BILL. [H.L]
CLYDE VALLEY ELECTRICAL POWER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CON FIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with an Amendment: The said Amendment to be printed, and to be considered To-morrow. (No. 137.)

BORDON AND DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
BLYTH HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
MIDLAND RAILWAY (LONDON, TILBURY AND SOUTHEND RAILWAY PURCHASE) BILL. [H.L.]
WEST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE ASYLUMS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment, agreed to.

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. 12) BILL
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
SEA FISHERIES (LYNN) PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
GLASGOW CORPORATION (WATER) BILL.
FYLDE WATER BOARD BILL.
NATIONAL ELECTRIC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY BILL.
SWANSEA CORPORATION BILE.
KEIGHLEY CORPORATION BILL.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (FINANCE) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

GAS AUTHORITIES (RESIDUAL PRODUCTS).
Message from the Commons that they have come to the following Resolution, to which they desire the concurrence of this House, viz.:—
"That it is expedient that a Select Committee of five Members of the Commons be appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords to consider whether any, and, if any, what restrictions should be imposed on Gas Authorities with respect to the purchase and manufacture of the residual products resulting from the manufacture of gas by other Gas Authorities, or of other chemicals."

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
National Health Insurance Commission (Scotland)—

1. Regulations of the National Health Insurance Commission (Scotland) as to Inspectors' Certificates of Appointment;

2. (Part II (Unemployment Insurance))—The Special Exclusion (Drivers, &c.) Order, 1912, made by the Board of Trade under Part II of the National Insurance Act:

Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 138.)

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I should like to ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House whether he is in a position to tell us at what hour he proposes that the House should meet to-morrow and what business will be taken.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): It is proposed that the House should meet at four o'clock to-morrow. My noble friend behind me is about to move that certain Bills which have come up from the House of Commons should be read a first time to-day, with the intention, they being of an uncontroversial character, that they should be taken through all their remaining stages to-morrow. It is also suggested that the Finance Bill should be taken through all its stages to-morrow, and that the Royal Commission should be held at six o'clock in the evening.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.— (Lord Emmott.)
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I understand that His Majesty's Government do not propose to proceed with the other stages of this Bill, although there is a
804
Motion on the Paper to suspend Standing Order No. XXXIX, until the House is seized of the Finance Bill, which will be not until to-morrow. I believe the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, who has much wider experience, will admit that I am right in saying that the system of bringing up the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill before the Finance Bill is one which has only grown up in the last two years. It is certainly a great novelty in the practice of this House. This House has always hitherto been acquainted with the amount of the taxes and the system by which they are to be levied before it is asked to agree to the appropriation of the sums. That principle becomes more important because the dates on which the Finance Bill has reached this House have been getting gradually later. I have taken the dates for the last ten years, for the first four of which the late Conservative Government was responsible. In 1902 the Finance Bill reached this House on June 26, in 1903 on June 25, in 1904 on July 29, and in 1905 on June 6. The present Government, having inherited sound traditions in this respect, began by acting upon them; but, facilis descensus Averni, they have rapidly gone to the bad. In 1906 they sent up the Finance Bill on June 14, in 1907 on July 31, in 1908 on July 27, in 1909 on November 8, in 1910 the rejected Finance Bill (after four months of discussion in the House of Commons) on April 27, and the Finance Bill of the year on November 23; in 1911 the Finance Bill reached this House on December 14. And to-morrow the Finance Bill of the year is to reach us at four o'clock with the Royal Commission fixed for six o'clock; and since the matter was first mooted as to when the discussion should take place I would point out that considerable changes, we are informed, have taken place in the Bill in the other House. Your Lordships will see that we are consequently placed in this dilemma, that if we were to summon all those who are qualified—and there are a large number of members of this House qualified to speak on finance—to discuss this Bill we could only have such a discussion by adjourning the consideration of the Bill for two months; and we are told whenever this House adjourns even for a short time the passing of the Finance Bill of the year that it has a most deleterious effect. Failing such an adjournment we must forego our undoubted right of effectively criticising the Bill.

805
The noble Marquess opposite, who is an upholder of the traditions of this House, will see that this is a very serious inroad on our privileges, and, what is much more important, on our usefulness; and I cannot help associating it; as I believe it is associated in the country, with the action by which the Prime Minister has deprived this House of direct Ministerial representation of various important Departments, which has a tendency to nullify the advantages of our debates. My noble friend Lord Lansdowne is not anxious to put the slightest difficulty in the way of these Bills passing, even in this hurried manner; but we have some right to ask for a pledge that this will not be drawn into a precedent, especially as there has been, as shown by the dates with which I have troubled the House, a successive deterioration in this respect.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, were I to attempt to answer at length the indictment of the noble Viscount I should have to go through in some detail all the rather tumultuous history of the last few sessions of Parliament, especially in regard to the relations between the two Houses and their bearing on this question of the Finance Bills of succeeding years. It is quite true that for many years—not only when the noble Viscount and his friends were in power, but for many years before—the Finance Bill came up here as a matter of course and was dealt with as a rule in a couple of somewhat perfunctory speeches by the respective Leaders on both sides and passed through all its stages without any opposition or further comment. The noble Viscount is as familiar as I am with the various changes, upon which we are all entitled to entertain our own opinion, which have caused a variance of the practice as between the two Houses. But I can say frankly to the noble Viscount that it is no desire of ours and it is far from being our intention that there should be any departure from the earlier practice of Parliament. We shall be very glad indeed when, as I trust may be the case, a reversion is made to the practice of bringing up the Finance Bill here in the course of the earlier summer, and I myself see no reason why that should not become at any rate the general if not the invariable practice. As regards the minor point with which the noble Viscount opened his speech as to the respective precedence of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation)
806
Bill and the Finance Bill, he, of course, recognised that in the present instance the House has no subject of complaint, because, although the Consolidated Fund Bill is to be read a first time to-day and the Finance Bill has not yet reached this House, there is no question of passing the one Bill before your Lordships are in possession of the other. I have not got in my mind what the practice of former years has been in another place as to the respective dates and times of passing these two Bills. It no doubt has often happened, as was evident from the dates which the noble Viscount quoted, that the Finance Bill of the year has had a considerable precedence in time. Of late that precedence has no doubt been disturbed, and if the pious hope to which I have given utterance, that we may in time revert to the practice of passing the Finance Bill of the year through both Houses in the course of the earlier summer, is realised, then no doubt the Finance Bill will once more have precedence of the Appropriation Bill. But in the meantime the noble Viscount will not, I think, maintain that any untoward results have followed or are likely to follow from the disturbance of that practice; and I hope he will be content with the protest he has made.
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Emmott). (No. 139.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Order of the day for the consideration of Standing Order No. XXXIX read, and discharged.
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Colebrooke). (No. 140.)

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Emmott). (No. 141.)
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, Four o'clock.