Sitting of 25 November 1912

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
North Killingholme Pier Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Water Orders Confirmation Bill[Lords] (by Order),
Third Reading deferred till Friday.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
Petitions were presented praying the House not to pass into Law the Established Church (Wales) Bill by—
Mr. Fitzroy, (57 petitions) containing 5,484 signatures from the Northern Division of Northamptonshire; 48 petitions containing 5,872 signatures from the Mid-Northampton Division; and 14 petitions containing 5,957 signatures from Northampton Boroughs.
Colonel Williams, (43 petitions) containing 4,161 signatures from West Dorset.
Earl Winterton, (29 petitions) containing 4,228 signatures from the North-West Division of Sussex.
Sir William Bull, (6 petitions) containing 949 signatures from the Borough of Hammersmith.
Mr. Burgoyne, (12 petitions) containing 6,000 signatures from the Royal Borough of Kensington.
Mr. J. W. Hills, (106 petitions) containing 40,512 signatures from the Mid-Division, Jarrow Division, Durham City, South Shields, Sunderland, Bishop Auckland, North-West Division, Houghton-le-Spring, in the county of Durham.

UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW.
Copy presented of Annual Statistical Report by the University Court of the University of Glasgow for the year 1911–12 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 188 (ORDINANCE).
Copy presented of University Court Ordinance, No. 39 (Glasgow, No. 12) (Affiliation of the Royal Technical College, Glasgow) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Copy presented of University Court Ordinance, No. 40 (Glasgow, No. 13) (Foundation of Chair of Scottish History and Literature) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Copy presented of Universities Court Ordinance, No. 41 (St. Andrews, No. 6) (Regulations as to Examinations supplementary to Ordinance, No. 13 (General. No. 8, Regulations as to Examinations), of the Commissioners under the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

NAVY (DISCIPLINE).
Copy presented of Regulations for Naval Detention Quarters, dated 31st August, 1912, made by the Admiralty under the Naval Discipline Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copy presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 5025 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
Copy presented of Return of Advances made under the Irish Land Act, 1903, during the month of January, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BANK OF ENGLAND.
Copy presented of Return of the amount of Notes issued more than forty years and outstanding on 31st October, 1912, which have been written off [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Town Council of the borough of Reigate, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the day on which certain Shops are to be closed for the weekly half-holiday [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
FINANCE (1909–10) ACT, 1910 (HORSEPOWER OF MOTOR-CARS).
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 22nd November 1912, made by the Treasury for the purpose of Section 86 (2) of the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Kent and Bela Fisheries Provisional Order Bill,
Falkirk Burgh Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment:—
Amendments to—
Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No.3) Bill [Lords], with out Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Land Drainage Act, 1861, in the matter of a proposed drainage district in the parishes of Above-Derwent, Under-skiddaw, Embleton, Wythop, Setmurthy, Isel Old Park, and Bassenthwaite, in the county of Cumberland." [Land Drainage (Braithwaite Moss) Provisional Order Bill [Lords.]
Land Drainage (Braithwaite Moss) Provisional Order Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills and to be printed. [Bill 328.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  British Commercial Undertakings (German Capital).
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, what are the British commercial undertakings in which the greater part of the capital of the German firms of Carlowitz and Company and Arnhold, Karbery, and Company are respectively engaged?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): The information on which the reply was based to the lion. Member on the 31st ultimo is necessarily confidential, and I should not feel justified in making it public.
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked whether the German firm of Carlowitz and Company, directly represented on the court of directors of Hong Kong and
  788
  Shanghai Banking Corporation, upon being sued in the court of session in order to compel them to count and reckon in regard to the profits upon their transactions with the Chinese Government between the 23rd November, 1892, and the 23rd November, 1895, denied the jurisdiction of the court over them and denied that they had any property or business within the jurisdiction of the court; whether he is aware that the suit had, in consequence, to be abandoned; and whether he still is satisfied that the greater part of the capital of Carlowitz and Company is engaged in British trade?
  Mr. ACLAND: I have no information as to the first part of the question. As the lion. Member has already been informed (on the 31st ultimo), I am satisfied that the greater part of the capital of Messrs. Carlowitz and Company is engaged in British trade. I do not, however, see any connection between the two parts of the question.

  Egyptian Newspaper "Alain."
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked whether "Alain," a daily newspaper circulating widely in Egypt, has been suppressed by the authorities for expressing the view of the Nationalist party there in regard to the war in which Turkey is now engaged; if so, will he say what was the nature of the comments which have earned this punishment; and whether the suppression of this newspaper has his sanction?
  Mr. ACLAND: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which was given to the hon. Member for Burnley on 12th November on the same subject. To that reply I have at present nothing further to add.
  Sir W. BYLES: Will the hon. Gentleman reply to the latter part of my question, and having regard to the responsibility of Parliament for this matter will he make inquiries?
  Mr. ACLAND: I think it was stated in the answer to which I have referred that this is a matter requiring the sanction of His Majesty's Government; but I will see whether we are obtaining the information, and if we are I will convey it to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  Consular Representation.
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked (1) what arrangements have recently

  789
  been come to with the Governments of Canada and Australia as regards consular representation; (2) if he will lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence with the Governments of Australia and Canada leading up to the recent arrangements for the consular representation of these dominions; and (3) whether South Africa, New Zealand, and Newfoundland will have the same facilities for better consular representation that have been recently arranged for Canada and Australia if they so desire?
  Mr. ACLAND: The manner in which the Consular service could be organised so as to be of greater assistance to the trade and commerce of the Dominion of Canada was discussed personally with the Canadian Minister of Trade and Commerce during his visit to this country last summer. An arrangement has been come to whereby the Canadian Government will be furnished as soon as published with copies of all Trade reports of Consular officers in districts in which Canada is specially interested. Canadian firms will be at liberty to apply direct to any Consul for information as to possibilities of sale of Canadian products, business methods of the district, best means of get-ting into touch with markets, etc. They will receive all possible assistance in such matters, subject to the condition laid down in the report of the Canadian Minister of Trade that Consuls are primarily commissioned to serve the trade of the United Kingdom. A statement of Canada's commercial and industrial resources and developments will be prepared by the Canadian Government giving a list of chief industries and sources of supply, and indicating questions upon which Canadian merchants and manufacturers desire information. This statement will be revised periodically, and communicated to His Majesty's Consuls. Canadian Trade Commissioners in foreign countries will be at liberty to apply to His Majesty's Consuls for advice and assistance, and arrangements are contemplated for placing resident official Canadian commercial representatives into immediate touch with the British Consul for the locality concerned. Members of the Canadian Commercial service will also be eligible for selection, and entrance to the British Consular service on such terms and conditions as are set for other entrants thereto. His Majesty's Government will always be ready, on request, to consider the extension of this arrangement
  790
  to the Governments of other of the Oversea Dominions. Useful information respecting the resources of Australia has already, by arrangement with the Commonwealth Government, been supplied to Consular officers in certain localities, so that they may be in a better position to reply to any inquiries addressed to them on the subject.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: Is it not a fact that a Departmental Committee has recently been investigating the whole question of Consular representation, and if so whether their Report can be laid on the Table?
  Mr. ACLAND: That is quite a different question. I do not think any Departmental Committee has been going into this sort of thing at all. The Committee has only been inquiring into increases in the Consular service. These arrangements, which I have referred to, were made chiefly in conversation.

  Home Cultivation of Apples.
  Colonel YATEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will take into consideration the question of giving encouragement to the cultivation of apples in this country, with a view to securing a cheaper and more plentiful supply of this fruit for the benefit of the poor than there is at present?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The answer is in the affirmative. If the hon. and gallant Member will let me have any definite suggestions which occur to him for the promotion of the object which he has in view I shall be very glad indeed to receive and to consider them.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are hundreds of thousands of apples in the West of England that rot under the trees every year owing to there being a glut in the local market?

  Losses by Floods (Huntingdonshire).
  Mr. OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he still wishes the County Council of Huntingdonshire to levy a rate in order to meet the loss sustained through the recent floods in the management of the statutory small holdings: and whether farmers who have suffered themselves severely from the floods are to be called upon to pay this rate?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have never expressed the wish attributed to me in the first part of the question. The second part of the question does not come within the scope of the Board's administration. I have already told the hon. Gentleman that I have secured Treasury sanction to assist county councils from the small holdings' account to the extent of 50 per cent, of the rent remitted to small holders under the county councils in consequence of loss sustained through the recent floods.
  Mr. O. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman see any other way except a rate in which this loss can be met?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have already stated to the House in reply to the hon Member the arrangement we have made with the Treasury, and I hope that offer will do what is required.

  Horses Exported from United Kingdom.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture, approximately what was the total number of horses in the United Kingdom in the years 1896 and 1906, respectively, and in each of the completed years since, distinguishing, as far as possible, those kept for agricultural purposes and those not so kept?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will arrange to circulate with the Votes a statement showing the number of horses used for agricultural purposes and of unbroken horses, as returned on the 4th June in each of the years specified in the question. I regret that no statistics are available as to the number of horses not included in the categories which I have mentioned. [See Written Answers this date.]
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is there no sort of census being taken now of the horses that are useful and available for national requirements?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I expect the War Office are doing something of the kind, but any question on that subject had better be addressed to the War Office.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. FIELDasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that no trace of foot-and-mouth distemper has been discovered amongst
  792
  over half a million of Irish livestock imported into Great Britain, and the whole of Ireland has been declared free from disease, he will now consider the expediency of removing the quarantine regulations?
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has decided to admit store cattle into Great Britain from Minister and Con-naught or other parts of Ireland without any restrictions; and, if any restrictions are maintained, what is the nature and extent of such restrictions?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am unable to add anything to the reply I gave to the hon. Members for Dublin (St. Patrick's) and Kildare on Tuesday last, and I am sending the hon. Gentlemen copies of the Animals (Landing from Ireland) Consolidation and Amendment Order which was issued on the 21st November.
  Mr. FIELD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that great complaints are being received respecting the delay in shipments of livestock from Dublin and Belfast, and will he take measures to remove the congestion on this side?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have received some complaints this morning on the subject to which the hon. Member refers, and I am looking into the case.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Can the right hon. Gentleman see his way, when issuing the Order, to allow fat cattle to go through the slaughter-houses in the ordinary way?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I cannot at present allow fat cattle to pass through the slaughter-house in the ordinary way, but I hope the time will soon arrive when that will be possible.
  Mr. LARDNERasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) what restrictions are at present existing against the export of hay and straw from Ireland to England, and vice rersâ; will he state how long these restrictions have been in operation and when he, on behalf of the Irish Department, intends to remove the restrictions against the importation of British fodder; and whether, having regard to the present condition of things in Ireland, his Department thinks there is any necessity for continuing the restrictions against the export of Irish fodder to Great Britain?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): The landing in Great Britain of hay and straw brought from Ireland for use as fodder or litter for animals is prohibited since the 8th July last by Order of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries; and by an Order of this Department, which came into operation on the 1st July last, there is a similar prohibition against the landing in Ireland of hay and straw from Great Britain. The Department are in communication with the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries with a view to relaxation of these Orders.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Did not the English Department on 1st October express their willingness to consider the question of the importation of Irish hay under certain restrictions provided the Irish Department would take this action, and has there not been great delay on the part of the Irish Department in taking such action?
  Mr. RUSSELL: There has been correspondence going on since October on the subject and a draft Order has been sent by the Irish Department to the Board of Agriculture in England for their concurrence.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any assurance that this question, which is a very important one, is receiving his consideration now, and is there any probability of the prohibition being relaxed
  Mr. RUSSELL: I quite agree that it is of importance. I have just stated that a draft Order has been sent to the Board of Agriculture in England for their concurrence.

  Cleopatra's Needle (Thames Embankment).
  Mr. KINGasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the Egyptian obelisk standing on the Thames Embankment, and vulgarly known as Cleopatra's Needle, is maintained by the Office of Works; whether the stone shows any signs of decay as the effect of the London atmosphere and climate; and whether any steps are being taken to preserve from gradual destruction this monument?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The obelisk known as Cleopatra's Needle is in the charge of the
  794
  London County Council and not of the First Commissioner of Works.

  Motor Traffic (Metropolis).
  Mr. WALTER REAasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the desirability of enlarging the reference to the proposed Select Committee on motor omnibuses so as to include, as a secondary matter, the consideration of the question of the damage to roads and to property, and the inconvenience and injury to residents caused by the unrestricted plying of motor omnibuses throughout greater London?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): As I stated, in reply to similar questions a few days ago, I do not think it would be desirable to extend the reference to the Select Committee in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend, at any rate until the question of safety is disposed of.
  Mr. WALTER REAasked the Home Secretary whether, in the opinion of the police authorities, the present type of motor omnibus now plying in suburban and residential roads in Greater London is suitable for the purpose, having in view the meagreness of the traffic, the capacity and the weight of the vehicles, and the consequent injury not only to the roads, but to the property and health of the neighbouring residents; and whether he has power to put a check upon this growing practice by refusing to licence further vehicles of this description except upon the condition that they ply only upon routes for which they are suitable?
  Mr. McKENNA: Time will doubtless show that the type of motor omnibus now being licensed in London is capable of improvement, but it is the best at present available and, I believe, greatly superior to previous types. Motor omnibuses which comply with the prescribed conditions are licensed by the Commissioner of Police for the whole of the Metropolitan Police district. He has no authority to licence omnibuses for particular routes only.
  Mr. ESSEXasked whether any of the members proposed to be nominated to the Select Committee on Motor Traffic are employed by, or are financially interested in, any of the companies whose operations may be under discussion?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have no official knowledge on the matter.

  Vagrancy Act, 1824 (Flogging).
  Mr. GEORGE GREENWOODasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that certain benches of magistrates have conceived that they have power to send an offender against the Vagrancy Act, 1898, to the quarter sessions to be dealt with as an incorrigible rogue under the Vagrancy Act, 1824, and in view of the fact that certain Courts of Quarter Sessions have conceived that they have power so to deal with such an offender and to sentence him to be flogged under the provisions of the Tenth Section of the Act of 1824, and that such floggings have been from time to time so directed and administered, he will issue a circular to the magistrates and recorders in England and Wales, drawing attention to the real state of the law, in order to prevent the recurrence of such occurrences?
  Mr. MOLTENOasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the doubts which have arisen whether the penalty of flogging is legal under the Vagrancy Act of 1898, and in view of the number of floggings which have recently been administered under that Act, he will draw the attention of the magistrates and recorders of England and Wales to the possibility of these floggings being held to be unauthorised?
  Mr. McKENNA: The legal question is shortly to be brought before the Court of Criminal Appeal, and, pending their decision, the sentences of flogging in these cases are suspended.

  Whist Drives.
  Mr. WALTER REAasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the difficulty in which watch committees throughout the country are placed in deciding under what circumstances whist drives are legal, he can see his way to issue a circular letter to watch committees giving them some authoritative guidance on the subject?
  Mr. McKENNA: I will consider whether T can give the police any assistance in this matter, but I have no authority to decide in what circumstances whist drives are legal or illegal; that is a matter which can be settled authoritatively only by the Courts of Law.

  Rosyth Dockyard.
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Home Secretary whether, somt time ago, Archibald Newlands was employed as a factory
  796
  inspector for the Rosyth district in his Department; and, if so, whether, during Newlands' appointment, he inspected the machinery in use in the construction of the new dock works, including concrete mixers; and whether he made any reports upon the precautions necessary with regard to fencing these mixers to prevent workmen falling or being knocked into them; and, if so, what was the nature of such reports?
  Mr. McKENNA: Mr. Newlands was recently the inspector in charge of the district in which Rosyth is situated. He was asked, on the occurrence of an accident in connection with the machinery referred to, to ascertain the circumstances. Mr. New-lands made certain inquiries and furnished a brief statement of the facts; but, as his inquiries showed that the work which was being carried on did not come under the Factory Acts, he did not make any formal report or put forward any recommendations.
  Mr. J. WARD: Could the right hon. Gentleman give me a copy of the statement that he did make?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir; Mr. Newlands' statement would be a confidential document.
  Mr. J. WARDAre all the factory inspectors' reports on general questions such as public works machinery, and the necessary precautions to be taken always confidential documents?
  Mr. McKENNA: A report of this kind at this stage would certainly be a confidential document. My hon. Friend must understand that the report was not made under the Factory Acts, and is not therefore of the kind which ought to be published.
  Mr. J. WARD: May I press for an answer to this question? Is the report being declared confidential by the right hon. Gentleman's Department for fear of prosecutions for perjury, this gentleman having given evidence in a compensation case directly hostile to the report which he has made to the Department?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, that is the first I have heard of any suggestion of the kind.
  Mr. J. WARD: It is for that purpose I put the question down.
  Mr. McKENNA: I was not aware of it.

  Drummond's Bank Crossing, Westminster.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been directed to the danger of the crossing at Drummond's Bank; and if he will make inquiry with the view of stationing a police officer there for the protection of foot passengers?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Commissioner of Police informs me that a constable is as a rule stationed at this point during the busy hours, that is, between 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. and the Council of the City of Westminster have been asked to provide a refuge in the centre of the roadway.

  Port of London (Dock Dispute).
  Mr. POINTERasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the report of the trial of certain dock labourers at the Essex Autumn Assizes for riotous conduct at the time of the London dock dispute, all of the prisoners, with the exception of one, being sentenced to three months' hard labour; and whether he will examine the report of the trial and see whether, under the circumstances, there might be some mitigation of the sentences on these men, most of whom have wives and children dependent on them?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am making inquiries about the cases, but the reports have not yet reached me.

  Employment Agencies (London County Council By-Laws.
  Mr. O. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Home Secretary whether he will take steps to extend Sections 7, 8, and 11 of the London County Council by-laws as to employment agencies so as to apply to the United Kingdom as a whole, and not only to the area within the jurisdiction of the London County Council?
  Mr. McKENNA: As regards registries for female domestic servants, local authorities can already obtain powers to make by-laws under Section 85 of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907, and the Home Office model form of by-laws under that Section, which have been adopted by a number of authorities, contain provisions similar to those in number 7 and 11 of the London County Council's by-laws to which the hon. Member refers. As regards registries for other classes of
  798
  employment, the hon. Member's proposal could only be effected by legislation. I would refer him, however, to the provisions of the Children (Employment Abroad) Bill, introduced on behalf of the Home Office this Session in another place, which seeks to prohibit and restrict children and young persons being sent abroad for the purpose of performing for profit.
  Mr. O. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any power to compel local authorities to adopt these bylaws?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir, they are optional by-laws.

  Coal Mines Regulation Act.
  Sir WALTER MENZIESasked why the new Mines Regulation Act, limiting colliery winding enginemen to eight hours per day, has not been enforced in all collieries in Lanarkshire?
  Mr. McKENNA: The provision does not come into force until a date to be prescribed, and is to be subject to exceptions which are to be laid down by general Regulations under the Act. The Regulations have been issued in draft, but, objections having been taken to them, the matter will have to be referred to a Referee. As soon as the regulations are settled, a date will be fixed for the provision in the Act to come into force.
  Sir W. MENZIES: Is the Order general, or does it only apply to Lanarkshire?
  Mr. McKENNA: That would depend upon the date prescribed, but the Regulations apply to the whole of Scotland.

  Disturbances at Llanystumdwy.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITHasked the Home Secretary if he will lay upon the Table of the House a verbatim Report of the evidence given in the recent proceedings in connection with the disturbances at Llanystumdwy?
  Mr. McKENNA: There is no official Report of the evidence which could be laid before the House; but the hon. Member will find a very full newspaper report in the "Cambria News" of 22nd November.
  Mr. H. SMITH: May I ask whether the police authorities have not a report of the proceedings?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have inquired on that point, and I understand they have no report which is as full as that contained in the "Cambria News."
  Mr. KING: Will a copy of this paper be put in the Library?

  Town Planning Schemes.
  Mr. JAMES PARKERasked the President of the Local Government Board whether Dr. Manby, of his Department, on the 16th June, 1911, visited the urban district council of Prestwich, and found that the provisions of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act were not being carried out; that on Dr. Manby's advice the urban district council, on the 19th July in that year, appointed their inspector of nuisances for the purposes of Section 17 of that Act; whether the Local Government Board have during this year received a letter from the aforesaid council asking consent to the dismissal of the inspector of nuisances, and have inquired on what grounds such request has been made; if so, what answer has been received; and whether, under the circumstances, he proposes in the interests of the public health to cause a public inquiry to be made into the sanitary condition of, and the administration of sanitary law in, the area of the urban district council of Prestwich?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I am aware that Dr. Manby visited Prestwich in June, 1911. He reported to the effect that it was then the intention of the urban district council to designate the inspector of nuisances for the purposes of Section 17 of the Act of 1909, and this was subsequently done. In reply to a letter from the Council asking for consent to the termination of the inspector of nuisances' appointment, the Local Government Board wrote asking for a statement of the reasons for the proposal. The council replied to the effect that the matter had been deferred owing to the probability of further changes taking place in the health department, and they asked whether they could give the inspector of nuisances notice to terminate his appointment on 30th June next. The Board replied that this could be done, but that, if such notice was given, they should be furnished with a statement of reasons. If the notice is given, and the reasons furnished seem to me to be insufficient, I will consider the question of an inspection of the district.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENasked the number of local authorities who have applied to the Local Government Board for permission to prepare town-planning schemes, the number of authorities to whom such permission has been granted, and the number of town-planning schemes prepared or adopted by-local authorities which have been approved by the Local Government Board; and whether the Local Government Board has issued any sets of general provisions under Clause 55 (1) of the Act of 1909 for carrying out town-planning schemes?
  Mr. BURNS: The number of local authorities who have applied for permission to-prepare town-planning schemes is twenty-six. These applications relate to thirty-four schemes. The number of local authorities to whom the permission has been granted is fifteen in respect of twenty schemes. Three schemes have been prepared and submitted for approval, but have not yet been finally approved. The answer to the last inquiry is in the negative. The information asked for is contained in the White Paper presented to the House on the 12th instant, except that one application for authority to prepare a scheme has been received since that date.

  Tuberculosis.
  Mr. ASTORasked how many complete schemes for detecting and treating tuberculosis have been submitted by local authorities; and how many have been approved up to date by the Board?
  Mr. BURNS: Complete schemes have already been submitted by the councils of sixty counties and county boroughs, and the Board have approved of the main lines of thirty-three of these schemes. Schemes of a partial or temporary character have been submitted by forty-six other such councils, and schemes for the provision of dispensaries have already been submitted by sixteen Metropolitan borough councils.
  Mr. ASTOR: How long have the Local Government Board been considering the schemes not yet approved?
  Mr. BURNS: As soon as is consistent with decency, economy, and order we sanction these schemes. Approval is not withheld longer than is necessary.
  Mr. ASTORasked how many beds in sanatoria, as distinguished from beds in hospitals or other institutions, are now

  801
  available for insured persons suffering from tuberculosis?
  Mr. BURNS: The total number of beds in the sanatoria already approved by my Department is 2,806.
  Mr. ASTOR: Have all these come up to the requirements laid down by the Local Government Board?
  Mr. BURNS: The distinguished corps of doctors we have set aside to approve these schemes are satisfied with them.
  Mr. ASTOR: But do they come up to the requirements laid down in the circular of the Local Government Board?
  Mr. BURNS: Yes, or else they would not be approved.

  Walworth Crêche.
  Mr. FIENNESasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the fact that five children have died at a branch of the Walworth crêche, he will consider the advisability of appointing a public inspector of crêches?
  Mr. McKENNA: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. As criminal proceedings are being taken in the case of a home for children at Tooting, to which my lion. Friend probably refers, the facts are now sub judice. The premises in question were a residential home, under inspection by the London County Council. The crêche at Walworth is not in any way involved in these proceedings, and I have no reason to think there is any need for the inspection of crêches where children are left only for the day and taken home by their parents at night.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    METROPOLITAN ASYLUMS BOARD.
    Mr. ASTORasked how it is proposed to make the hundreds of empty beds in the Metropolitan Asylums Board available for the institutional treatment of consumptive insured persons in London?
    Mr. BURNS: As I have already informed the hon. Member, negotiations are proceeding between the London County Council and the Metropolitan Asylums Board with a view to seeing if it is possible to utilise some of the accommodation of the latter body for the purpose mentioned in the question Nothing has
    802
    yet been settled, but I understand that the matter is being dealt with as expeditiously as possible.
    Mr. ASTOR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the negotiations began before 15th July when the sanatoria benefit began?
    Mr. BURNS: I could not say the exact date of the beginning of the negotiations, but I know for the last week or so both bodies have been doing everything that could be reasonably expected of them to come to an arrangement.
    Lord BALCARRES: Will it not be necessary to have legislation to bring that into force?
    Mr. BURNS: It is possible that short of legislation the two bodies can come to an arrangement by which certain beds, or, perhaps, an institution or two may be released for this purpose.

    CONTRIBUTION CARDS.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, whether approved societies can put the member's number on the card before issuing the card to the member?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): Sanction to this change has been very strongly pressed for by representatives of approved societies. The Commissioners have been reluctant to permit such an arrangement on account of the fear that any marks on the cards might be used for the identification by employers of the particular societies to which individual employés belonged. I am, however, communicating with the approved societies to see if this objection is insuperable.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in case of a levy employers are in duty bound to know what society a man belongs to?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not aware of that.
    Mr. LARDNERasked what the results were in proceedings brought in Ireland against persons who failed to carry out the provisions of the National Insurance Act; in how many cases where fines were imposed did resisters who were prosecuted refuse to pay the fine; and whether any of these persons have gone to prison?
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSalso asked in how many cases of prosecutions for failure to stamp insurance cards under the National Insurance Act fines have been inflicted; what is the aggregate amount of such fines and what is the aggregate amount actually paid in respect of such fines; and how much has been paid to the Insurance Commissioners in respect of arrears of contributions for the non-payment of which convictions have been obtained?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As regards England fines have been inflicted in twenty-one cases for refusal to stamp health insurance cards; they amount in all to £92 5s. 6d., exclusive of costs, and £1 17s. 2d. arrears of contributions have been paid in connection with these prosecutions. Fines have been imposed in three other cases in connection with the National Insurance Act in Ireland. In several other cases the proceedings have not yet been concluded. I have no information as to payment of fines imposed by the Courts.
    Mr. LARDNER: May I ask if it is the fact that in the majority of the cases action was rendered necessary by the operation of a certain society in Ireland?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no information.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: How much of the £92 has been received?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: We have nothing to do with the fines.

    MATERNITIY BENEFIT
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been called to a married woman giving birth to triplets; and if he can state whether a married woman giving birth to triplets will receive £4 10s. maternity benefit under the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative. Maternity benefit is payable in respect of a confinement, not in respect of the number of children born.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a case of this kind the woman is put to a great deal more expense, and will he advise the Commissioners to make some extra allowance?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Commissioners have no power in the matter, however
    804
    sympathetic they may be. They have to carry out the decisions of Parliament.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of seeking powers to make a contribution of this kind?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That is another point. I should like to have notice of the question.

    STATE MEDICAL SERVICE.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether any estimate has been made of how long it would take to establish a State medical service; and whether, in the event of the medical profession refusing the terms of the Government, such a service could be formed in time to supply medical benefit from 15th January next?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Careful consideration has been given to the question of the best arrangements to make under the proviso to Section 15 of the Insurance Act, should it be found that the practitioners included in any list are not such as to secure an adequate medical service in any area; but I do not think it would be advisable that I should at the present time indicate what arrangements might have to be adopted in the circumstances suggested in the last paragraph of the question which, on my present information, seems to rest on a purely hypothetical assumption.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Have any steps actually been taken?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Steps have been taken to see whether the doctors are going to serve in any district under the panel system.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman decide the matter at once by handing over the money to the approved societies?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That is a possible alternative. But the first step is to carry out the system laid down in the Act.
    Mr. J. WARD: We could get it done for half.

    DIVISIONAL INSPECTOR (ALLEGED TREATING).
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked whether a divisional inspector appointed under the National Insurance Act procured evidence in certain cases against farmers suspected of having failed to

    805
    stamp insurance cards by treating their labourers to beer in public-houses; and whether the cost of the beer so given is included in the travelling and other expenses allowed to inspectors, or forms a separate item in the administration expenses of the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: In a report of an insurance prosecution I am informed that a divisional inspector making inquiries in a public-house gave 1s. to provide refreshment for those present. This sum came out of his own pocket, and not from public or insurance funds.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken no steps to prevent evidence being got by treating?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No evidence has been got by treating. The one inspector has been told that this is undesirable.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a report of the case in which one witness admitted that he had had ten or twelve glasses of beer before he signed his statement, and another admitted he had had a "tidy lot" of beer before he signed his statement?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I doubt if all that came out of the shilling.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a report of the case; does he think the report is wrong, or does he consider that his information as to the shilling is wrong?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have seen no report of the case. This is information furnished to me by the Insurance Commissioners.

    APPROVED SOCIETIES (MINIMUM MEMBERSHIP.)
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked whether the Insurance Commissioners have decided that no employers' fund shall be approved unless it has 500 or what other minimum number of members; if so, by what authority the Insurance Commissioners have so amended the National Insurance Act; and whether the same minimum is to apply to other approved societies?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer is in the negative. The Commissioners do not require more than 200 members as a condition of the approval of employers' funds, and only require that number in the case
    806
    of new funds. Employers' funds are at no disadvantage in this respect as compared with other types of societies seeking approval.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Have all other approved societies got to have a minimum of 200?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think all other new ones have to have a general minimum of 500, unless there is special reason why they should have less.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Have the Commissioners altered the Act in that respect?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: There is no question of that. The Commissioners have absolute discretion as to the minimum they fix in order to secure approval.

    SOLDIERS.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the circular issued by the War Office stating that only 25 per cent, of the soldiers compelled to insure have yet joined any approved society; and whether he will increase the amount allowed to approved societies for management of soldiers' insurance so as to make it possible for approved societies to take soldiers without loss?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Steps are being taken to call to the attention of soldiers who are subject to insurance the desirability of joining approved societies. I believe that most of the large societies are welcoming soldiers as members and have no evidence of any reluctance on the part of any societies to accept soldiers as members, nor have I any evidence that the amount which may be carried to the administration account of societies in respect of such members is likely to prove insufficient to meet their expenses of management.
    Mr. BOOTH: Do not many of the registered societies consider that the amount for management is quite sufficient?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I believe that is so. I believe that soldiers are joining the approved societies.

    WELSH INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the right hon. Gentleman if he inquired from the Welsh Insurance Commissioners as to

    807
    the number of letters in English and in Welsh, respectively, sent out by the Commission from its formation up to 1st November; and, if he did, and was supplied with the actual figures, will he state them?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Gentle-tleman on the 20th instant.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: If the right hon. Gentleman did get it, why did he refuse to give it to the House?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It would be most improper for me to communicate to the hon. Gentleman inter-departmental correspondence.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the right hon. Gentleman if he will issue a memorandum stating the cities and towns to which the persons, respectively, belonged who have been appointed as officials by the Welsh Insurance Commissioners?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am doubtful if such a return would serve any useful purpose proportionate to the labour involved in its preparation.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that I asked that question on the 20th, but that he skilfully avoided answering it?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have given a very categorical answer at present. If the hon. Gentleman in communication with me will explain what good purpose it will serve I will consider the question.

    PORT OF LONDON
    Mr. CARR-GOMMasked the right hon. Gentleman whether the Insurance Commissioners have completed their investigation into the general effect of the Act upon labour conditions in the Port of London; and, if so, whether he can make any statement upon the matter?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Insurance Commissioners are conferring with the Board of Trade on the subject this week, and I am unable in the meantime to make any statement. I will make one later.

    COURTS OF REFEREES (EXPENSES).
    Mr. BARNESasked whether it is proposed to grant a scale of expenses to members of the Courts of Referees under
    808
    Part II. of the National Insurance Act, as is done in connection with the Advisory Boards of Labour Exchanges?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): It is proposed to allow expenses to members of the Courts of Referees on a scale which is at present under consideration, and will be communicated to the members in due course.

    UNEMPLOYMENT BOOKS (STAMPING).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is a practice at Labour Exchanges, when unemployment books are being stamped, to mark over the stamp the number of days in the week the man has been employed; if so, whether he is aware that such a practice is prejudicial to a man seeking employment; and whether the advisability of stopping the practice will be considered?
    Mr. BUXTON: I assume my hon. Friend to refer to the overprinted stamps affixed by the Labour Exchanges in cases where an arrangement has been made with an employer, under Section 99 of the National Insurance Act, to stamp the workmen's books. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade stated, in answer to the hon. Member for Sunderland on 14th October, the use of these stamps is designed to facilitate payment of the refund to which a workman may become entitled under this Section. As at present advised, I see no practicable method of altering the existing arrangements, but if my hon. Friend will supply me with details of any cases in which the practice is thought to have entailed hardship to a workman I shall be glad to consider the matter further.

  Dublin and Belfast (Revaluation).
  Mr. FETHERSTONHAUGHasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that a general revaluation of the city of Dublin, as enlarged by the additions of Clontarf and other urban districts, was directed by Section 60 of The Dublin Corporation Act, 1900, and that, in Committee on the Bill, the Commissioner of Valuation swore that the revaluation could be made in about a year, and that, on the faith that it could be done within a reasonable period, the added urban areas, which had a modern and relatively high valuation as compared with the city, were protected for seven years from being rated

  809
  equally with the city, so that the obsolete valuation might be made right; is he aware that nearly thirteen years have now expired and that Dublin has not been revalued, and that for nearly six years the added urban areas have consequently been over-taxed; and will he state what has been the cause of this delay?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The facts generally are as stated, but the Commissioner of valuation is not aware that he made any such statement as to the time the work work would take, nor is there anything in the printed evidence to corroborate it. The work was not begun until 1906, partly to enable the revaluation of Belfast to be completed and partly because the Corporation of Dublin, at whose request the revaluation was to be made, were anxious that it should be deferred. Under these circumstances the Irish Government did not think it desirable to proceed with it. Since 1906 the work has been steadily progressing. First, the whole city had to be surveyed and particulars collected showing how the property was held, the rents paid, etc.; after this the valuation had to be made by the permanent valuation staff of the Department, and these could only be employed on it when not engaged on the annual revision.
  Mr. FETHERSTONHAUGHasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the city of Belfast, which is more populous than Dublin, was revalued in about one year; was it after the revaluation of Belfast and it was seen that the interests of publicans were seriously affected that the valuation of Dublin was delayed; is he aware that, in an affidavit filed on the 30th of May, 1906, in the King's Bench Division, Sir John Barton, the Commissioner of valuation, swore that a skilled staff was required, and that he had not been provided with the necessary funds to enable him to proceed with the revaluation, and on this plea postponed an application for a mandamus; was he supplied with a sum of £10,000 in the latter part of 1906 to enable the work to be done; if so, how many extra persons did he employ, and were those persons clerks or valuers; and why was the work not done?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The revaluation of Belfast was not completed in one year. It was begun in September, 1899, and completed in June, 190a. The work in Dublin was much more complicated and difficult
  810
  than that in Belfast, largely owing to the fact that Dublin is a much older city, I am not aware that the interests of the Dublin publicans had anything to do with the postponement of the valuation. Up till June, 1906, no extra funds were provided for the revaluation, but on that date a Supplemental Estimate for £1,000 for this work was submitted to Parliament. Six surveyors were then employed and the necessary clerical work carried out by the permanent office staff.
  Mr. FETHERSTONHAUGHasked whether Sir John Barton in October, 1906. consented and undertook in a consent made a rule of Court that he would forthwith proceed with the revaluation of Dublin ordered by Statute some six years earlier, and is this valuation still incomplete, to the loss of the added urban districts; is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the valuation of Dublin is over sixty years old and made on an obsolete principle, no account being taken of business value of premises, so that a corner block public-house in a leading thoroughfare rented at £300 on a lease for twenty years, tenant paying taxes, is rated at £45 only; and can he say why, Belfast being revalued in about sixteen months, Dublin's revaluation should take thirteen years and be still incomplete?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The facts are as stated, but I am advised that it is not the case that the delay is likely to cause any serious loss to the added districts. The former valuation of Dublin was made under the same Valuation Acts as those under which the revaluation is now being carried out. Any discrepancy, such as that mentioned by the hon. Member, is due to the fact that the case was not reported to the Valuation Office by the rating body. With regard to the latter part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I have just given him.
  Mr. FETHERSTONHAUGHasked whether the delay for thirteen years in the revaluation of Dublin has caused a loss to the urban districts added in 1900, they being since 1907 rated to the city rates on their high modern valuation, contrary to the intention of the Act of 1900; one of them, Clontarf, contributing in rates only £10,000 a year to 1907, and then when rated with the city paying £22,000 a year; has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the remarks of the learned Recorder of Dublin on the injustice caused

  811
  by the delay in carrying out the intentions of Parliament by having the revaluation complete before the seven-year period had expired; and will he see that publican interests or insufficiency of funds no longer delay the revaluation?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: From the figures available it would appear that the valuation of the added districts is not much higher than that of the rest of the city. Neither the interests of the publicans nor the insufficiency of funds are in any way delaying the revaluation, which will be issued as soon as the present annual revision is completed, thus enabling the revaluation to be brought up to date.

  Perthshire Commission of Peace.
  Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked the Prime Minister whether the advisory committee on the appointment of justices of the peace in Perthshire is summoned and consulted in all cases prior to the publication of lists of new justices for that county?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The answer is in the affirmative.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    CUSTOMS AND EXCISE REGULATIONS.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether, with reference to Clause 2 of the Government of Ireland Bill, the power of laying down the conditions under which brewing, distilling, and the manufacture of tobacco in bond may be carried on in Ireland, and the making of regulations governing the same, will be excluded from the administration of the Irish Executive and confided entirely to the Board of Customs and Excise in London?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The answer is in the affirmative, these matters being incidental to the collection of the duty, and having always been so regarded.

    BUDGET DEFICITS (IRELAND).
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether, in the event of the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer being unable to balance his
    812
    Budget, the ultimate responsibility for any deficit would fall upon the people of Great Britain?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The answer is in the negative.

    TOBACCO DRAWBACK.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether it will be within the competence of the Irish Parliament to revise and alter the rates of drawback granted upon the exportation of tobacco or the deposit of snuff for abandonment?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, except as a consequence of, and in proportion to, an Irish variation of the duty.

    IRISH FINANCE (COMMITTEE).
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister if he will state how many Members of this House, outside the Opposition, signed the memorials asking for the publication of the evidence given before the Committee on Irish Finance?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): Sixty-three Liberals, seventeen Members of the Labour party, and the Member for North Westmeath.

    LAND PURCHASE.
    Mr. GINNELLasked, having regard to the undertaking of the Unionist Government in 1903 that the bonus of £12,000,000 then provided by Parliament for landlords selling estates in Ireland, in addition to the price, and of the Liberal Government in 1909, when increasing this bonus to £18,000,000, that, while Ireland should be held liable for the price of the land, with interest, the bonus in excess of price should be an Imperial and not an Irish charge, if he will say in what way, in the Government of Ireland Bill or otherwise, those undertakings are to be carried out?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The bonus charges will be borne by the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, and will not be deducted from the Transferred Sum.

  Canadian Immigration.
  Colonel YATEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Canadian Government has decided to establish a woman's branch in Great Britain in connection with its immigration work, with

  813
  the object of encouraging women coming to Canada, and also that the question of female emigration from England has been discussed at the sittings of the Dominions Royal Commission; and whether, considering that the number of adult males on 1st January, 1911, in the British Isles was 12,023,000, and the number of females 13,384,000, or an excess of 1,361,000 adult women over men, and that during the year 1910–11, out of 123,013 emigrants, including children, to Canada, only 35,255 were female adults to 65,478 male, which shows that the emigration of men is, roughly, double that of women, he will now consider the question of forming an Imperial Board of Emigration, comprised of representatives of Great Britain and all the Dominions to go thoroughly into the question of female emigration, with a view to secure the greater equalisation of the sexes throughout the Empire?
  The SECRETARY Of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I have observed the facts to which the hon. Member calls attention, but I am not prepared, in present circumstances, to consider the question of forming such a Board as is proposed. The subject is under consideration by the Dominions Royal Commission, and so far, as was pointed out in reply to a similar question by the hon. Member on 12th July last year by the President of the Local Government Board, it has not been considered necessary for the British Government to offer any special encouragement to female emigration.
  Colonel YATE: Will the Government take no steps, considering all the circumstances of the case?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I do not think we can take any steps. Female emigration to Canada and other parts of the Dominions of the Crown has been greater in the last twelve months than in any previous year.
  Colonel YATE: But has it been sufficient to counterbalance the preponderance of women left in this country?
  Mr. HARCOURT: It is counter-balanced.

  Delhi.
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he has taken note of the feeling existing against the proposal to erect the new buildings of the new Delhi in the Italian Renaissance style and of the opinion that a native Indian style should
  814
  be adopted; and whether he will assure the House that no decision will be taken to build the new Delhi in the Italian style until the full proposals of the Government of India have been pubished and the House allowed an opportunity of considering them, or at least until the proposals have been placed before the public for criticism or approval?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): I am not aware that any such proposal as is mentioned by the hon. Member is before the Government of India. No decision as to the style of architecture to be employed has been reached. The Secretary of State is unable to give the further assurance asked for.

  Audit Inspector (Wales and Monmouth).
  Mr. HAYDN JONESasked whether the Treasury has recently appointed an inspector of audit for Wales and Monmouth; whether the post was advertised and a knowledge of Welsh required in candidates; and whether the person appointed by the Treasury speaks Welsh?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Inspectors of audit under the National Insurance Act, who are servants of the Treasury, and not of the Insurance Commissioners, are appointed for service in any part of the United Kingdom in which their services may from time to time be required. The inspector for the time being assigned to Wales does not possess a knowledge of the Welsh language, and, as his work is limited to the supervision of auditors all of whom speak English, such knowledge is not essential. It was stated in the advertisements inviting application for a post on the audit staff that a knowledge of Welsh would be necessary in the case of some of the appointments, and a certain number of Welsh-speaking candidates are in fact being appointed.

  Scottish Universities (Pees).
  Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked the Secretary to the Treasury (1) what steps his Department took to ascertain the opinion of the Scottish universities upon the question of the inclusive fee for certain courses of study before making the acceptance of the policy of the inclusive fee a condition of increased Grants from the Exchequer; and (2) whether his Department received the sanction of this House for the policy of imposing the inclusive fee upon the Scottish universities?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: In communicating to the Scottish universities in July, 1910, the intention to ask Parliament to vote an additional Grant in 1910–11, the Treasury stated that they proposed to make increased Grants subject to conditions, one of which was the "institution of an inclusive fee of uniform amount throughout the universities for all the classes included in a particular form of study." The Scottish universities, after holding a conference, accepted in principle the condition of establishing an inclusive fee. The Grant has been voted in the usual way ever since 1910–11, and until quite recently, so far as I am aware, no objection has been raised in the House of Commons to the action of the Treasury.
  Mr. WHYTE: Did the right hon. Gentleman take legal opinion as to the justification for the Treasury taking such action without a separate ordinance?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I should have notice of that question. It was done before my time.
  Sir H. CRAIK: On whose initiative did the Treasury proceed in making this entirely new demand upon the Scottish universities, infringing their statutory right of fixing these fees?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I think it was done two and a half years ago. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a question I will try to give him the information.

  Government Buildings, Dublin (Fair-Wages Clause).
  Mr. BRADYasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he will take steps to ensure that the Fair-Wages Resolution of the House of Commons of February, 1909, is observed in every contract and subcontract entered into in connection with the erection of the new Government buildings in Merrion Street, Dublin?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to the question is in the affirmative.

  White Lead Committee.
  Mr. CHANCELLORasked the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to charges impugning the good faith of the White Lead Committee and seeking to prejudice their Report before it is issued; and whether the Public Prosecutor proposes to take any action to protect the Committee against any attempt to influence their findings?
  Mr. McKENNA: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I have seen the advertisements in the newspapers to which the question refers. I do not think the Committee are likely to be influenced by, or would wish any notice taken of, charges made anonymously in advertisements in the Press.

  Superannuation (No. 2) Bill.
  Lord ROBERT CECILasked the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to a Notice of Motion standing in the names of the hon. Member for Colchester and the hon. Member for North Herts proposing a further financial resolution in connection with the Superannuation Bill; and whether the Government will move a Resolution to that effect before the Committee on that Bill is concluded, so that an Amendment to carry out such Resolution now standing in the names of the same two hon. Members may be submitted to the Committee on the Bill?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: As I stated in the discussion on the Second Reading of this Bill I am making careful inquiry with a view, if necessary, to introducing a Bill dealing with the point next year. I am afraid I cannot undertake that the question shall be dealt with in the present Bill.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Does the right hon. Gentleman definitely promise that it shall be dealt with next year, and is he making that promise on behalf of the Government?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I hope it may be dealt with next year. It is a complicated question, and I am having inquiry made with a view to its being dealt with.

  Hours of Railwaymen.
  Mr. HUDSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the complaints of long hours of railwaymen on the railways in the United Kingdom, he will call for a special Return of the actual hours worked over ten per day or during any shift of duty during the months of October and November, 1912?
  Mr. BUXTON: A Return under Section 4 of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1S39, showing the periods of duty in excess of twelve hours worked during June, 1912, by certain classes of servants in the employment of the principal railway companies of the United Kingdom was presented to Parliament last month. I do not

  817
  think that such complaints of long hours as have been received by the Board of Trade lately are of a nature to justify the Board in calling for a general Return such as suggested, but as my hon. Friend is aware the Board of Trade are always willing on receipt of representations that the hours of labour of the servants of a particular railway company are excessive, to consider the question of taking action under the Railway Regulation Act, 1893, and as a matter of fact action has recently been taken under that Act in respect of one of the complaints to which presumably my lion. Friend alludes.
  Mr. HUDSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman's Department in the near future consider the matter of reforming their administration as instituted upon the Act of 1893, with a view to shortening the term of what is considered excessive?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am always prepared to take action in regard to these matters when complaints are brought to my notice. I understand that representations have been made upon particular points, and I hope with satisfactory results.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    AUSTAN CONSTRUCTION.
    Mr. YERBURGHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has information to the effect that Austria is to lay down next year three additional ships of the "Dreadnought" type, to be completed in 1915; and whether these additions to her fleet will provide her with seven ships of the "Dreadnought" type in that year?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): There is no official information to this effect.
    Mr. YERBURGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he told the House on 22nd July last that information had then reached the Admiralty which pointed to the fact that the increased programmes of Austria and other Powers constituted a new fact which would be entirely outside his plan of new construction?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, I am fully-aware of everything I have said on the subject, and I frequently refresh my memory.
    Mr. YERBURGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it has been publicly stated in the Press that three extra
    818
    Austrian "Dreadnoughts" have been sanctioned. I should like to ask how it is that the Admiralty are not in a position—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should put these questions down.

    ROYAL, NAVAL, RESERVE (OFFICERS' TRAINING).
    Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that officers of the Royal Naval Reserve serving in the Union-Castle Line carrying out their twelve months' training in the Royal Navy and their gunnery and torpedo practice lose seniority in their own service; and, if so, whether he can make representations to the Union-Castle Line suggesting that they should give every facility to those of their officers who wish to make themselves efficient as officers of the Royal Naval Reserve?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I had already been in correspondence with the chairman of the company on this matter, and received his assurance that he is very anxious to meet the wishes of the Admiralty. The privilege of counting full seniority on their completion of training in the Royal Navy has already been extended by the company to officers of or above the rank of third officer.
    Major ARCHER-SHEEasked whether the Admiralty have at any time officially addressed the owners of merchant ships in the United Kingdom, urging upon them that they will provide every facility for officers of the Royal Naval Reserve in the way of undergoing naval training and attending the different courses in respect thereto; and whether, in the case of those ship-owning companies having contracts with the Government, it is made essential that those of their officers holding Royal Naval Reserve commissions shall receive every possible encouragement and facility in putting in naval training and in rendering themselves thoroughly efficient as Royal Naval Reserve officers?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Admiralty has-received so much assistance from ship-owning companies in providing facilities for the naval training of officers in the Royal Naval Reserve that up to the present the action suggested in the questions has not been found necessary.

    H.M.S. "Pegasus."
    Major ARCHER-SHEEasked what is the nominal full speed of His Majesty's ship "Pegasus"; when the quarterly eight hours' full-speed trial, in accordance with Article 915 of the King's Regulations and Admiratly Instructions, was last carried out; and what was the speed attained?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The last eight hours' full-speed trial was carried out in July, 1909. It is not in the public interest to state the speed obtained, but the ship is capable of obtaining her full horse-power if desired.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the full speed of this ship is not over ten knots and her nominal speed is twenty?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No; my information is different from that.

    H.M.S. "TORCH."
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now make a statement on the alleged unseaworthiness of His Majesty's ship "Torch"; and, if not, if he will state the date on which he can make a statement?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Report dispatched by the Commander-in-Chief is not due until the end of this month. As soon as the Report is received it will be given careful consideration, but the date on which a statement could be made cannot be given at the present time.

    ADMIRALTY CONTRACTS (FAIR-WAGES CLAUSE).
    Mr. BARNESasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if Messrs. Dixon Brothers and Hutchison, of Woolston, are at present executing any Admiralty contracts; if he will make inquiry into the wages and conditions of employment; and say whether or not they are consistent with the Fair-Wages Clause of 1909?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Messrs. Dixon Brothers and Hutchison are constructing engines for motor boats for His Majesty's Navy as sub-contractors. The usual Fair-Wages conditions are included in the contracts with the main contractors, who are required to ensure compliance with the conditions by their subcontractors. I have received a complaint of alleged infraction into which I am inquiring.
    Mr. BARNESasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will have inquiry made into the wages paid to fitters, turners, and machinists in the machine and fitting shops of Messrs. Gwynnes, of Hammersmith, Admiralty contractors; and if he will say whether or not such wages are those paid to fitters, turners, and machinists by organised employers or good employers in London as provided for by the Fair-Wages Clause of February, 1909?
    Sir W. BULL: Is it not the fact that this firm has always paid trade union rates according to the inquiry the Admiralty made protecting this firm against attacks of hon. Members?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Part at any rate of my answer answers the supplemental question. As my hon. Friend is aware, in consequence of complaints received last year, a detailed investigation was made into the wages paid by this firm. As a result, it appeared that, so far as men employed on Admiralty work were concerned, the firm was complying with the requirements of the old Fair-Wages Clause—under which, at that time, Admiralty work was being executed. All recent contracts have been made under the new Fair-Wages Clause. So far I have received no complaint. If my hon. Friend can give me definite particulars as to any infraction of that Clause, I will have the matter at once investigated.
    Mr. BARNES: I will give particulars.

  Coalfield (Coalisland).
  Mr. WILLIAM ARCHER REDMONDasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether his attention has been called to the Report made by Mr. Lyburn, mineral expert to the Department, in regard to the coalfield at Coalisland, in the county Tyrone, and to his statement that there is an abundant supply of good household coal to the extent of 63,000,000 tons and that in his belief the mines are perfectly workable; and whether, in view of these statements, he will say whether any portion of the income of his Department will be devoted towards the development, of' this industry?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The answer to the first part of this question is in the affirmative. The estimate of the Department's mineral expert as to the probable amount of coal that could be made available is as

  821
  stated in the question. The Department cannot devote any portion of their funds for the purpose mentioned.

  Soil Fertilising.
  Mr. FFRENCHasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), whether he is aware that the Elliot mixture for putting land under grass contains a large proportion of deep-rooting grasses and other deep-rooting plants that aerate, fertilise, drain, and improve the physical condition of the soil as well as giving good meadows and good pasture; if he has any official Reports showing that such a mixture is not well suited for a stiff clay soil; and whether the Department will make experiments with this mixture if they have not done so already?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The answer to the first part of this question is in the affirmative. The Department are informed that the mixture gives good pasture, but that in case of meadow or hay it is difficult to save or winnow. The Department are experimenting with this mixture. They are advised that it is unsuitable for clay soils.
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked whether the restrictions under the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Act have been removed from county Cavan; is there any restriction still in force affecting the holding of the annual fair in Swanlinbar; and what exactly is the effect of the restriction if such there be?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The restrictions were removed from the greater portion of the previous scheduled district in counties Fermanagh and Leitrim on the 21st instant. The only area now subject to restriction is that known as the prohibited area round the infected places, which embraces a small part of county Cavan, including Swanlinbar. Movement of animals out of this area is prohibited, and consequently the holding of a fair at Swanlinbar, at which animals would be purchased for movement out of the area, is not practicable at present.
  Mr. KENNEDY: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman himself inquire of the authorities whether this particular fair could be held? And will he let me have a copy of the answer he has given me?
  Mr. RUSSELL: Certainly. The Department has no desire to maintain these prohibitions a moment longer than they are deemed to be necessary. This is a very small prohibition, but the veterinary
  822
  officer thinks it necessary. It will be removed as soon as possible.
  Mr. KENNEDY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? Did he not wire to the authorities that they could hold their fair, and will he now send me a copy of the answer that I can wire to them and put them right?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I informed the hon. Member it would be possible, but I was a little too hasty in that. I was not aware that Swanlinbar was within this small area. It turns out that it is within the area and therefore it is impossible for some time yet to hold the fair.
  Mr. CRUMLEY: As there has been no case of foot-and-mouth disease in this part of county Fermanagh since 5th October, will the right hon. Gentleman not allow the fair to be held, and take off the restrictions; and if he cannot see his way to do this, will he circumscribe a couple of fairs and allow the rest of the country to hold fairs and to have access to it?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The hon. Member is quite right. It is six or seven weeks since a case occurred in this district, but I am sure he will recognise that the Department, being anxious to get rid of the disease, is taking every precaution, and it is in the interest of the farmers themselves that these precautions should be taken.

  Loss of "Shernudon" and "North Briton" (Load Line).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a resolution from the Kirkcaldy and District Trades and Labour Council deploring the loss of lives caused by the wreck of the "Shernudon" and the "North Briton," both caused in consequence of the raising of the Plimsoll load line; if his attention has been called to the jury's finding in the case of the "North Briton" shipwreck; and if he intends restoring the load line to its original position, with a view of minimising the loss of lives at sea?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have received the resolution mentioned by my hon. Friend. As regards the "North Briton," I have already stated in this House that the finding of the Court of Inquiry into the loss of that ship is engaging my careful attention in connection with the question of the 1905–6 revision of the load-line tables. As regards the other ship, the "Shernudon," I am asking the Kirkcaldy and District

  823
  Trades and Labour Council to furnish me with particulars of the case referred to, as the Board of Trade have no record of any British vessel of this name.

  Newcastle-under-Lyme Endowed School.
  Mr. STANIERasked the President of the Board of Education, if he has received a petition from Mrs. Brade, of Newcastle-under-Lyme, asking if lie will sanction and authorise the payment by the governors of the endowed school of an annual sum of money for her life in consideration of the forty-three years' faithful service of her late husband; and, if so, will he say what answer he has given?
  The PRESIDENT Of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, the Board have no power to authorise the grant of a pension or gratuity to Mrs. Brade, except upon the application of the governing body of Newcastle-under-Lyme Middle School, and then only if the grant is shown to be for the benefit of the foundation. It appears from Mrs. Brade's petition that the governing body of the school have decided not to make an application to the Board, and the Board are therefore not in a position to consider the matter. Mrs. Brade has been informed of the position of the Board in the matter.

  Dublin Telegraph Office
  Mr. NANNETTIasked the Postmaster-General whether he will state if the last three appointments to the position of overseer in the Dublin telegraph office involved the passing over of a qualified officer, who has performed the duties for the last four months; whether the recent appointments were the original selections of the Dublin controller; and why the filling of these appointments was delayed four months?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The last three appointments to the position of overseer in the Dublin telegraph office did not involve the passing over of an officer who was in my opinion qualified for promotion. Moreover, promotion does not necessarily fall to the first officer on the list who can be considered as qualified, but to that one considered to be the best qualified of those eligible. The delay in making the promotions was due to detailed inquiries which it was considered necessary to make as to the qualifications
  824
  of available officers. The responsibility of selecting officers for promotion rests with myself; and I am unable to furnish the hon. Member with information as to the recommendations made to me by the supervising staff.

  Telephone Service.
  Mr. BARNESasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the amount of overtime being worked at the head office of the Telephone Department, Queen Victoria Street, by the clerks of such Department; and if he will state the reasons for such overtime and, if possible, have it stopped?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am aware that a large amount of overtime is being worked by the clerks in the London telephone service owing to increase of work and changes of system consequent on the absorption of the National Telephone Company's service. I have already sanctioned the employment of additional force, which will be taken on as soon as possible. The question of a general revision is receiving attention.
  Mr. BARNES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if this overtime has been voluntary on the part of the individuals employed?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Overtime is compulsory in the Post Office service; but, as a rule, volunteers are forthcoming. My information in this particular case is that the overtime was worked by volunteers.

  Marconi Wireless Telegraphy Agreement.
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the Postmaster-General whether the Governments of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, or Newfoundland are parties to the Marconi agreement; and whether he has any further statement to make with reference to the attitude of three of these Governments to the Marconi agreement?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: As I stated in answer to a question by the hon. Member on 16th October, there has been no question of establishing at the present time a Transatlantic service as part of the State-owned Imperial Wireless System. The participation of the Governments of Canada and Newfoundland was therefore not invited or discussed. As I have also already stated, the Government of New Zealand had entered into arrangements, before the negotiations with the Marconi Company began, for the erection of a

  825
  station capable of communicating with Australia, a distance of about 1,100 miles. Of the two other Dominions, South Africa is, and Australia is not, participating in the contract. So far as I am aware, Australia has not yet begun the erection of a station capable of communicating with the Imperial station to be erected at Singapore, though her Government have undertaken that such a station shall be established.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be a fact, and not a mere invention, to say that four out of the five Dominions are not parties to the Marconi agreement?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: This Marconi agreement—yes, this is so.

  Jamaica (Relief of Distress).
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any further information as to the extent of the disasters in Jamaica and the measures which are being taken for relief of distress?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I have received from the Governor of Jamaica two telegrams as follows:—
  "Your telegram of 23rd November; no loss of life reported Europeans."
  "Parishes of St. James's, Hanover, and Westmoreland suffered from two periods hurricane intensity Sunday 17th and Monday, 18th; all bananas in these parishes totally destroyed, bread-fruit, cocoanuts and ground provisions seriously damaged and native food supply crippled. Conditions of a similar kind to that of Eastern parishes after 1903. Hurricane flooded gullies, destroyed houses, recklessly placed in them; loss of life, Montego Bay, about 40; about 15 reported elsewhere; other casualties not extensive; canefields Westmoreland harried by wind, but will recover to a large extent for crop; some in St. James damaged by flood debris; some sugar works destroyed, new factories stood well; as usual, destruction of flimsy and decayed tenements Savanna-la-mar, Lucca and country. Relief arrangements organised on lines followed in 1903 and will be financed from Colony's insurance fund. Military authorities have kindly and promptly lent tents and offered assistance; people rebuilding houses and shelters and will be helped by local committees. Loss of planters will be heavy and no doubt that public revenue will be impaired, but
  826
  I do not expect serious embarrassment to administration. His Majesty's ship "Æolus" now here and also kindly offered assistance."

  DARDANELLES.
  Sir JOHN LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a question, of which I have given private notice, namely, whether he has received any information with regard to the reported closing of the Dardanelles?
  Mr. ACLAND: We have received no information in confirmation of the report.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: May I ask whether it is possible that the Dardanelles may have been closed without the Foreign Office being advised of it?
  Mr. ACLAND: I am sure that we should have been advised as soon as possible. In a previous ease we were advised very shortly after the event.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

  JOINT EXCHEQUER BOARD.
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether in the event of an Irish Parliament making any addition to the duties on tobacco, it will be the duty of the Joint Exchequer Board to determine the additional Excise and drawback rates on the basis of the added duty or on the basis of the whole duty, Imperial as well as Irish?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It would be the duty of the Irish Parliament to make such alterations in the Excise and drawback rates in Ireland as were rendered necessary by the additions to the duties. If those alterations were of such a character, in the opinion of the Joint Exchequer Board, as to be inconsistent with the requirements of the Statute, the action of the Irish Parliament would be ultra vires. In practice, the opinion of the Joint Exchequer Board would doubtless be taken before the alterations were made.
  Mr. HEWINS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have given private notice, namely, whether having regard to the fact that the functions of the Join Exchequer Board are continuously involved in the Debates to-day and to-morrow, he can state what Amendments the Govern-

  827
  ment intend to introduce to give effect to the pledge on behalf of the Government given by the Postmaster-General last Thursday that some power of appeal from the Joint Exchequer Board would be given on questions involving interpretation of the terms of the Government of Ireland Bill?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The promise given was one of consideration, and not a pledge that an Amendment would be inserted. But, after consideration, the Government are of opinion that it would be a convenience if the question, whether or not a service is an Irish service, should be referable directly to the Privy Council under Clause 29, without any necessity for previous determination by a Court of Law on proceedings taken to decide whether or not a particular action of the Irish Government was ultra vires. The Government are also giving consideration to the question whether an appeal from the Joint Exchequer Board to the Privy Council should not be allowed on the question whether or not a new Irish Tax is substantially the same in character as an Imperial Tax.
  Sir EDWARD CARSON: May I ask when the right hon. Gentleman will be able to put the Amendments down, and whether he will consider the desirability of having some regulations as to who are to be the parties to raise the question?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: This is provided for. The procedure laid down in Clause 29 is that the Lord Lieutenant or a Secretary of State can refer certain questions to the Privy Council, and I should say that the same procedure would apply in this ease. The Amendments will be put down as soon as possible, but it will be some considerable time before we reach Clause 29.
  Mr. CASSEL: May I ask whether a subject on whom this independent tax is imposed would be able to raise the question?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, Sir, but he would have to go to the ordinary Courts. If he did so, the ordinary Courts would have to refer it to the Joint Exchequer Board.
  Mr. CASSEL: In that case would there be an appeal from the Joint Exchequer Board to the Privy Council?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I should like to have notice of that question.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what business the Government propose to take on Friday?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): We propose to take the Committee stage of the Established Church (Wales) Bill.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
    EIGHTEENTH ALLOTTED DAY.— [Progress, 21st November.]
    [Mr. Whitley in the Chair.]
    FINANCE.

      CLAUSE 15.—(Powers of Irish Parliament with respect to Taxation.)
      (1) The Irish Parliament shall have power to vary (either by way of addition, reduction, or discontinuance) any Imperial tax so far as respects the levy of that tax in Ireland, and to impose in Ireland any independent tax not being in the opinion of the Joint Exchequer Board substantially the same in character as an Imperial tax, subject to the following limitations:—

      (a) The Irish Parliament shall not have power to impose or charge a Customs Duty, whether an import or an export duty, on any article unless that article is for the time being liable to a Customs Duty levied as an Imperial tax; and

      (b) The benefit to accrue to the Irish Exchequer from any addition to any Customs Duty levied as an Imperial tax (other than a Customs Duty on beer or spirits), or to any duty of Income Tax so levied, or to any Death Duty so levied, shall be limited as in this Act provided; and

      (c) The power of the Irish Parliament to vary an Imperial tax shall not be exercised with respect to the Stamp Duties mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act; and

      (d) The Irish Parliament shall not, in the exercise of their powers of taxation under this provision, make any variation of Customs or Excise Duties the effect of which will be to
      858
      cause the Customs Duty on an article of a class produced, prepared, or manufactured in Ireland, to exceed the Excise Duty by more than an amount reasonably sufficient to cover any expenses due to Excise restrictions;

      and the power of the Irish Parliament to make laws includes a power to make laws for the purpose of giving effect to their powers of taxation under this provision.
      (2) For the purposes of this Act—

      (a) The expression "Imperial tax" means any tax charged for the time being in Ireland under the authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and includes a tax which has been discontinued under the powers given by this Section to the Irish Parliament, but which would have been so charged but for the discontinuance;

      (b) The expression "Irish tax" means any tax charged under the authority of the Irish Parliament either by way of an addition to an Imperial tax or as an independent tax.

      Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think we have now reached a stage of the Bill at which you may take the point of Order which I raised some time ago. It was to the effect that this Clause of the Bill is not governed by the Resolution of the House in Committee and requires a Resolution for its foundation. Since I raised the question before a different Resolution has been submitted and passed in Committee and approved by the House, but substantially, I think, it leaves my point untouched, and I need not further refer to it at this stage. The point, shortly, which I wish to submit to you is this: This House cannot transfer to another body any power which it is not in a position to exercise itself. This Clause purports to transfer to the Irish Parliament certain powers of increasing existing Imperial taxes or raising new taxes in Ireland. Neither of those things can be done by this Committee or House until a Resolution on which to found a power of that character has been passed in Committee and approved of by the House, and as we ourselves have not at the present time any power to do either of these things, we cannot have the power to give such authority to another body. I conceive that two possible defences might be raised to my point of Order: One is the precedent of the Bill of 1893. The Bill of 1886, of course, never reached the

      859
      Committee stage. The Bill of 1893 had a Clause in it which might perhaps have been open to the same objection, but no such objection was taken at the time for the very best of reasons, that the Clause was guillotined and that there was no opportunity for discussion upon it, and I submit that a precedent cannot be created by silence, and especially where there was no opportunity of raising the point. I think that Mr. Speaker has often ruled that the fact that he himself or his predecessor did not rule a particular course out of Order when their attention was not called to the question of Order at all, is not to be taken as showing that the course was in order, or necessarily to be regarded as a precedent.
      The second defence that I conceive might be raised is the defence that a similar power has from time to time been conferred upon the Dominion Parliaments and Parliaments of the self-governing portions of the Empire across the seas. On that I venture to suggest that the ease is not parallel,and that, whether in the case of South Africa or Australia or any other of the Dominions or Colonies, there was a previously existing inherent right of taxation in the then Government of the Colony, whatever it was, and that all that we did was to authorise the transfer of that right from the then existing local body to a new body to be created. Therefore, for those reasons, I submit that neither the Bill of 1893 nor the Commonwealth Act of Australia, nor the Union Act of South Africa, is a parallel or precedent for what is being done. But there is a precedent on the other side which, although not exactly similar, is sufficiently analogous to make me think it right to call attention to it, namely, the Poor Law (Ireland) Rate-in-Aid Act, 1819. It was proposed to give the Poor Law Commissioners in Ireland power to levy a rate over the whole of Ireland. If they decided to exercise the power, the rate was to be collected by the guardians, but paid into the Imperial Treasury for the Consolidated Fund, as would be the case under this Bill, with all the taxes raised under the Clause which I challenge. The question was raised whether this rating power—not a taxing power, but a rating power so general as to apply to the whole of Ireland—could be conferred by this House without a preliminary Resolution, and Lord John Russell, who, I think, was the Leader of the House, conceded that the Resolution was necessary, and a Resolution was passed to
      860
      found the Bill upon. I think that that is a sufficiently analogous case to show that, as far as there is any precedent for doing what is done under this Bill, it supports my contention that there ought to be Resolutions to found this Clause upon, as the Resolution which we have passed does not cover the terms of this Clause. Therefore I submit that this Clause is not in order, and cannot be proceeded with without another Resolution.
      4.0 P.M.
      Mr. CASSEL: In support of the contention of my right hon. Friend, may I call attention to the fact that the taxes which the Irish Parliament is authorised to impose are to be paid into the Consolidated Fund, and will form part of that fund absolutely indistinguishable from the rest of the taxes of the United Kingdom. They will be imposed automatically by virtue of the Imperial Parliament, and collected by Imperial officers; and all that the Irish Parliament will have to say in future is that the Income Tax shall be at the rate of 1s. 3d. in the pound instead of 1s. 2d. The result of that will be operative, not merely in Ireland, but over the whole of the United Kingdom. That is to say, every coporation, every trustee, every bank, every mortgagor throughout the United Kingdom will have to take notice of that Irish Act, and will have to make deductions which are provided for, and those deductions will have to be collected in England, not in Ireland, and in the case of the Death Duties, if a person domiciled and resident in England dies in England, but has property in Ireland the executors in England will have to pay to the revenue authorities in England, not in Ireland. They will have to collect and pay in to the Consolidated Fund as part of the general revenue of the country the additional Death Duties imposed by the Irish Parliament in the same way as they collect the general Death Duties for the Imperial Parliament. The way I would like to put it is this: If it were possible to do that without a Financial Resolution, it would be equally possible for Parliament in future instead of passing each year an Act that the Income Tax for the coming year should be at the rate of 1s. 2d. in the £., to pass an Act that the Income Tax shall be at such a rate as is imposed in Council, or which the Income Tax Commissioners may declare, not exceeding a certain rate. Could anyone logically or reasonably contend that while a Resolution was necessary for

      861
      directly imposing an Income Tax of 1s. 2d. in the £, it was unnecessary for the purpose of authorising somebody else such as the Income Tax Commissioners or His Majesty in Council to impose it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order."] I think it is a point of very great constitutional importance, and that I am entitled to state my view upon it, especially in face of the fact that the decision may affect our future proceedings. The other analogy I have to put to you is this: Supposing instead of increasing directly by Act of Parliament the Petrol Duty, this House were to say in future the Petrol Duty should be at such a rate as the Road Hoard confirms. Would anyone contend that an Act of that kind would not require a Financial Resolution in Parliament? In this respect the present Bill differs entirely from the Home Rule Bill of 1893.
      The Home Rule Bill of 1893 proposed that such independent taxes as the Irish Parliament was prepared to impose were to be imposed by an Irish Act and not by an Imperial Act; they were to be collected by Irish officers and not by Imperial officers, and that Act could have had no effect outside the area of Ireland itself; that is to say, no one in England could have been charged by reason of duties imposed under such an Act as was dealt with by the Home Rule Bill of 1893. The same thing also applies in this instance. This power of increasing Income Tax, or Death Duties, is simply giving somebody else the power to impose a tax affecting the whole of the United Kingdom, for it does affect the whole of the United Kingdom. The tax is collected over the whole of the United Kingdom, in the case of a person domiciled and resident in England if he has property in Ireland, and it is one of which every Court in the United Kingdom will have to take notice. If it were merely an Irish Act of Parliament, no English Court would have to take notice of it; but if they were to increase the Stamp Duty on Irish transfers or sales, these taxes, being collected by the Imperial officers, and becoming operative by virtue of Imperial Acts, would have to be taken notice of by the English Courts, and I submit that under these circumstances it is impossible for this House under its own Rules, which have been observed over so long a period, to do this.
      The CHAIRMAN: I understand the point that has been raised, and perhaps I can best deal with it by taking the broad
      862
      aspect of it first, and then dealing with I the minor points which have been put before me in support of the case. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) referred to this point some time ago, and the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cassel) was good enough to send me a note dealing with some points by which he supported the case; so that I Rave been enabled to give a good deal of care to the matter before coming to a decision. On the broad points of the case it appears to me that the Colonial analogies are the nearest analogies that we have. What is proposed in this Bill is to delegate to another body the power to tax. I cannot say that the giving of that power in the Act requires cither a Ways and Means or a Money Resolution in this House. What does require a Resolution of Ways and Means or a Money Resolution is the actual imposition of a charge upon the public, and, in case the powers under this Bill are used in Ireland, they can only be used on an originating Message from the Crown in the same way as procedure here is governed.
      The right hon. Gentleman referred to the case of 1893. In the Bill of 1893 there was a power proposed to be given to levy taxes; in that case there was no Money Resolution or Ways and Means Resolution for the purpose. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that the point was not raised because the particular Clause was passed without Debate under the Closure. I do not press that foundation for my ruling, because I agree with what he says, although, in my view, it would have been the duty of the Chairman, although the point was not raised, if he himself was aware that the Clause contravened the Rules of the House, to-decline to put that Clause to the Committee. I now will deal with the further points that were raised. The first one was that the Poor Law (Ireland) Bill, passed in 1849, was an analogy for the present case. I have looked both to the Statute and proceedings in this House, preliminary to the passing of the Bill, and I do not think that that can be said to be the case. That was a Bill for which there was a Resolution empowering any charge not exceeding sixpence in the pound, to be levied over the whole of Ireland, and the amount might be diminished by the Poor Law Commissioners if the whole of it was not required. That was the imposition of a tax or rate

      863
      by this Parliament on His Majesty's subjects in Ireland, and, therefore, it does not seem to be analogous to the case of delegating power to another Parliament to impose taxation upon His Majesty's subjects in Ireland. The hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) has raised two further points, one that the taxes are to be collected by Imperial officers. That does not seem to me to apply to the case one way or the other. The thing that requires a Money Resolution is the imposition of a particular charge on His Majesty's subjects, and the matter of collection is one of machinery. The hon. and learned Gentleman's other point was that these taxes were to be paid into the Consolidated Fund, and then to be paid out of it again. That, again, does not touch the real matter; it does not touch the claim that the power to delegate the right of imposing taxation should be preceded by a Resolution in Committee.
      Mr. CASSEL: On my point with reference to the Poor Law (Ireland) Bill, that Bill did no more than authorise the Poor (Law Commissioners to impose a charge not exceeding sixpence in the pound, and not directly to impose the charge, but merely saying that it should be lawful to declare a rate not exceeding sixpence in the pound.
      The CHAIRMAN: That was a charge imposed by the Imperial Government on His Majesty's subjects.
      Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERALIN: It is more analogous at any rate to one portion of this Clause, because it authorises a body in Ireland to levy an addition to the local rate; it authorises the central body in Ireland to levy an additional sixpence on the local rates, and this Bill proposes that a body in Ireland may levy an addition in Ireland to the Imperial taxation. In both cases it is an authority given to a body in Ireland within certain limits fixed by the respective Bills to impose an addition to the charges on the subject in that part of the country. In both cases the money is to be paid into the Imperial Exchequer and the proceeds are to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund. If it is not analogous, therefore, to the power to impose new taxes, is it not directly analogous to the power to increase existing Imperial taxes by an amount not exceeding 10 per cent.?
      The CHAIRMAN: I do not think so. That was a power given to the Commissioners under the authority of this House. This is a proposal to set up a Legislature in Ireland to which we delegate certain powers now residing in this House. I do not think the cases are analogous. I now come to the Amendments on the Paper. The first two Amendments I propose to take are those standing in the names o£ the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher), and of the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs to leave out certain words from the word "to," in line 27, to "impose," in line 30 ["vary (either by way of addition, reduction, or discontinuance) any Imperial Tax so far as respects the levy of the tax in Ireland, and to"]; and the second Amendment stands in the name of the hon. Member for South Birmingham in line 29, after the first "tax" ["tax in Ireland"] to insert the words "other than Customs or Excise Duties."
      Sir E. CARSON: May I ask why the Amendments previous to those selected are excluded?
      The CHAIRMAN: If the right hon. Gentleman will refer me to the particular Amendments which he has in mind I will endeavour to explain.
      Sir E. CARSON: All of them.
      The CHAIRMAN: The first two of them are out of place, and the fourth is a negative of the Clause, and under our Rule it is not in Order. I understand that on the first one the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Hewins) desires to address me.
      Mr. HEWINS: I should like respectfully to submit to you, Sir, with regard to the Amendment which stands in my name, that the powers conferred upon the Irish Parliament by the Clause we have to consider this afternoon, include powers which are generally recognised on the Continent of Europe and in our own history—powers under which bounties can be given, and which are in fact usually given, and those bounties are not confined in the modern sense of the term, and still less in the ancient sense of the term, by the meaning attached to that term by the Postmaster-General. The more common or usual way is of readjustment or modification of internal taxation, and by exemptions from or additions to Customs and Excise. It is properly a financial question, and I may say that there are innumerable cases in the Tariff Reform history of Great Britain,

      865
      and there are very important cases in the Tariff Reform history of Ireland in the eighteenth century, showing that the common method was for the Irish Government to give bounties for the encouragement of a particular trade. I do not wish to go into the question in detail at present, but there is scarcely a country in Europe in which bounties are not very usually given. It would be concluded by every Power in the world that a conferring of these powers in the Bill on the Irish Parliament was tantamount to conferring the power of giving bounties, unless we have a prohibition.
      Sir E. CARSONBefore you rule upon this point, Sir, may I call your attention to the fact that you have already stated that this Amendment is out of place1? Will we be guaranteed some time at which we can raise this important question to Ireland? The time limit for discussing these financial Clauses is extremely short, having regard to the number of them and to the importance of the questions. If you rule this Amendment out of place, may I ask whether we will have any place to enable us to discuss these matters, and where we can raise these questions?
      The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. Member for Hereford that the Irish Parliament shall not have power to grant bounties in any case is out of order at the beginning of the Clause. In my view it ought to come under Clause 2 or as a new Clause. After hearing what he has said about the question of discrimination in taxation, he may be able to submit the Amendment in a new form to come within the scope of this Clause. If he submits it in another form dealing with that point alone, I will give it fresh consideration. With regard to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, new Clauses on the Report stage of the Bill will come at the beginning, and in that way I have no doubt it will be possible that the matter should be discussed.
      Sir E. CARSON: Will you guarantee it?
      Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: On a point of Order. May I submit that this question of bounties is strictly a matter analogous to these Financial Clauses? If I understand your ruling right on the last point, you referred to the Commonwealth of Australia Act. If you look at Section 90, in that portion of the Act which is headed Chapter IV. and which expressly
      866
      deals with finance, you will see that it is in the following terms:—
      "On the imposition of uniform duties of Customs the power of the Parliament to impose duties of Customs and of Excise, and to grant bounties on the production or export of goods, shall become exclusive,"
      the grant of bounties under that Section being expressly coupled with the powers of Customs and Excise. I submit from that Colonial analogy that the question of bounties can properly be raised here.
      The CHAIRMAN: If it came in at all in this Clause it ought to come as a limitation.
      Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: For our information and convenience, as the first Amendment would really cover the second one, and as it might be a little inconvenient to hon. Members to redistribute their arguments, I would ask whether a general discussion might not be permitted on the whole power to vary?
      Mr. LOUGH: May I ask whether you have considered the very important Amendment that has been put down by the Government, and which seems to me to revolutionise the Clause?
      Sir E. CARSON: Give us some little time!
      Mr. LOUGH: And whether, having regard to its importance, it might not be taken first, and, if not, whether you can tell what time it will be taken?
      The CHAIRMAN: In the selection of Amendments I do not give any preference to the Government over a private Member. With regard to the other point, I was about to say that the first Amendment proposes to leave out the power to vary Imperial taxes, and that covers both direct and indirect taxes, and therefore the second one of course is the smaller point. I thought the Committee was entitled to give a separate decision on the smaller point. I have no doubt that the Debate on the first Amendment will cover both points, and it would not be desirable to repeat the argument on the second Amendment.
      Mr. LEIF JONES: In considering the larger point first, are we not reversing the usual procedure, since if we settle the larger point we impliedly settle the smaller one?
      The CHAIRMAN: No. The Committee may decide that it will give power to vary some taxes, and then it may proceed to say which.
      Mr. LOUGH: With regard to the point I raised, I do not put it on the ground of the Government being the author of the Amendment, but on the ground of the importance of the Amendment to the Clause. Having regard to the great importance of the Amendment, I would ask whether it might not be taken at an early stage?
      Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD: May I ask whether it would be possible to discuss the Government Amendment on the first Amendment, as there are many of us who regret that the Government have brought forward this Amendment, and we shall find it extremely difficult to divide on the question unless we have the opportunity of explaining our views?
      Sir E. CARSON: Instead of taking the Amendments out of order, having regard to this important question that has been put down, would it not be better if we adjourned this Clause?
      Mr. R. HARCOURT: May I suggest that it does arise on the present Amendment?
      The CHAIRMAN: I think the first Amendment cannot be discussed without having in mind the later Amendment which the Government have put down, because the first one deals with the words "power to vary." The Government Amendment says they shall not have power to vary except in certain particular cases.
      Mr. LOUGH: Will it be understood that we have the Government case on this Amendment and a general discussion?
      The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): It would be quite convenient to the Government to take a discussion on the Government Amendment under the Amendment of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher). The Government would be glad to state their position in the Debate on that Amendment.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask if you are going to allow the Government to open their very important Amendment, and if the Committee is going to debate it whether all the other Amendments put down before the Government Amendment are to be swept aside for want of time? If
      868
      they once get on to that Amendment we shall never get any more time to discuss the other. [An HON. Member: "That is what they want."]
      The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment raises a large question in proposing to leave out power to vary altogether.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "vary (either by way of addition, reduction, or discontinuance) any Imperial tax so far as respects the levy of that tax in Ireland, and to."
      We are at last about to enter upon a discussion for the first time of the whole powers of taxation to be given to this Irish Parliament. Those powers may be put under two heads. The first is the power to vary in any way, either by adding to or by altering in any way, or by reducing, or discontinuing any Imperial tax so far as the levying of that tax in Ireland is concerned. The second power is the power to impose in Ireland any independent tax not being, in the opinion of the Joint Exchequer Board, of substantially the same character as an Imperial tax. My Amendment seeks to limit those powers of the Irish Parliament to power number two. My Amendment does not touch the power that is given in the Bill to impose in Ireland an independent tax if that independent tax obeys the definition in the Bill that it is not substantially the same in character as an Imperial tax. I was very glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General, that he had already appreciated the difficulty of settling what was substantially an Imperial tax, and that he does intend to put down an Amendment by which some Court may be set up to decide what is and what is not substantially an Imperial tax. My Amendment does not deal with that power. My Amendment seeks to take away the power given under the Bill from this Irish Parliament to in any way vary either by addition, reduction, or discontinuance any Imperial tax whatever. It seeks therefore to prevent the Irish Parliament from operating on the whole area of Imperial taxes, an area which in my opinion ought to be covered only by the Imperial Finance Minister.
      I do not intend to occupy much time now with the question of Customs and Excise, but we hope to be allowed to have another discussion on that matter and to confine our arguments purely to the power given

      869
      under Customs and Excise. What I intend to deal with are the other powers which the Irish Parliament would have under this Bill to impose taxes other than Customs and Excise. I must make a passing reference to the subject of Customs and Excise, because we have endeavoured lo prove that this power of Customs and Excise given to the Irish Parliament, will be used and can be used for the purpose of protecting Irish industries against foreign industries, and even against British industries. We know that the Postmaster-General holds a very different view. I desire to call the attention of the Committee to a speech delivered by the great champion, the great Irish champion, in favour of giving Customs and Excise to Ireland. I allude to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough). The right hon. Gentleman made an exceedingly interesting speech the other day, most of which was devoted to proving that the real desire in his mind for giving power over Customs and Excise to Ireland was that the Irish Exchequer might be placed in a position to obtain a vast amount of information which otherwise they could not obtain. The right hon. Gentleman did not content himself with that. Although he dwelt on the value of the information that would be obtained by setting up a separate Customs, he went on to deal with the question of making use of the power of the Customs in order to protect Irish industry. He said:—
      "The Custom House is put in the Bill because there was such an uprising of feeling in Ireland that no Bill would have been passed through the House without putting a Custom House into it. I have called attention already to a Clause in the Bill which speaks of Ireland not being allowed to interfere with foreign trade. I am promised an Amendment on that point, and I am glad to take the opportunity of reminding the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General that I look to him to fulfil his promise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1912, col. 191.]
      What was the promise to the Member for West Islington thus described? It was:—
      "That Ireland will he allowed to do what every other nation does, to look after her trade with foreign countries."
      What is the meaning of that promise? What promise has been made by the Government, and made apparently by the Attorney-General? I have searched the various Amendments that have been put down to the Bill by the Postmaster-General, and I have been expecting to see some Amendment put down to carry out this promise by which it shall be within the power of the Irish Parliament to make use of the Custom House as all other
      870
      nations make use of the Custom House, for the protection of Irish industries. I do not see that Amendment down. I hope we shall have some explanation about it from the right hon. Gentleman and from the Attorney-General as to what that promise was, and why the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington took all that trouble to emphasise the fact that he cared a very great deal for this Custom House because it would give them the power to protect Irish industries against foreign trade.
      Mr. LOUGH: The right hon. Gentleman opposite is using the word "protect" in quite a different sense from that in which I used it in my speech. I was careful to guard against any infringement of Free Trade. I have done so in every speech that I have made. I used the word merely in the sense of looking after the necessities of their commerce in other ways.
      Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: In what other ways?
      Mr. LOUGH: In a hundred ways.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: The right hon. Gentleman's words were:—
      "I look to the Attorney-General to fulfil his promise, and that Ireland will be allowed to do what every other nation does, to look after her trade with foreign countries."
      Mr. LOUGH: It has nothing to do with Protection.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: The right hon. Gentleman says that he is very careful in all his speeches to show that he abhors the idea of Protection for Ireland, and that he is a most absolute Free Trader. He has not done that in his writings. I would draw his attention to one of the little books that he has written, "England's Wealth Ireland's Poverty":—
      "As the famine receded the effects of the Free Trade policy began to operate, and the country (Ireland) bad not long to wait to discover in the movement which was carrying riches and prosperity to Great Britain the certain signs of further trial and disaster for her. …. The growing of wheat commenced to decay, the corn mills in every village, which had supplied the wants of the people from time immemorial, became idle and fell into ruins. … Every class of Irish producer saw its prosperity undermined and ruin staring it in the face. …. The nation collectively could have lived better, if not more cheaply, if it had continued to grow its own food and make its own clothes. But the trader with cheap foreign goods to offer appealed to the individual consumer, and thus the home market for each class of producers was gradually spoiled."
      I have an idea that when the right hon. Gentleman made his speech he was really

      871
      thinking of the old opinions which he put into print and has never repudiated, and which I do not believe he repudiates now.
      Mr. LOUGH: They are all the same.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: Then I leave the right hon. Gentleman to reconcile his speeches with his writings. For my own part I want to know what he meant, and what was the Amendment promised by the Attorney-General. Let us look at the other powers which the Irish Parliament will have under this particular Clause. I admit that the Amendment which the Postmaster-General has put down whittles away to a very large extent the powers given under Clause 15. As the Bill was drawn the Irish Parliament would have had power to vary the Income Tax to any extent in Ireland.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The 10 per cent. limit applies.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: That is all very well. The Irish Parliament could vary the tax to any extent, but they could not receive the benefit to a greater extent than 10 per cent, of the proceeds. That is a very different question. I maintain I am right in saying that under the Bill as drawn the Irish Parliament would have had power to vary the tax—to make it 20s. in the £, or to abolish the Income Tax altogether. The powers were there. The right hon. Gentleman discovered that they were there, and in consequence he has put down this Amendment:—
      "That the power of the Irish Parliament to vary an Imperial tax so far as Income Tax (not including Super-tax) is concerned, shall only be exercised so as to alter the conditions under which any exemption, abatement or relief from the tax may be granted to persons resident in Ireland, without varying the rate of the tax."
      That is a very large and important Amendment, but I submit that it does not shut the door against the Irish Parliament taking a course of action which would have the same effect as the varying of the rate of the tax. The Irish Parliament may not vary the rate of the Income Tax; that is to say, if the Income Tax in England and Scotland is 1s. 2d. in the £, the Irish Parliament may not make it a 1s. or 1s. 3d. in Ireland. But that does not apply to the Super-tax. What can they do as regards the Super-tax? At present the Super-tax is levied in England,
      872
      Scotland, and Ireland on all incomes above £5,000 a year, at the rate of 6d. in the £ from the £3,000 limit. Under this proposal the Irish Parliament will undoubtedly be able to alter the £5,000 limit and the £3,000 abatement. The right hon. Gentleman assents to that. They may vary the Super-tax to any extent; they may if they like graduate it from £500, or even from £100. They might under the Bill even with the Amendment, tax the income of a man or a trade beyond £5,000 until they had appropriated the whole of the income arising to the individual or industry. Therefore, while the right hon. Gentleman closes the door to the varying of the rate in one direction he opens it in another, so that the same effect can be secured by the Irish Parliament. May the Irish Parliament in dealing with the Super-tax distinguish between incomes derived from land and incomes derived from other forms of industry? May they distinguish between different forms of industry, such as breweries, distilleries, and various industries which are found in the North of Ireland? I see nothing whatever in the Bill to prevent their making such a distinction. In his Amendment the right hon. Gentleman has guarded the variation of the Customs Duties, because the Amendment goes on to say—
      "And so far as any Customs Duty or any Death Duty is concerned the power shall only be exercised so as to vary the rate of the duty without otherwise altering the provisions with respect to the duty or discriminating in that variation between persons, articles, or property."
      Therefore, as regards Customs Duties or Death Duties it will not be within the power of the Irish Parliament to discriminate between one form of income and another. As the Irish Parliament has the power to protect Irish industries by the giving of bounties on production and monopolies, so also it has the same valuable power of protection in the way that the Super-tax can be moved up or down. The Irish Parliament has only to sacrifice a small amount of revenue, if any at all, and it might absolve certain industries in Ireland that were competing with certain industries in Scotland and England from having to pay any Super-tax whatever. That would be a very valuable form of protection of those industries. In all these matters where a subordinate Parliament is allowed to invade the domains of the Imperial Exchequer there always must be great conflict between the Chancellor of

      873
      the Exchequer of the subordinate Parliament and the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the Imperial Parliament. One must interfere with the other. In case we had to raise a large amount of money in this country for a war, the Imperial Chancellor of the Exchequer might think of graduating the Super-tax as one means of raising revenue. There would be nothing contrary to sound principles of finance in such a course if money were wanted for any such exceptional purpose. But the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer might say, "I must get in first. I intend to impose an extra Super-tax on Irish incomes." Who would get the benefit of the Super-tax in such a case? The British Exchequer is not protected, and the Irish Exchequer would be able to get the benefit of the whole of the Super-tax in Ireland.
      I wish sometimes the Prime Minister were here. I want to address myself to the head of the Government, because the Prime Minister in his speech on the Second Reading of this Bill told us that we must always bear in mind the fact that this is only the beginning of a federal system, and that very soon the Government intended to bring other Parliaments into being, with powers of a kindred character. I know that he has more than once said that if we gave the Irish Parliament power over Customs and Excise there would be no necessity to give such a power to the Scottish or English Parliaments when such Parliaments were set up. I wish he would look back at the history of the Act of Union between Scotland and England. He would find that some of the most severe straining and the most bitter points arose over this very question of Customs and Excise. For my own part, I feel that when the Scottish race demand a Parliament of their own, if they see the Irish race in possession of a Parliament of control over Customs and Excise, power such as is given in this Clause to impose all kinds of new taxation, and power to alter and vary Imperial taxation, they also will demand similar powers for themselves, more especially when they see that those powers can be used, as undoubtedly they can and will be, for the purpose of protecting, at all events to some extent, home industries against industries in rival portions of what is now the United Kingdom. If we once, give to the Irish Parliament these powers to invade the domain of the Imperial Chancellor of the Exchequer, it will be extremely difficult to withhold similar powers from any other Parliament which
      874
      we may set up. Supposing all these Parliaments had similar powers over the Super-tax, the whole of the area might be drained of every single advantage that could possibly be obtained by the Imperial Chancellor of the Exchequer from imposing any Super-tax for the carrying on of a great war in which we might be engaged. I believe it is perfectly possible with the power given to the superior Parliament of imposing a Super-tax and the giving to the Irish subordinate Parliament of the power to impose a "super" Super-tax to bring about a perfect chaos in the whole region, both of Imperial anl local finance. I have only dealt with one question, the question of Income Tax, or, rather, with the Super-tax. The Irish Parliament is to have many other powers beside the power to deal with the Super-tax. There is power given to the Irish Parliament as referred to in the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, the Postmaster-General, to deal with exemptions and abatements in relation to Income Tax. What are these present exemptions and abatements? We all know what they are. Now the income on which total exemption is allowed is £160. There are various abatements on different sums, £400, £500, £600 and £700. I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman—for I think I am light in my reading of the Bill—whether it will not be perfectly possible for the Irish Parliament while varying the rate of Income Tax to fix the exemptions or abatements at any point which they choose to place them? The Postmaster-General signified his assent to that proposition. I think his answer will probably be: "Yes, if they do fix the exemption point so high over the whole area of Income Tax collection then they will lose; that sum will be deducted from the Transferred Sum." That probably will be his answer.
      Yes, that might be so. At the same time, what I want to point out to the Postmaster-General is that while the Irish Government might by so fixing the exemption or abatements, lose, yet at the same time the result to individuals may be to penalise them; to confer a hardship upon them. It is quite true that the Irish Exchequer might lose, but it is quite true that it would be possible to arrange your exemptions and abatements in Ireland that the result would be that the Irish Exchequer would not lose, while at the same time you might do a very grave injustice to various classes of individuals who were heavily penalised in comparison with those

      875
      who had similar incomes, derived in a similar way, in England or Scotland. I think that is most undesirable. Just as the right hon. Gentleman himself admits that it is undesirable to reduce the Customs Duty in Ireland; that it would be undesirable from the general point of view that Irishmen should be able to get cheaper tea, sugar, or tobacco, or cheaper commodities of that kind, so I want him to admit that it would be equally undesirable that by the mere manipulation of the powers of exemption or abatement people with incomes in Ireland of the same or similar amounts to the people in Scotland and England should enjoy advantages in the way of taxation compared with their English or Scottish or Welsh brethren under the same Imperial rule. All that to my mind is most undesirable. Even if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are disposed to give to Irishmen a separate Parliament I do not think that these powers are necessary to it. I think it is a grave misfortune that this Committee should allow itself to be inveigled into this snare of giving the power to Ireland to invade the whole domain of the Imperial Exchequer and to have different rates of Income Tax and exemptions to those in Scotland, Wales, and England.
      After all the future must not be forgotten in discussing this question. We must look ahead to see what taxes may be imposed in the future. There are, I am told, 170 hon. Members in this House who are quite determined that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, before he produces another Budget, shall put into that Budget some good swingeing duty on the capital value of land. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] I am not dealing now with the Single Tax, because some Gentlemen repudiate it directly it is mentioned, and no one person has been more active in repudiation than the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. But I believe there is a large body of opinion on the other side of the House which does favour a very heavy duty on the capital value of land. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] At all events there is one hon. Gentleman. I would like the Postmaster-General, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here, to say whether his reading of the Bill would lead him to believe, or lead the Committee to believe, that the Imperial Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to impose this new Land Duty on Ireland as well as on England and Scotland; that
      876
      when this separate form of Government has been given to Ireland the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to impose new taxation of that kind upon Ireland? So far as I can gather, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking the other day, seemed to give a reply to that. He said he would be justified in imposing new taxation on Ireland if it were for Imperial purposes "or Imperial services." I think he said I do not know how we are going to differentiate Imperial from other services, or how we are going to start on a new era of earmarking our taxation in that way. For my part I believe it will be found quite impossible. Supposing that for some great national or Imperial purposes it was thought good by a Radical Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the Radical party, to levy a duty on the capital value of land; if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had power to put that duty on the capital value of land in Ireland as well as on land in England and Scotland, under this Bill, it would be perfectly possible for the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer to discontinue altogether that tax. I invite the Postmaster-General's attention to that point. It would be perfectly possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer of Ireland to say, "No, you may have this form of taxation in England and you may have it in Scotland, but we are not going to have it in Ireland."
      Mr. EDGAR JONES: They would lose the money!
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: The effect of that must be of a heavy protective nature in favour of Irish industries. It would enable all farm and dairy produce to compete on more favourable terms than Scotland could compete with England, and on more favourable terms than England could compete with Ireland. These duties, if ever they are put on, must result in very I heavy taxation of all industries that use very much land. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] That is my view. It is the view of very many exports on this question. Some other day when we are discussing the subject we may be able to work the sum out and show that all industries that occupy a large amount of land, such as docks, markets, railways, will pay very large sums indeed as extra taxation. There, again, you will have Glasgow and Belfast in opposite places. Supposing this new tax was not imposed on Belfast, but was imposed on Glasgow, undoubtedly the

      877
      shipbuilding yards in Belfast and other competing industries in Belfast, Dublin, and Irish towns, would compete on much more favourable terms than similar industries in Glasgow and other towns where these industries have been set up and where they are now flourishing. We have to look, not only at the present, but we have to look at the future when we are discussing this question. We are assuming for a moment that this Bill will pass and that Home Rule Parliament will be set up. We are assuming that there will be separate Irish and British Exchequers, an Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer and an Imperial Chancellor of the Exchequer. I say that if this Bill is passed in this form, and if this Clause is passed in this form, without the Amendment I have moved, it must lead to endless chaos and confusion, to grave injustice and inequity between different classes of His Majesty's subjects residing now in different portions of what is now the United Kingdom—must lead to constant and endless friction between the two Exchequers and the two countries. In the whole interest of the community, whether they reside in England, Scotland, or Wales, this Clause should not be allowed to pass into law.
      Mr. JOHN REDMOND: The able speech which the right hon. Gentleman has just made I think sufficiently indicates to the House the extremely wide area of discussion that is opened by this Amendment. The Amendment is one, as I understand it, that proposes to take away from the new Irish Parliament the power to vary Imperial taxation. It was necessary for the right hon. Gentleman, in discussing that proposition, not to confine himself to his own Amendment, but to look at the Amendments which stand on the Paper in the name of the Government. I do not propose to wander over the whole field of the financial scheme of this Bill, although I might be strictly in order in doing so. From the first I have been one of those who consider the financial scheme of the Government as drafted in the Bill a good scheme. I do not say that, if it had rested with me, I would not have been a little more generous in my dealings with the English Treasury than the Government; but we must take the scheme as a whole. I have stated from the first—I stated it to the National Convention in Dublin, where my words were enthusiastically endorsed, and I have said it on a good many platforms since—that the financial scheme of
      878
      the Government as proposed in the Bill was a good scheme. That is the only general observation I would make. I propose to make some observations with reference to one particular matter. I confess that I regret that the Government have not stood to their scheme in its entirety. I know perfectly well the views which are entertained and have been expressed most powerfully by a large section of Members on the opposite side of the House.
      5.0 P.M.
      They seem to have been able to conjure up in their minds a vision of the near future, in which Ireland is so prosperous that she will be able to take the tax off tea, sugar, and tobacco, while at the same time this country will be in such pangs of poverty that she will be obliged to continue all these taxes. That vision is an absolute absurdity. Let hon. Members consider for a moment how very remote such a prospect must be. It can only arise as the result of enormous economy in the government of Ireland. Everyone admits that Ireland is the most expensively governed country in the world—that the Departments there overlap and overrun each other. Everyone looks forward to the future when it will be possible to make economics in the various Irish public services. That cannot be done at once. It cannot be done for a considerable time. All the existing Civil servants and office holders in Ireland have had their interests most carefully guarded in this Bill. The Government have strengthened the provision for safeguarding their interests by a series of Amendments that have been put upon the Paper in the name of the Chief Secretary. Anyone who considers these Amendments and provisions in the Bill, and the facts of the case, must see that probably a generation will pass away before any very substantial economies can be made in the Government of Ireland. Until those economies are made no Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer will be in a position to take a tax off tea, sugar, or tobacco. Remember, further, that if the time should come when the Chancellor of the Exchequer can make a remission of some of these taxes it will be done entirely at the expense of Ireland, whereas if the taxes, which is a much more likely thing to happen, were taken off by the Imperial Parliament, for the whole of the United Kingdom, Ireland would not suffer, because the Transferred Sum would remain the same, and it seems to me, therefore,

      879
      that the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer, first of all, would not have the power of making this deduction, and even if he had the power he would be a great fool to do so, because it would be far better for him to await the arrival of the inevitable day when public opinion in this country would insist upon reducing the cost of these things, and I am expressing my own individual opinion that the deficit of which we heard so much will then, in all probability be gone, and the financial situation will be revised in this House, under the terms of the Bill, long before any Chancellor of the Exchequer would dream of interfering with the taxes on tea, sugar, or tobacco.
      But it may be asked that as the probability of using this power to reduce is so remote, is it worth while to put it into the Bill? What I would like to say about that is this. This new Amendment deprives us, if not in practice, at any rate not in theory, of a certain power over taxation which is given to us by the Bill, and it prevents, if it ever came into operation at all, any effort being made to redress the balance between direct and indirect taxation in Ireland. The Committee is well aware of how this matter stands. Progress in England has been in the direction of reducing indirect taxation—I do not know the exact figures at the moment, but I think the direct taxation is about half the taxation in England: it is more than two-thirds of the taxation in Ireland—and if this Amendment were put into the Bill as settling the matter once for all, we would never in the future have the power of relieving the burdens of the poorest of the poor by dealing with indirect taxation, which would be a most unfortunate thing for us. But I should like to look at it from another point of view. I said a moment ago that revision of the financial situation would probably occur under the Bill before there is any real question or opportunity of reducing these taxes. I am one of those who is very confident upon this matter. The revenue of Ireland from natural causes has been increasing in recent years, and if it increases at the same rate for the next ten years it is assumed that the deficit will have entirely disappeared, and if it disappears these financial realtions between the two countries will, under the Clauses of the Bill, come up for revision in this House, and there is the provision enabling Ireland to be represented in these
      880
      discussions, not only by her forty-two permanent Members in this House from Ireland, but by a number that will be in proportion to the population of the country. This concession that the Government has made is not, of course, vital to the Bill. I look at it from this point of view. I am well aware that a large body of opinion on the Ministerial side of the House takes a strong view upon this point. Seventy-two Members, I am informed—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no," and other HON. MEMBERS: "More."] The exact number is not essential to my argument, but a large body of Members upon the other side of the House take this view.
      Mr. JOHN WARD: Half a dozen.
      Mr. JOHN REDMOND: Oh, no. The hon. Member is quite wrong. I know more about it than he does. A large body of Members take this view, and amongst them some of the very best supporters of the Government in this House, some of the very best friends of Ireland, and some of the most strenuous supporters of this Bill. I say, in these circumstances, it would be impossible for the Government and for the Irish party entirely to disregard the views of these Gentlemen, though I do not entertain the belief that seems to be entertained by some newspapers that if the Government had stood firm these men would have wrecked the Home Rule Bill; because, to have done so would be ridiculous and inconsistent. As I have said, this is not a vital matter to the Bill, and I was never influenced therefore by that consideration at all; but I do feel that when the views of a large body of friendly Members of this House, of men who proved in the past their friendliness to Ireland, are pressed upon us, that it is wise and proper of the Government to pay due heed to the remonstrance, and therefore, much as I regret that the scheme does not remain in its entirety, as proposed by the Government, at the same time I am bound to say that, in my opinion, they have taken the wise course in putting this Amendment on the Paper, and in this course the Irish party will acquiesce.
      Sir EDWARD CARSON: I do not suppose that anybody for a moment expected that the Irish party would do anything but support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General, which appears upon the Paper to-day. They would support anything to get the Bill and they leave it to future operations in Ireland and to Irish Members in this

      881
      House to extract anything that is necessary to complete what they have already got if this Bill unfortunately should ever become law. What I complain of is that a revolution in the Bill such as this is should be put down to-day or within the last few days, having regard to the limit of Time there is at the disposal of this Committee for the consideration of these matters. Everybody will agree that this Amendment is absolutely in the teeth of everything the right hon. Gentleman opposite has said from the Second Beading Debate down to the present moment, and now he has put his Amendment upon the Paper at the very last moment when there is no power whatsoever to enlarge the time for the discussion. Of course, the whole of the discussion as regards finance is not only really a farce but it is impossible to discuss it in the time, and now at the last moment there is this revolution made in the Bill. The least we might expect is that the Government would come down and say to the House, "We are now changing the Bill in a vital principle that requires the whole reconsideration of our financial proposals, and we are going to act fairly by the House and we are going to give whatever time is necessary for discussing our Amendments in addition to the very brief time we have already given. Of course, they do nothing of the kind. They have the Bill and they are making satisfactory progress. At half-past ten every night Clause after Clause is passed without discussion and Amendments are closured wholesale by the hundred. We know perfectly well there is absolute unreality in the whole of these proceedings, because the Government say. "If we can pass any kind of a Bill at all, no matter how unworkable or unfair to either this country or Ireland and put it upon the Statute Book, then we will have paid our debts to hon. Members from Ireland below the Gangway and we can leave the future to take care of itself."
      The hon. and learned Member for Waterford, who has just spoken, has declared that this Amendment of the Government is not a vital Amendment. That is not the way it is looked upon in Ireland. As a matter of fact the evolution of this question in Ireland is very remarkable. Before the Bill was introduced all the Nationaist experts in Ireland said they could not run Ireland unless they had complete fiscal autonomy, in fact a great many of them said it would be better to have no Bill at all than one without fiscal autonomy. I quoted some of them the
      882
      other day in a speech I made. That was the general feeling in every meeting held by people who took the trouble to go into the finances of this Bill at all. And everybody knows it was that question that delayed the introduction of the Bill for several months at the earlier part of the Session, and necessitated this Closure and guillotine at the present moment. Then came the proposals in the Bill, and everybody opposite was enamoured of these proposals. The Postmaster-General and the Prime Minister made a great point that this finance was required by the Report of the Committee founded upon evidence which they will not show us. They were all greatly enamoured of this finance, and it was described as the most ingenious finance ever introduced, for not only did it give fiscal autonomy to Ireland by giving at all events a method of regulating Customs or Imperial taxes whatever that might be, but at the same time it did not interfere with the Imperial Government because the Imperial Government still have the power of making the taxes while the Irish might only reduce or add to them, which was a very fantastical proposal in itself. We were told that was essential.
      The view of the Postmaster-General was that Ireland would be getting nothing but the power of increasing taxation unless they had the power of reduction, and he pointed out what a monstrous thing it would be to Ireland if after all these years, all the power you gave her was to raise taxation, whereas in reality the very poorest of the poor were concerned in the reduction of taxation. The Government come down to-day and make that very proposal to Ireland. They say to Ireland. "You can go on and have your right to increase Imperial taxation, but you must, not take a farthing off tea or sugar," or those other matters which were always told ought to be abolished, especially in Ireland, where we know there is a greater combination of poorer people than in any other part of the United Kingdom. [An HON. Member: "No."] I do not know who says "No," but I expect he is a gentleman who knows nothing about Ireland.
      What is the reasons of this change? Why is it that all of a sudden the Government come down and say, "We told you before that a certain thing was black, now we tell you it is white, and as regards our supporters behind us they are quite willing to vote whether it is black or white: it is all the same to them. The thing is to get the Bill through. Let it

      883
      be as rotten as you like, get it through." This is the policy of the Government, and it is the policy of the hon. Member for Waterford who got up a while ago as if lie had never been consulted upon this Amendment at all. The hon. and learned Gentleman is really a very good player. I give him all credit for it. Nobody admires the play-acting of the hon. and learned Member more than I do and probably that is because I understand it. I have known the hon. and learned Member for many years. I have watched his speeches in Ireland and I have compared them with his speeches elsewhere, and they are always excellent reading. I know perfectly well the hon. and learned Member came down to make his speech here having made his arrangements with the Government. It could not be done without him. You cannot really alter black into white without the consent of the hon. and learned Member. Now the hon. and learned Member says that this is not a vital question. I happened to have received a paper on Saturday from Dublin. It was the "Irish Independent," which is the chief Nationalist paper of Dublin. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I know it is not one subvented by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, and it is not "The Freeman's Journal," to which the hon. and learned Member largely contributed out of party funds. It is another Nationalist paper, and it is not absolutely dependent on the pay of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. [Laughter.] I suppose that is why hon. Members laugh. It is a paper with the largest circulation in Ireland, and it is one which can go on criticising these, matters without having any regard to the hon. and learned Member for Waterford and the arrangement to call black white which he makes with the Government. Passing from the first part of the article, which contains some abuse of myself, but which is not unnatural in the slightest degree, let us see what it says about this matter, which it is stated is not at all a vital Amendment in the Bill:—
      "Yet the Government has tabled an Amendment, the effect of which is to withhold from the Irish Parliament the power to reduce Customs. In yielding thus to the objections of a score or so of its own followers, the Government have displayed lamentable weakness. From Ireland's point of view this is more than a mere abstract question; it is a vital feature of the Bill. Indirect taxation presses with undue severity upon the poorer classes of the country, and roughly three-quarters of the taxed revenue is derived from that source. If the Amendment is carried, a large portion of the community peculiarly onerated with indirect, taxation cannot be relieved to the extent of a single penny."
      884
      Is that a satisfactory position for the Irish taxpayer? Is it a great fulfilment of the hopes and expectations which have been held out to them? What is the defence of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford in this House? I know it is not a real defence, because the real danger is that there might be a hostile vote. What is the defence put forward here? "Oh," he says, "under Home Rule the possibility of ever taking off anything in regard to the Customs, the Sugar Duty and the Tea Duty, and such things which affect the poor of Ireland is so remote that you need not consider it." That is a pleasant prospect to the people of Ireland, who think we are going to have great alleviation from the taxation of the brutal oppression of the Saxon. It must be a splendid message to send to the people of Ireland, saying that the possibility of taking off even a single, farthing or a halfpenny is so remote that it need not be taken into consideration. Then the hon. and learned Member says, "Even if we had the power it is better not to take it off in Ireland, because if we do we shall be relieving the burden of the deficit from England," or, in other words, you will be relieving the English taxpayer. You say to Ireland, "Let the English taxpayer take it off when he is taking off his own Customs, and then, notwithstanding Ireland taking it off and taking it off from us, he will have to go on, because you have fixed the sum in relation to the transferred services, and he will have to go on paying all the same." What is the prospect, therefore, for the English taxpayer in regard to the free breakfast table which we heard so much about during the election? It is that one of the considerations you have to keep in view before you take off a single halfpenny is that, if you take it off as regards England, you will have to go on paying it as regards Ireland, while Ireland will have it taken off. Was there ever a more ridiculous situation in finance than to put the relative taxpayers in that position as regards each other?
      But it does not end there. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford says, "Really, the way to look at all this is to wait until we come to the time when Ireland has got rid of her deficit." Having regard to the remote possibility of taking off or reducing the Customs, I do not know-how the hon. and learned Member means to do that. He said, "Really, the way to look upon all this is before you touch tea, sugar, the Customs, or those other taxes that affect Ireland, to put it all off

      885
      to the time when there will be a revision." The revision arises when you have got rid of the necessity of paying £2,000,000 a year to Ireland. It arises when there is a certificate that Ireland has been so far paying its way, that they are going to grant a contribution to the Imperial Exchequer. I should like some time limit to be fixed for that millennium when the relations of Ireland and England will be in that position. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford says, "Really, as regards the whole of this question of reducing Customs in Ireland, or reducing the other taxation, you must wait for this revision." What does the revision mean? You must wait until you come back from Ireland, until you have some Irish Members in this House in addition to the forty-two, and you will have the whole of this controversy as regards Customs and finance in relation to Ireland all over again. What a prospect for the settlement of a question between two countries! This is the best defence the hon. and learned Gentleman can put forward at the suggestion of the Postmaster-General, and after his confabulations with the Government in coming to an arrangement on this question. The best suggestion he can put forward is to put it all off until we are here again under some new constitution after a lapse of time when the millennium has come about in Ireland. The thing is too absurd. What I protest against is that a vital change should be put in this Bill as if it were a kind of drafting Amendment when, as a matter of fact we are considering the whole financial relations between the two countries, and we are asked to come down to consider not the proposal which the Government said was necessary, but a fundamental change like this. The truth of the matter is they care nothing about the Bill, or the Opposition, or our arguments; they say anything one day and anything the next, and the only thing they regale themselves with, and the only consolation they have, is that when half-past Ten o'clock comes, there is an end to all their difficulties; and whether they put in one system of another, it all passes away from the purview of the House under the guillotine; and be the system proposed good or bad, it is what the country must take because the country will never be consulted.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In the Debates which have taken place on this portion of the Bill there is no argument
      886
      put forward more than the contention that we are giving to the Irish Parliament powers far too large. If there is one provision which has been more vehemently denounced by right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Bench than another it is the power conceded to the Irish Parliament to reduce the duties on Customs and Excise. The Leader of the Opposition hardly ever makes a speech on this Bill without indicating the grave objection he attached to the power conferred on the Irish Parliament to have lower Customs Duties than we have in Great Britain.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I said different Customs Duties.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The right Gentleman was referring to the power of reduction, and he said the Irish Parliament would be able to reduce, and the British Parliament would do so at the same time, and that it would be a race between the two Chancellors of Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman made that point again and again. The power of Protection and the various aspects of the fiscal policy to which he referred undoubtedly referred to the power of reduction, although I know the right hon. Gentleman objects to the power of increase as well. When we try to meet the expressed wishes of right hon. Gentleman opposite, and meet their case, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University denounces us for another reason, which is that we are not allowing an extra day under the allocation of time Resolution in order that he and his Friends may have a full opportunity of condemning us for doing precisely what they have asked us to do.
      Sir E. CARSON: Rubbish!
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman's remark is hardly courteous.
      Sir E. CARSON: The reason I said that was because the right hon. Gentleman purposely misrepresents what I said.
      Mr. LEIF JONES: Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to say that any hon. Member of this House "purposely misrepresents" him?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I hardly think that is strictly within the limits of order.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Personally I attach no importance whatever to the right hon. Gentleman's interruption. The

      887
      right hon. Gentleman and his Friends have attacked us again and again for including this proposal in the Bill when we introduced it, and the only thanks we get when we try to meet them is that we are "doing it under the guillotine." A similar inconsistency is to be seen in the criticisms made against the Amendment standing in my name from certain quarters in Ireland. I see the hon. Member for North-East Cork in his place—
      Mr. T. M. HEALY: We are not going to take any part in the discussion on this part of the Bill whatever. We condemn it, and we think your action in regard to it is absurd.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not think any criticism could be more emphatic than that to which the lion, and learned Member has just given utterance. Apparently he has forgotten that he and his Friends have frequently said that the inevitable result of the financial scheme of this Bill in Ireland must be an increase of taxation. The hon. and learned Member's colleague in the representation of Cork, and certainly the newspaper which support the party to which he belongs, have again and again declared that the keynote of our financial schema is increased taxation, and that so far from any question of reduction being possible it is entirely out of the question. It has been said that Home Rule under this Bill would mean more taxes to the Irish, and not less, and when we promise to omit from the Bill the power to reduce certain taxes, then, forsooth, they turn round and tell us that this reduction is vital, and that we are denying to the Irish people what is essentially the birthright of any free country. But let us get to the true proportions of the alterations we are now proposing to make. The Bill in itself does not, with or without this alteration, touch fiscal policy in any degree. There are powers, indeed, to modify in certain limited ways Customs and Excise Duties, but there are no powers conferred upon the Irish Parliament to control tariff policy, and that has not been asked for by those who are represented here by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond). The right hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment quoted a remark of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough) that he had received a promise from one of the Law Officers to
      888
      the effect that an Amendment would be inserted to allow the Irish people to protect their own trade interests, and, reading in conjunction with that some writings of many years ago of my right hon. Friend, he deduced that there was some sinister plot to change this Bill, and after all to give a power of protection to the Irish Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman, if I may say so, has hit upon a mare's nest. My right hon. Friend was not referring, and the question in respect of which a promise, not of an Amendment, but of consideration was given, had nothing whatever to do with Protection, with Customs Duties, or tariffs, or anything of the kind. It related solely to the question whether, under Clause 2, the Irish Government ought not to be given the power of having officers in the nature of trade agents in the countries to which Ireland exports, so as to be able to secure that other commodities are not allowed to compete with Irish products unfairly by the use, for example, of the designation "Irish butter"—
      Mr. LOUGH: Or "Irish linen."
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Or in other ways to compete unfairly with Irish products.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the promised Amendment will be put down?
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is to Clause 2, and cannot be put down at this stage. It must be put down for the Report stage if at all. My right hon. Friend the Solicitor-General did not give any pledge that there would be any Amendment. He said the matter was one for consideration as to whether it was desirable that an Amendment should be inserted in Clause 2 to enable the Irish Government to protect the interests of Irish, exporters in foreign countries in such a way; and it has no relation whatever, direct or indirect, close or remote, with the question of Customs Duties which we are now discussing. Respecting the Amendment which stands in my name, and which is naturally the subject of discussion this afternoon, although the Amendment before the House is a different one, the Government have realised front the outset that a proposal to allow a variation of Customs Duties within a single State like the United Kingdom is exceptional, and I have freely admitted on many occasions there is no federation in which such variation of Customs is allowed.

      889
      We have realised also from the outset that if this power were acted upon, and if the Customs were in fact varied, there would necessarily be some inconvenience thereby caused. There would be the necessity of Customs examination of persons and goods passing from one part of the United Kingdom to the other, and the question before us was whether on the whole the advantages of the course we proposed outweighed or did not outweigh the obvious disadvantages. With respect to the power of increasing Customs Duties, our view is clear. Although there might be some inconvenience caused by the necessity of examining passengers and goods crossing from Great Britain to Ireland if the Irish Parliament thought fit to raise the Customs Duties, nevertheless it was essential they should have that power, because otherwise their financial powers would be most unduly restricted. Therefore, although that inconvenience would exist, the balance of advantage was clearly in favour of giving them the power, because otherwise they would have no adequate means of raising increased revenue, supposing increased revenue were required. I gave my reasons for that on a previous occasion at very considerable length, and I do not want to weary the House by repeating what I said on that occasion.
      With regard to the diminution of Customs Duties, I have always held, and the Government have always held, there were strong reasons for extending that power to the Irish Parliament. Supposing they were in a position to reduce taxation, it is a desirable thing in itself that they should be able to reduce taxation that falls through indirect taxes upon the poorer classes of the community. Here again it is a question of weighing and not a question of "black and white," as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) said. It is not a grave question of principle, but simply a question of weighing the advantages and disadvantages of the two courses, and the Government were of opinion that on the whole the inconveniences that attached to the varying of Customs Duties downwards, were less than those which would attach to denying the Irish people the right of reducing this form of tax. But, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford has said, and as is well known to the House, there are not a dozen or a score, but a very large number of hon. Members on this side of the
      890
      House who are very friendly to the Bill and strongly in favour of the principle of Home Rule, who entertain a strong objection to this particular provision, and they have urged upon the Prime Minister and upon the Government, that in their view the Bill would be greatly improved if this particular provision were omitted.
      I do not think the Government ought properly to treat as of no account representations of that character made in respect of a matter which is in no sense vital to the Bill, and which in no sense revolutionises the Bill as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, but which is merely an incidental provision of the financial arrangements of the Bill. We have for those reasons thought well to meet the wishes of our hon. Friends and to omit this provision from the Bill. The Irish people, as has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, can indeed have little hope of an immediate reduction of the taxes that press upon them. The economies which undoubtedly will be possible in the expensive administration of Irish affairs must take time to effect, and meantime, there are many matters which, on the contrary, call for increased expenditure; so as a practical matter it is not to be expected that in any case the Irish Parliament will be in a position to reduce these taxes, at all events, in the near future. Therefore, the question becomes, one not of vital, but of more or less academic importance.
      I turn to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman which is now before the House. He suggests that we should forbid the Irish Parliament any power to vary in any way any Imperial tax; that is to say, if they wish to raise fresh revenue, they should have to invent new taxes of their own. I think the contention only needs stating, for those who are favourable to the principle of Home Rule and who approve the general idea of the Bill, to recognise how unacceptable it is. The Irish Parliament, in our view, must have adequate powers of finance, and to tell them they are to have nothing to say to Customs, nothing to say to Excise, nothing to say to Income Tax, to Death Duties, or to any of these Stamp Duties which are now levied, would be to confine them to a sphere so narrow that it would be impossible to expect them to conduct the administration of their own country with success. The alternative would be to give

      891
      up to them altogether some important sphere of Imperial taxation, to yield to them, for example, the whole sphere of direct taxation, while keeping to the Imperial Government the control of indirect taxation. On that I have spoken at considerable length on previous occasions and do not wish to repeat what I have already said, but on broad and general grounds that scheme is unacceptable. If that scheme is not accepted, the only alternative is to give certain limited powers of variation of Imperial taxes imposed by this House. The Amendment which stands in my name is by no means revolutionary, and touches only in a small degree the framework of the financial system of the Bill. The Amendment which is now before the House cuts at its root, and therefore I ask the Committee to reject it.
      Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I understood it was the intention of the Committee at this stage to discuss the bearing of this Amendment rather upon direct taxes than upon Customs and Excise Duties; but, as Customs and Excise Duties and the new proposals of the Government in relation thereto have played so large a part in the preceding Debate, I hope I may be permitted to spend a little time upon them.
      Mr. LOUGH: That is understood.
      Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I make no sort of complaint, and I do not wish to appear to criticise anybody else's action. The right hon. Gentleman has attempted to minimise the alteration which the Government have made in the Bill. I confess it would have been more satisfactory to the Committee if he could have shown that in relation to this matter, or to any of the matters with which the present set of Clauses deal, the Government went on any principle, or were prepared to adhere to any principle. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bonar Law) has once or twice of late tendered a piece of excellent advice to the Government. He suggested that if they would only study Mr. Gladstone's example they would find that, whilst Mr. Gladstone recognised in 1886 or 1893 that the Nationalist vote was a necessity to him, he never forgot that he was a necessity to the Nationalists, and that therefore for the purposes of striking a bargain they had equal powers, if indeed Mr. Gladstone had not the superior or better cards in his own hand. That is a point of view which hitherto the Govern-
      892
      ment have neglected. Some of my hon. Friends think that to-day they have showed signs of having appreciated it for the first time, and I see that view is held by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I wish I could compliment the Government on having at last taken their stand upon something, but the Postmaster-General makes it impossible for me to do that, because he explained the Government still think their own proposal best, and are still of the opinion, unlike the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond), who thinks it is of no importance, that the Amendment is a disfigurement of the Bill. It is not the Government which have plucked up courage to withstand the hon. and learned Gentleman, because he and the Postmaster-General following him have, with equal candour, told us that a sufficient number of Liberal Members, counterbalancing the Irish Nationalist vote, have on this occasion threatened to revolt. The Government, feeling that it might be defeated, have made their appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he, seeing, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has clearly pointed out, that the Liberal vote is just as essential to him as he is to the Liberal vote, and the Government have gracefully given way to the minority of seventy Members on the opposite side of the House who differ from both of them. I hope the independent Members on that side of the House will pluck up a little more courage. They have shown what they can do. Let them complain further, and perhaps we may get rid of some objectionable features of the Bill.
      The Postmaster-General complained that the course of action of my right hon. Friend was really unreasonable, because whilst he criticised the proposal when it appeared in the Bill he criticised the Bill when the proposal was going to be struck out. There was some kind of logic about the original Bill, though it led to a very foolish result, but there is no kind of logic about the present proposal, and it leads to an equally foolish result, if not quite as dangerous as the old one. In my opinion, if you determine, as the Government do, to establish a local Parliament in Ireland with an independent taxing authority you base your financial scheme on an entirely wrong plan. If we could do that we ought to have left the Irish Parliament a certain field of taxation in which it could do what it liked,

      893
      and we should have reserved to the Imperial Parliament another field for Imperial taxation, in which it could do what it liked. Instead of that, each authority is to tread over the same ground and levy the same taxes, and they will interfere with each other's proceedings. The Amendment of the Government does not relieve the Bill of that absurdity, nor does it exclude from the purview of the Irish Parliament the question of tariff policy. I think the right hon. Gentleman has wilfully blinded himself to that difficulty. He invented a definition of bounties which he would not find in any dictionary or treatise on fiscal questions, and now he attempts to make the House believe that if they provide against Protection by Customs no Protection is possible. But preference to particular industries can be given under the Bill as it stands. It is one of our difficulties that the Amendments are not consistent with the course that they are taking with regard to one-half of the services they are omitting. After the explanation given by the Postmaster-General on the subject and the explanation of an hon. and learned Gentleman opposite that it was not a promise to do, but a promise to consider whether something should be done, and the something which the Government are apparently considering is the option given to Ireland to establish trade agencies in any part of the world she likes. What is that but to establish a Consular system. When you establish a Consular system, how are you going to obtain exercise of control over the foreign relations of Ireland. We have seen the example of Sweden and Norway and of the Transvaal, under our own old system of supremacy. I can only say, if the Government are considering a proposal of that kind, they are driving one of the biggest holes in the few safeguards we have left for Imperial unity. The right hon. Gentleman said the difficult course which the Government propose to take in regard to Customs and Excise did not require justification. The justification for giving power to increase the Customs and Excise Duties is, I think, that they may be needed for revenue and his reason for allowing them to be reduced is that it would be an inducement which would make economies in administration which ought to be made. But inconvenience in British trade might be imposed by the Irish Parliament and the British trade had no redress. The Irish trader sending into Great
      894
      Britain was guaranteed against any such, inconvenience. During these Debates we have been repeatedly assured that the British administration in Ireland was so extravagant and so costly as to be beyond the needs and means of the people, and that was put forward in itself as a claim for Home Rule Government, and on that ground the Government justified the Bill. Now the Government justify this change in front by saying there is no ghost of a chance that Ireland will be able to reduce the extravagant taxation imposed in Britain for at least a generation, and even if she were more successful in this than Great Britain she would not be allowed to reduce these taxes. Could there be a more illogical defence of an absurd proposal?
      I want to say one or two words on the power to vary direct proposals. I think we ought to have some explanation, and I think we are entitled to ask for it as to what the Government can conceive the powers of the Irish Parliament are going to be? On what principle are they going to act? In order to ascertain what are the intentions of the Government in this respect, and on what principle, if on any principle, they have limited the power of the Irish Parliament to deal with the Income Tax, did they not exclude the Super-tax? That might have been done on principle, but it might also have been a matter of convenience.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The difficulty with regard to the variation of the Income Tax is that it was collected at its source, whereas the Super-tax is not.
      6.0 P.M.
      Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: But to collect the Super-tax from the individual we have to bring into force an inquisition and it is true that that inquisition makes the collection of the tax more costly. But if that was worth while in a rich country like Great Britain, it would be more so in Ireland, and there is no reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer there should not put a Super-tax on incomes of £700 or even of £160. If you do not mean to enforce it, what is the use? If hon. Members will take the trouble to read the Amendment on this point they will be struck by the inconsistency. For instance, the Irish Parliament may vary the Income Tax only so as to vary the conditions under which any exemptions or abatements are granted. But they may not vary the rate! What is the meaning of that? All these exemptions

      895
      and abatements do vary the rate. I understand that the Government give them power to vary the rate and the abatements to any extent they like. There is nothing to prevent them making it 1s. 2d. in the £, and there is nothing to prevent them withdrawing the abatement. But as far as the Death Duties are concerned, there is no power to vary the rate. What is the principle underlying these separate provisions? The Government have thought it necessary in regard to the Death Duties to provide that the Irish Parliament shall not have power to discriminate between persons and property. Why is there not the same provision in regard to discrimination in this case? If there is reason to suspect or reason to fear that the Irish Parliament might discriminate unjustly in regard to the Death Duties if it were left full powers, and therefore you expressly provide that it shall not, why do you not make exactly the same provision in regard to Income Tax? Do you think that they cannot discriminate as between persons and property in regard to Income Tax? What is to prevent an Irish Parliament, which has full power over the Super-tax, putting a Super-tax on particular forms of income? What is to prevent it from giving relief to certain forms of industry mainly prevalent in Nationalist Ireland and super-taxing certain forms of industry on which the prosperity of the Unionist part of Ireland depends? There is nothing in this Bill, and yet by the provision you have put in with regard to the Death Duties you admit that such a danger might arise and that it ought to be guarded against, but on no principle, because you only act from expediency as one difficulty after another crops up, and you make the provision in the one case and not in the other. I do not wish to seem in any way to interrupt the discussion on the powers with regard to Customs and Excise, which, however, will come up at a later stage, but while these are being discussed I request that the Government will not forget these questions in regard to direct taxation, which are certainly raised by this Amendment, and which we may be unable to raise at a later stage. For my part, it seems to me that the more you look at these various provisions, whether you look at the Bill as originally drawn or the Amendments now standing in the name of the Government, the more you come to the conclusion that they have been guided by no principle in the framing
      896
      of their financial scheme, that they were driven by pressure from one quarter to alter their course to the left, and then by pressure from another quarter to alter their course to the right, and that these inconsistent and illogical provisions are the result of their having no course of their own, but being driven hither and thither by fluctuating public opinion in their own party.
      Mr. LEWIS HASLAM: When I spoke in the Debate on the Committee stage of the first Financial Resolution, I gave reasons why I objected to power being given to alter Customs Duties. I said that I knew that seventy or eighty Liberal Members had stated that they were opposed to these powers of reduction and discontinuance. I also said, and I believe it is true, that a great majority of the Liberal Members were also opposed to them. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Now that the Government have, as I believe, in their wisdom, taken the point of view which I and ray Friends hold on this matter, I have withdrawn the Amendment I had on the Paper which was to carry it into effect. I still desire to place some further considerations before the Committee. I would, in the first place, call attention to the fact that the main reason for desiring to reduce the Customs Duty has been given in the "Manchester Guardian," which quotes the Press Association as follows:—
      "Among Nationalists the Amendment is regarded, however, with different eyes, as it makes impossible a reduction of the Tea Duty, which would have, been popular in Ireland."
      Hon. Members will be surprised to hear that a reduction of 1d. per lb., or 20 per cent., in the Tea Duty would only amount to 6d. per head of the population of Ireland. Of course 2d. would be 1s. per head—that is to say, that if there were a reduction of 2d. per lb. it would only amount to one week's old age pension to the Irish people—that is 5s. per family—so that I think the objection to the powers of reduction entertained by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College, Dublin (Sir E. Carson), and others, falls to the ground. Indeed, the objection is not a practical one; it is one of pure sentiment. On the other hand, if we take the case of tobacco, a 20 per cent, reduction of the Tobacco Duty would be a more important affair. That would amount to 1s. 9d. per head of the population of Ireland per annum. To smokers, who are perhaps in a majority, the tax might amount to 5s. or 6s. Even for that small

      897
      amount it is not worth while upsetting the whole of our fiscal system. It would indeed be folly to upset all the acknowledged principles of federal finance for such a small consideration. The "Times" Dublin correspondent writes, I think, in to-day's paper that:—
      "its right to reduce Customs Duties was specially prized, because the burden of indirect taxation in Ireland is heavy on the poorer classes."
      That is the very point I am raising. I am showing that the reduction of the Tea and Tobacco Duties is so slight that it is ridiculous to say it would be a matter of vital importance to the poor people of Ireland. Again, why should the poorer classes in Ireland have different treatment from the poorer classes in this country1? It appears to me to be a most unfair proposition. I hold that the powers of finance with regard to Customs and Excise ought to be entirely controlled in this House, where English, Scotch, Irish, and Welsh Members can adjudicate upon the question in the interests of the whole of the United Kingdom. The "Manchester Guardian" and the "Times" correspondents emphatically point out the fact that Irish candidates would be worried to give pledges for the reduction of taxes. Naturally, if poor people think they are going to gain a great deal by the reduction of duties on tea and tobacco, they will worry their candidates to pledge themselves to reduce those taxes, and the time of the Irish Parliament will be wasted on this subject. I hold that the poor people in Ireland and, indeed, many of the candidates, would hardly understand the effect such reduction would have upon the Transferred Sum. Of course, we all in this House know that Ireland would not really gain by a reduction of those taxes, because if she wanted money she would have to raise other taxes in order to make up the balance. It would lead to chaotic finance between the two countries. If the Irish Parliament did reduce these taxes, and were obliged to raise money by other means, or if it could not get the money by other means, it would lead to a starving of the services, such as education. There is another very important consideration which leads me to believe that the power of reduction is one which ought not to be given, namely, that if the Irish Parliament reduced the duties considerably it might lead to a considerable amount of smuggling. We all object to smuggling on principle as well as on account of the loss of revenue. It is a
      898
      question of cheating, and if we can prevent the people of any country from cheating the revenue we do good to that country.
      Another point is that the Government's Amendment prevents our treating Ireland as if she were a foreign country, and, avoids the necessity of searching passengers' luggage and the parcels post. If you have no trade advantages between the two countries you will more easily obtain the true revenue of Ireland, because traders will have no interest in giving false declarations. Anyone in this House used to foreign trade knows there are certain traders who endeavour to hide dutiable goods as much as possible, and to get goods duly free if they possibly can. We ought as far as possible to avoid that. It has been stated on all sides of the House that the money is required in Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he did not think there would be any necessity for the reduction of the duties of Customs and Excise. On the other hand, I believe most of us see no particular objection to the Irish Parliament having the power of raising the duties by 10 per cent. It is a power which could not be largely used on account of the unpopularity of increasing taxation. That is a point which ought to be understood. It is not likely to be used for the increase of taxation upon tea or tobacco. The power of increase will affect purely Irish affairs. The point which ought to have weight with the Opposition and hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite is that this alteration in the Amendment will make the Bill much more popular with the British electorate. I do not know whether the Opposition will be quite so pleased with that effect as hon. Members below the Gangway opposite. I should like to refer to a leading article which appeared lately in the "Morning Post," in which there is more evidence of critical ability than good manners or respect for the Members of this House. This article states:—
      "There are no Customs between the various German States or between the Canadian, Australian, or South African States, even where separate legislatures exist. We see that the Liberal Press is now suggesting 'commercial union' for the Balkans; that is to say, the relations between Servia and Bulgaria are to be closer than those between Ireland and England. The Union of Italy, which included a Customs Union, was the creed of bye-gone Liberals, but what is good for the Balkans and for Italy, is too good for our own country Little wonder if Liberals hesitate to accept so monstrous a doctrine."
      [An HON. MEMBER: "Good old Tory paper."] It is a good old Tory paper, but I cannot understand Liberals endorsing

      899
      the doctrine embodied in the Bill. Another very important point which hon. Members ought to consider is that the Bill as introduced was not in accordance with the views of Butt, Parnell, or of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond). The hon. and learned Member has given a life-long consideration to Home Rule and the requirements of Ireland in regard to the measure. In 1910 he wrote for "McClure's Magazine" an article which was intended to represent the views of the Irish people and their desires in regard to a Home Rule Bill. He said:—
      "We want an Irish Parliament with an Executive responsible to it, created by Act of the Imperial Parliament and charged with the management of purely Irish affairs (land, education, local government, transit labour, industries, taxation for local purposes, law and justice, police, etc.), leaving to the Imperial Parliament, in which Ireland would probably continue to be represented, but in smaller numbers, the management, just as at present, of all Imperial affairs; Army, Navy, foreign relations, Customs, Imperial taxation, matters pertaining to the Crown, the Colonies and all those questions which are Imperial and not local in their nature, the Imperial Parliament also retaining an overriding supreme authority over the new Irish Legislature, such as it possesses to-day over the various Legislatures in Canada, Australia, South Africa and other portions of the Empire."
      The hon. and learned Gentleman did not ask for or wish for the powers of varying Customs and Excise Duties provided for in the Bill. Then, again, another eminent Irishman, Lord McDonnell, at a meeting of the Royal Economic Society on 10th January last, said:—
      "He could not conceive how they could have fiscal autonomy in Ireland without connoting the possibility of serious danger to the fiscal policy of Great Britain, and not interfere with the commercial success and progress of Great Britain."
      He went on later to say he was told that there would be no motive to Ireland to make economies in these circumstances. There would surely be sufficient motive for economies in the growing necessity for improving the condition of the country, of spending money on education, sanitation, and so forth. At all events, he trusted that in whatever manner it might be sought to gratify Irish hopes, and at the same time to render more efficient the Imperial Parliament, nothing would be done to break up the integrity of the United Kingdom, to remove from the great Council of the Empire a due number of Irish representatives, or take away from Ireland the glory she felt, in increasing measure at the present time, of being a member of the greatest Empire in the world. I consider the Amendment which the Government have placed on the Paper
      900
      should be carried by consent. Then, again, under Home Rule, in my opinion, Ireland will become more prosperous, and discontent will not be encouraged—that is to say, there will be content where there has previously been discontent. As Ireland increases in prosperity she will require more money for the payment of her various services, and therefore the money from the Customs and Excise itself will certainly be required. In this connection, in order to increase the prosperity of Ireland I wish to say how much I regret the opposition which has been given to the great National agricultural co-operative movement by a section of Nationalists in the past, and I only hope that opposition will now be withdrawn. The work carried out with such marvellous success by the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society is the finest educational movement that has ever been conducted by patriotic Irishmen. I am a Home Ruler, and I look forward to Irishmen all working together for the prosperity of the country. I believe the religious hatred and bigotry will soon be a relic of the past.
      Mr. MOORE: With Nationalists?
      Mr. HASLAM: You will all be Nationalists. The Irish Parliament, with the eyes of our Empire on it, will be doubly determined to act justly to all. I am convinced that the Union Jack will cease to be looked upon by any section of the Irish people as a badge of inferiority and a sign of mis-government. It will become in Ireland as it now is in every other part of the King's freely-governing Dominions beyond the Seas, the emblem of loyalty and of even-handed justice.
      Mr. CASSEL: I think the hon. Member's speech was addressed more to his own side and to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway than to us. There was a great deal of what he said with which I am in hearty agreement, and I should like to congratulate him on the success which he has achieved in inducing the Government to give way where even the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond) was unsuccessful. The Postmaster-General has put this to us as if it had been a balance of advantages which was being considered. It seems to me it was purely and simply a balance of votes. The right hon. Gentleman has not given us one single advantage, either pro or con. The only pros and cons are pros and cons in the Division Lobby,

      901
      and it is a pitiable thing for the Government, on so vital a point in the Bill, to have to admit that, although the balance of advantages for and against has not changed in any other sense at all, they are going to modify their policy simply because the balance of votes has changed in this House, and it is only because they thought there was a greater number of Members on the opposite side who had the courage of their opinions that they gave way upon this point. But, incidentally, it has given away the whole case for Home Rule. It has given away two-thirds of the arguments by which Home Rule was supported. What is the case which has been made for Home Rule? It was this. Here was Ireland, a poor country, excessively taxed by a rich country which applied its own standards of expenditure to Ireland in the same way as it applies them to itself, with an excessive number of boards and an excessive number of officials, all over-paid, and in all the Departments of administration of the State there was an excessive and extravagant expenditure. Now what is the position? When Home Rule is to be granted they are willing to abandon the power of reducing taxation, but the one thing which they will not give up is the power of increasing taxation over and above that existing and burdensome taxation which the Imperial Parliament imposes. We have always been told it was such a disadvantage for them to be associated with a millionaire partner and to be involved in the excessive expenditure of that millionaire partner, but what is the position now? We propose to pay them precisely what it costs under the millionaire partner, and £500,000 in addition, and that is not enough for them, but they must needs insist upon a power to super-Super-tax themselves. What did the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmand) say? Speaking in Dublin on 26th January, 1905, he said—
      "There is no reason why the Government of Ireland should cost more than half the present expenditure. The whole scale of expenditure is excessive. Law and police charges are just three times as great as in Scotland, and Dublin Castle and all the Government boards are run upon ridiculously extravagant lines."
      And yet when Home Rule is to be given to them they are not satisfied with the actual amount which it costs the Imperial Parliament, and they are not satisfied with the £500,000 in addition, but they insist on fiddling with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's taxes here for the purpose of increasing them, although they are willing to give up any power to reduce them. Let me give another quotation. Speaking in
      902
      this House on 12th February, 1907, the hon. and learned Gentleman said: —
      "The whole civil Government of Ireland per head of the population is more costly than the similar Government of any other nation in Europe."
      And yet they are willing to give up all powers of reducing, and they resist my right hon. Friend's Amendment because it is vital to them to super-Super Tax themselves. Let me give another quotation:
      "Right down from the Lord Lieutenant to the policeman every department of the Irish Government is overmanned and extravagantly paid."
      Again on another occasion he says:—
      "If Ireland were self-governed she could easily be governed as cheaply as Belgium or any of the small nations of Europe. She could easily be governed at one-half of the present expenditure."
      These are the statements which have been made throughout Ireland, and which have been made in this country and in this House in the past, and upon which the whole agitation for Home Rule has been based—that there was excessive taxation, extravagance, and costly government—and now, forsooth, they say we do not care one bit about reducing taxation; what we want is power to increase it over and above the precise sum which it costs the Imperial Parliament, which they are going to receive—they are going to receive the precise sum which at the time of the passing of the Act all these extravagant Boards, all these existing numbers of officials, all these excessive police and law charges cost and £500,000 over it, and that is not enough for them. I should like to hear how that can possibly be reconciled with the statements which were made before. Surely hon. Members from Ireland might be satisfied with the £500,000 over and above what it costs the Imperial Parliament.
      Mr. PRINGLE: The right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) says the £500,000 extra is not enough.
      Earl WINTERTON: "Order. Money."
      Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: On a point of Order. Is the Noble Lord entitled to refer to a Member on this side by his name?
      The CHAIRMAN: I think I have heard it done on both sides.
      Earl WINTERTON: I am sorry if I offended the hon. Member's susceptibilities.
      Mr. CASSEL: I do not think the interruption of the hon. Member (Mr. Pringle) was really relevant. The point to which I was addressing myself was that when hon.

      903
      Members from Ireland assented to this Amendment they were giving up the most vital point upon which their whole case for Home Rule was based, which was the existing extravagance of British administration and the excessive taxation, particularly indirect taxation, which prevailed in Ireland. With reference to that, is it not absurd that of all the parts of the United Kingdom, the one which is poorest should be the one for which there is reserved, not the power to reduce general taxation, but to tax itself over and above the present scale. For that reason I am going to ask hon. Members below the Gangway to support the Amendment of my right hon. Friend which would prevent the Irish Parliament from varying Imperial taxation. Varying taxation must either lead to reduction or to increase. They have already given up any hope of reduction, so what they are really insisting upon, and are going to vote for as against us, is power to impose additional taxation and to increase taxation alone. Let us apply that now in detail to some particular taxes. Are hon. Gentlemen from Ireland particularly anxious to increase the Land Taxes? I notice that on the platform at Nottingham, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond) discovered a new-born love for these Land Taxes. What he said was:—
      "There were no more enthusiastic supporters of the Land Taxes of the Budget than Irish Nationalist Members. They were amongst the pioneers on the question."
      I have been trying to discover what probably was the origin of this new-born zeal on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I think I have discovered it in the Report of the Inland Revenue Commission, because I find that for the last financial year the Land Taxes in Ireland produced the following results: The Increment Value Duty produced £34, the Reversion Duty produced £123, and the Undeveloped Land Duty produced nothing, so that the total produce of these taxes, of which the hon. and learned Gentleman became so enthusiastic an admirer, and of which he was the pioneer in Ireland last year, produced not enough to pay the salary of a single Member of Parliament. If it is desired to increase these particular taxes, I am not sure but that I would treat that as a matter of comparative indifference, because, if they were doubled, they would not produce enough to pay a single Member of Parliament. There is a remarkable fact in connection with
      904
      these taxes in Ireland. Last year in Great Britain provisional valuations were made of 1,500,000 hereditaments, and during the same period in Ireland, where they so love the Land Taxes, 5,740 provisional valuations were made. That is a matter which on some future occasion we shall have to inquire into, because some explanation is required of one of the grossest administrative scandals of recent times.
      Mr. JOHN DILLON: It has been explained over and over again. It is more easy to make valuations in Ireland.
      Mr. CASSEL: The hon. Member's explanation goes in the opposite direction, because, if it is so much easier to make valuations in Ireland, there ought to have been more than 5,740. The hon. Member says the valuations have been made already. I am afraid he is not familiar with the conditions of the Land Duties. Provisional Valuations have in the first instance to be sent in, but in Ireland, where it is so much easier to make the valuations, only 5,740 have been sent in, whereas in Great Britain there were 1,500,000. The other item of taxation to which reference has been made is the Income Tax. The Postmaster-General did not answer one of the points raised by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) in regard to the Income Tax. I say you are under this proposal giving to the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer the power of fiddling with Imperial taxes, which will do nobody any good except the Irish Bar. It will mean a busy time for the Irish Privy Council, a heavy cost for collection to the British Exchequer, and very little advantage to the Irish Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman has abandoned the power of varying the tax because of the difficulty of collection at the source. But in regard to the Super-tax he has reserved it to himself. What does he think the Super-tax produces now? I should say that it is not likely to be more than £100,000. Under this Bill all that he can levy is 10 per cent, of the amount the tax produces—not 10 per cent, of what the whole Income Tax produces. It appears to me that under Clause 17 this clearly must be the result. Although the Super-tax is an additional tax, it is a separate tax, and on that ground, under Clause 17, I should think there would be a nice question indeed for the Irish Exchequer Board and the Privy Council to consider, namely, whether, it was 10 per cent, of the Super-

      905
      tax itself or 10 per cent, of the whole of the Income Tax? No one on the other side has dealt with the point as to the power of discriminating. Why should there be power to discriminate? In the case of the Death Duties you have withdrawn the power to discriminate, and thereby you have by implication given the power to discriminate in the Income Tax.
      Take the question of varying relief under the Income Tax. Earned incomes are charged at a lower rate than unearned incomes. It is described in the Finance Act of 1907 as relief. It comes to this, that you could increase the rate upon earned incomes, but you could not increase it upon unearned incomes. That is one of the absurdities of this Clause, which, I think, must have been drafted with considerable haste. Moreover, I would ask the Committee to look at the difficulty which will arise in regard to the question of persons residing in Ireland. Suppose that one has the benefit of exemption from Income Tax in this country because his income is under £160, and that in Ireland you reduce the exemption limit to £100. In that case a person who has an income between £100 and £160 would have to pay. Assume that a person is sent over from this country who is exempt from Income Tax here, if his income is over £100—assuming that the limit is reduced—he would lose the benefit of the exemption to which under the law he is entitled in the United Kingdom. Surely that would be a ridiculous result. I say you would have constant friction and litigation as to what persons were or were not resident in Ireland. Take the case of the Death Duties. You will have there very difficult questions as to domicile—as to whether a person is domiciled in Ireland or in England. Moreover, you are giving the extraordinary power to the Irish Parliament that they can increase the Death Duties which are payable by a person domiciled in England in respect of property which he owns in Ireland. Supposing an Englishman owns property in Ireland and the Irish Parliament can increase the Death Duties, these duties have to be levied in England, or he could not pay probate in England.
      As to the question of increasing the Customs Duties, the right hon. Gentleman has given no explanation whatever as to how he is going to deal with a case where an increase of a Customs Duty leads to an actual diminution in the revenue, or where the increase in the revenue is not
      906
      in proportion to the increase in the duty. That is a difficulty which will arise. I submit that these little powers of nibbling at the taxes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will lead to more difficulty and confusion than they are worth. The Irish Members are willing to give up their power to reduce taxation. Then I say that their own statements and speeches in the past show that they should be willing to give up the power of increasing taxation, that they ought upon their own showing to be satisfied with the grossly extravagant expenditure of the United Kingdom, that these eleemosynary expenditures, as they are called—those bribes and doles which are showered upon them—together with the £500,000 on the top of them, should be quite satisfactory to them. If they want to spend more on any particular branch of government, they ought to be able to do it out of the economics on some of the so-called extravagant branches of expenditure. The police now cost £1,300,000. They say it should be done for less. If so, they would have a saving in six years of £500,000, out of which they could meet additional expenditure on other matters. I submit that this proposal for interfering with the taxation imposed by the Imperial Exchequer will lead to difficulty, friction, and litigation, and to no useful result to Ireland.
      Mr. LEES SMITH: On the Report stage of the Financial Resolution I said I thought any such Amendment as that now before the Committee would be a blot upon the Bill. I am bound to say that I am of the same opinion still. I am not going to repeat what I said last week, but I will deal with one point which has been raised. The Postmaster-General argued that, after all this was only a question of academic importance, because the question of reducing taxation could only arise in Ireland in a very remote future. I am afraid this disadvantage to Ireland will be felt long before that. We have been continually told by Irish Members in the Debates in this House that one of the great evils from which Ireland suffers at present is that she is dragged in the wake of a system of taxation which is suited to Great Britain, but not suited to a poor agricultural country dependent upon indirect taxation. The Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer will naturally and rightly endeavour to modify the details of the Imperial Budget. He will, without reducing taxation as a whole, try to

      907
      adjust the conditions. What I mean is this: The Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer may not for many years have an opportunity of reducing taxation as a whole, but he may very well wish to reduce certain particular taxes, although he may not wish to reduce others. I take the case referred to by the hon. Member for South Birmingham (Mr. Amery) in his speech on the subject last week. Supposing a Tariff Reform Budget is ever carried through this House—and the Leader of the Opposition has, I think, made it very plain that any such Budget will be framed mainly with an eye to the British electorate, and give a very subordinate position indeed to the special interests of Ireland—I regard it as one of the great merits of this Clause in its original form that it would have enabled the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer, without costing this country a halfpenny, to adjust that Budget, or at any rate the details of it, to Irish conditions. He would have been able to reduce to some extent duties unsuitable to Ireland, and he would have been able to make up the sum lost to the British Exchequer by taxes which he could have had a wider power of choosing for himself. This Amendment, of course, prevents them adopting any action of that sort, and to that extent I consider it a weakening of the Bill.
      I do not propose to vote against the Amendment. I quite realise that if the Irish Parliament had reduced the Tobacco or Tea Duty below the British level, it would have given Members of the Opposition a platform argument, misleading indeed, but very valuable. The position which Irish Members have to adopt on this question is that this is one more of those restrictions which are compelled to be imposed upon the Irish Parliament because of the prejudices and anxieties in which this subject is involved. I wish to make a suggestion to the Government about one matter which is not of fundamental importance. Hon. Members opposite have pointed out that the Irish Parliament may levy taxation of which the yield would be very small while the cost of collection may be excessive, and they will have the yield and we shall bear the cost of collection. I do not think that that argument has very much point, but I think it has a little point. So far as the main range of Irish taxation is concerned, it has no point at all. The bulk of Irish taxation will of necessity consist of additions to Imperial taxation,
      908
      additions to Customs or Excise Duties and perhaps Death Duties and Stamp Duties, but these are Imperial taxes and the staff and machinery for collecting them already exist, whatever the Irish Parliament may do. The fact that they have to be levied at a slightly higher rate because they have been increased by the Irish Parliament, so far as I can see, involves practically no increase at all in the cost of collection. The difficulty would really arise if the Irish Parliament were levying a tax of quite a new character, new in type, and it might continually happen that the collection of that tax would cost a considerable sum to the Imperial Exchequer. It seems to me that it would be fair in that case to lay down that when the Joint Exchequer Board is determining by what amount the Transferred Sum is to be increased as the result of this new Irish tax, that it should deduct from that amount the cost which the collection of that tax has imposed upon the Imperial tax. I hope that the Government will at any rate take this point into consideration.
      Mr. BALFOUR: I only rise to ask the Government to reply to some questions that were put by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Hayes Fisher), who moved the Amendment, to which no response has yet been vouchsafed, although the Postmaster-General spoke immediately afterwards. Indeed, I am rather surprised at the course this Debate has taken, because my right hon. Friend deliberately put on one side the questions of the Customs Duty, with which there may be an opportunity of dealing at a later stage, but he was immediately followed by the Leader of the Irish party, who apparently took a different view as to the proprieties of the occasion, and left all the subjects raised by my right hon. Friend untouched, and went straight for a declaration of his own policy with regard to the new Amendment placed upon the Paper by the Postmaster-General. The Postmaster-General followed him next but one, and with that happy antiphonal arrangement to which we are accustomed, he charmingly reechoed the speech of the Leader of the Irish party, as the Leader of the Irish party often re-echoes his. In that happy concert my right hon. Friend's speech was altogether left on one side, and the Postmaster-General wholly omitted to deal with it. I may just remind him of one of the points which particularly require an answer from the Government. My right hon. Friend pointed out that while Income

      909
      Tax was nominally saved from interference by the Irish Government, the Irish Government are given full liberty of dealing with all the exemptions and to the whole question of Super-tax, and my right hon. Friend pointed out with a logic which seems to me perfectly unanswerable—at all events, which so far has not been answered—that if you leave to the Irish Government power to deal with all the exemptions and abatements on the ordinary Income Tax, and at the same time leave them the whole power of dealing with the Super-tax, with its varying aspects, the idea that you are keeping the Income Tax at the rate fixed by this House is altogether illusory and absurd. The Income Tax becomes absolutely a matter within the control of the Irish Government, and if you are giving it complete in substance, I am interested to know why the right hon. Gentleman thinks it ought to be kept away from them in form. There may be reasons which I do not understand.
      The only suggestion made by the Postmaster-General which was at all revelant to the issue, was that the Super-tax had nothing to do with collection at the source, that Income Tax had to do with collection at the source, and that therefore one could be taken and the other could not be taken by the Irish Government. There may be something in that argument from certain points of view, but if what you wish to do is to leave this as an Imperial tax under the control of the British Parliament, it is perfectly absurd to leave to the Irish Parliament the whole manipulation of the exemptions which determines what Income Tax is to be at one end of the scale and leave them the whole manipulation of the Super-tax which determines what the Income Tax is to be at the other end of the scale. Indeed, if you carry your exemptions to a sufficient limit, you could abolish Income Tax altogether and pile on your Super-tax, leaving the total collection the same, so that the Irish Exchequer shall not lose anything from the Transferred Sum. You are really entirely altering the whole incidence of the tax. If you said that everybody with under £5,000 a year was to be completely exempt, and everybody with over £5,000 a year was to pay a sum sufficient to make the total yield of Income Tax equal to what it is now, there would be no penalties placed on the Irish Exchequer, and the whole character of the tax might alter. Of course, that is an extreme case, but I mention it to make the character of the
      910
      power in the hands of the Irish Government perfectly clear. And you may put the same problem in another way. When you leave the exemptions absolutely in the hands of the Irish Government, in those circumstances that power could be used quite easily so as to be favourable to particular people whom the Irish Government wished to help, and very unfavourable to districts of the country and traders who for some reason or other might fall under the ban of the powers that be. Perhaps it will be replied that there is no danger of an Irish Government misusing its powers of manipulation in a manner which suspicious Unionists are so fond of adducing. That argument is not open here because, as I understand the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, he himself has seen that there may be such a danger in connection with the Death Duties, and he proposes to guard against it by Statute. T wish to know, if there is a ground for suspicion, as indeed there well may be, that the Irish Government may set up with regard to the manipulation of these Death Duties particular classes or interests in the case of the Death Duties, can you suggest any possible ground for distinction which makes it perfectly absurd to suppose that similar abuse of power may not take place in regard to abatements, exemptions and Super-tax in the case of the Income Tax?
      7.0 P.M.
      That question, in substance, was put by my right hon. Friend, and I hope the Government will make a reply as soon as they can. There is one other point upon which I wish to ask a question. It is in connection with the same topic of the Death Duties. As I read the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman on the White Paper, the Death Duties leviable by the Irish Government to go to the Irish Government are for persons having property in Ireland. The Irish Government may, so long as they do not alter the proportion, alter the rates. The question I now wish to put is this. Take the case of a British subject who has property in Ireland and property in England. Let us say that the property in England is very large and the property in Ireland is relatively very small. The Irish Government alter the scale of the Death Duties. I ask them on what principle would the duty be collected with regard to the Irish property? The man has £1,000,000 in England and £50,000 in Ireland and dies. For the £1,000,000 in England, of course, he is taxed on the high scale. Is he going to pay the raised duty in Ireland on the highest scale or on the

      911
      £50,000 scale? Is he going to pay in Ireland on the whole amount or only on the £50,000? I do not profess to be able to interpret this Clause with a full assurance of its legal meaning without being given some opportunity for understanding it in detail, but I think if the right hon. Gentleman will admit that when you have a different scale in Ireland or a different amount raised in Ireland from what you have in England, and if a man has property in both, the most difficult and delicate questions seem most obviously to arise. I hope that the Law Officers will clear this up. I do not know that this is the occasion to put further questions with regard to taxation, though there is one which puzzles me. Supposing that there were some great national need which required an immense increase of taxation, and suppose that Imperial taxes for the purpose of meeting that were levied by the British Government, and suppose that the sum transferred to the Irish Government were not up to the Irish contributions. They evidently could not go beyond it; because the Irish have only got to vary the tax or abolish the tax in Ireland, and it would be found if they were to lose money by it they would simply not have to pay anything that could ever be raised in addition to the transferred amount. That is perhaps a rather wider question than is properly raised by this Amendment, and I do not press it. I am really more interested in the detailed questions which I have asked the right hon. Gentleman opposite to answer. Those questions have already been put on this side, and I think they deserve an answer which, I hope when it does come, will be given in a complete and satisfactory manner.
      The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir J. Simon): The right hon. Gentleman in his concluding sentence said that the questions, some of which he has restated, had already been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, and that they were questions of detail. No doubt, in one sense, they are, and as such they require a detailed and precise answer so far as I am able to give it. The right hon. Gentleman I hope will not suspect me of endeavouring to avoid giving an answer of reasonable precision when I say that the key to the answer to these questions, and, it may be, to many other similar details, is to be found in a general consideration. The view which we have adopted and have
      912
      endeavoured to apply in drafting the Financial Clauses of the Bill, is that we should give to this Irish subordinate Parliament as wide powers of finance as appear to be consistent with Imperial convenience, the fair claims of Great Britain, and practical working. If you find that the Imperial convenience or interest requires that there should be some limitations put upon the financial powers of this Parliament, then, of course, they will be put on. If you consider that unrestricted liberty in some direction or other involves consequences which are more than fair to Great Britain, then you must restrict the generality of your principle. If you find in the practical working out of the financial scheme that you come to matter-of-fact obstacles which must be avoided or got round, to that extent again you must (trench upon your general principle. Be that general principle right or be it wrong, it is well we should all recognise that at the back of this financial scheme is the purpose that this Irish Parliament shall have the widest financial powers which are consistent with the considerations I have mentioned.
      Far be it from me to say that in every single case we have precisely and exactly hit the point, the middle course, the true point which judgment would indicate to choose; we may be open to criticism or correction; I do not claim for the scheme any inspiration, but, for my part, at any rate, I could not hope to answer the questions if it were not that I bear in mind these general considerations, and endeavour to apply them to the particular matters which are raised. Let me take, from that point of view, two or three of the precise and detailed matters which the right hon. Gentleman has recalled to the recollection of the Committee. First of all, there was a question which was put by the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, and I respectfully differ from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) when he says that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General did not reply to the question which was put. Let me state the reply of my right hon. Friend again. It is asked why it is you impose certain limitations in the case of ordinary Income Tax which you do not impose, and apparently do not think it necessary to impose, in the case of Super-tax? The reason is that, as a matter of practical working, it would be, as it appears to us, very difficult and probably impossible to confer upon the

      913
      Irish Parliament that full liberty of choice and range which would perhaps be theoretically possible if it were not for the considerations I have mentioned. Something like four-fifths of the ordinary Income Tax of the country is collected at the source; that is to say, the banker, the company, or the person out of whose funds the income is being paid, deducts is. 2d. in the £ before the dividend warrants, or cheque, or interest, or whatever it may be, is sent out. The person who has deducted the Income Tax in this way is not able to tell you whether the person paying the Income Tax is resident in Ireland or in Great Britain.
      Sir E. CARSON: How do you find it out?
      Sir J. SIMON: It is not a very easy thing to find out, and that is one of the reasons why in a later Clause you see a provision to find it out with what accuracy we can. The point I am endeavouring to make is this. I say that you are dealing with the payment of ordinary Income Tax, four-fifths of which is Income Tax deducted at source, and there is no reference at all as to whether the person who receives it comes under the operation of the Income Tax law passed by the Irish Parliament or whether he is entirely free from that law. It is not really a practical thing to say that the Irish Parliament may have the power, as part of its general financial powers, to vary the amount of the Income Tax. If it did it would involve the greatest possible complication, and when that complication reaches the point which prevents the fair working of a business scheme, why then, of course, we have so far to give way in the principle we are endeavouring to apply. There is no difficulty as regards the ordinary Income Tax in saying that the Irish Parliament may vary, abate, or reduce, or the like, because abatement, reduction, or relief are matters which are the result of applications and claims made by individual taxpayers. Therefore it has nothing to do with principle to say, on the one hand, that it is not possible to give the Irish Parliament power to vary the amount of the Income Tax, but it is perfectly possible and perfectly right that they should have the opportunity of varying the abatements, or reductions, or relief in regard to that particular form of tax.
      When we come to regard the Super-tax, that is a tax which is not paid at the source at all. There is no such thing as the sub-
      914
      traction of the Super-tax itself—indeed, Super-tax could not very well be paid from source, for reasons which I will not elaborate but which are perfectly well known to those who really understand the way in which the Super-tax is charged—therefore the special obstacle which arises in the case of ordinary Income Tax does not arise in the case of the Super-tax at all.
      Mr. CASSEL: Will the hon. Gentleman, deal with the question of whether the 10 per cent, applies to the proceeds of the Super-tax or to the proceeds of the whole income?
      Sir J. SIMON: The answer is it does apply to either of those two. The Income Tax is for this purpose separate from Super-tax, and the Super-tax is separate from Income Tax. The next point the right hon. Gentleman made was this. He said, "If you allow this latitude in the case of the Super-tax, why is it that you think it necessary rather more narrowly to draw your restrictions when you are dealing with the Death Duties?" He called attention to the fact, with respect to Customs Duties or Death Duties, that it is competent for the Irish Parliament to raise within limits the scale as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman used a musical metaphor in connection with the Postmaster-General's response to the hon. and learned Member the Leader of the Nationalist party, and let me use a musical metaphor by saying that the Irish Parliament may write the Death Duties in a different key, but still have to preserve a certain harmony. I wish to point out to the Committee quite fairly that the reason is not, as the right hon. Gentleman seems to think, that because we are giving them the Death Duties we felt ourselves obliged to provide against what I may call an outrageous abuse of financial power by the Irish party. It has really nothing to do with that at all.
      I need not go over again the old dispute as to whether or not we should trust the Irish Parliament. We may be right or we-may be wrong in trusting them, but this provision has nothing to do with that; it has to do with nothing more than a plain, practical, matter-of-fact consideration. The rate of the Death Duties will differ according as a person happens to succeed near relations, distant relations, or no-relations at all. There are a great number of matters to arrange with reference to the scale, and if we were to allow the

      915
      Irish Parliament to pull the scale to pieces, it would make the matter extremely difficult in regard to the 10 per cent. limit. We may be right or we may be wrong, but the reason why we think it necessary to put this restriction in the case of the Death Duties or in the case of the Customs Duties is that, in case of those Duties, you are dealing with an elaborate scale, while in the case of Super-tax you may be doing that which is a pure matter of practical convenience in order to make the thing work. Therefore, we desire to apply our main principle, namely, that the Irish Parliament should have the fullest fiscal liberty we can give consistently with the considerations I have mentioned—those limitations which are necessary in its practical application. We have endeavoured to apply that general proposition. Whether or not we have applied it wisely or unwisely is another matter; at any rate, we apply it as best we can, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that these things are not meaningless, but that they really do proceed from a common principle. Then I think the right hon. Gentleman put this point. What is to happen supposing that a man dies and Death Duties come to be paid, with a portion of his property in Ireland and a portion of his property in Britain.
      Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: And a different scale.
      Sir J. SIMON: If there was not a different scale obviously no question arises so far as the total amount of the exaction is concerned. The only difficulty that then arises is the difficulty of allocation.
      Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: What is the total amount of the exaction. Supposing there is a difference of scale on what total do you exact the 10 per cent?
      Sir J. SIMON: I do not assume now that there is 10 per cent.
      Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The case put by my right hon. Friend is this, that the Irish Parliament has used its powers to impose the 10 per cent, additional Death Duty and that a man dies with property partly in Ireland and partly in England. The question my right hon. Friend asked was on what total is the additional 10 per cent, levied, is it on the property in England, or the property in
      916
      Ireland, or on the whole of his property. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would tell us the exact Clause in the Bill which regulates this matter.
      Sir J. SIMON: I am bound to say I did not quite appreciate what the point was when it was put. There are really two points, I think. I do not want to pretend that I am able to answer the two points, but let us answer the first one, and then we can see where we are. I rather understood that the point put was this: You may have a man who has got some property in Ireland, and some in Britain. He dies, and the question, as I followed it, is in that event, on what principle do you determine where does the Irish tax and where does the English tax apply? That, I understand, is not the only point, but it is one point. I think the principle is very well understood, though I quite agree there are occasions in which it is not always easy to apply it. The principle surely is, when you are dealing with real property, fixed property, such as land, the law that applies for the purposes of Death Duties is the law that applies where the land is. British law would apply to British land, and Irish law to Irish land. That is the first part. On the other hand, supposing you were dealing with movable property—with ordinary property that is not land, personal property, then, of course, the law that applies is the law of the place where the man resides, not temporarily resides, but where he permanently resides. On that question I do not think there is any difficulty. I understand now the right hon. Gentleman puts this further point, which, as I follow it, has to do with the corpus that has got to be dealt with.
      Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman leaves that point, I understand him to say if a man died leaving real property, landed property, that that would be taxed according to the place where it was situated. If it was in Britain, it would pay the British tax, and if it was in Ireland it would pay the Irish tax.
      Sir J. SIMON: Yes.
      Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Does he mean only the Irish tax?
      Sir J. SIMON: Yes. I certainly intended so to say.
      Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: May I ask my hon. Friend a question?
      Sir J. SIMON: I rather want to answer this question, and would rather not have any firing from behind. I only remind the right hon. Gentleman and nobody knows it better than he, that is, of course, the principle of the White Paper, the Treasury document which endeavours to work out the difficult problem of the true Irish revenue. Those are the principles to which I am referring, and I rather think you will find a reference to the subject in the Report of the Primrose Committee, which, I rather think, sets it out in detail. What I am referring to, successfully or unsuccessfully, is the method, and I do not think anybody will deny that that is the method which ought to continue to be applied. The right hon. Gentleman says: Are you going to make people pay twice over? That is not our intention. The right hon. Gentleman challenges me to say where that is to be found. I am not perfectly certain that I could put my finger on it at this moment, but it is not our intention as the result of creating a subordinate Legislature to make the total amount of the burden bigger, assuming the same rate of tax, than it was as long as you had single control. I think I have made plain what our intention in the matter is. We believe we have carried it out, at any rate to a very large extent, and that certainly is our intention. I repeat it is not our intention that the result of setting up a subordinate Parliament in Ireland should mean, assuming that the rates of the duty are the same, that the total amount to be paid will be bigger than if there was only one Parliament in the United Kingdom. Supposing the rates are different, then different considerations will arise. At all events, I think it goes some part of the way to answer that it is no part of our intention that the total amount should be greater in the case I have mentioned.
      I necessarily have dealt with some matters in detail, and matters which really are technical and uninteresting, but really I cannot conclude without pointing out what a curious position we do stand in about this. I will tell the Committee why I say so. We were attacked from different quarters because of the generality and the liberality of the freedom which was conferred on the Irish Parliament to vary the taxes in that country. We pointed out we had put on them such limitation as appeared to be necessary in accordance with our principle, and it was urged against us that our principle ought to
      918
      carry us further. It was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition more than once, on the Second Reading Debates and last month some time, that if we left such wide powers as those to the Irish Parliament we should have what he called a donkey race with the two Chancellors of the Exchequer in the two countries, competing to see which of them could make the other get past the post first, to take off the duty, for instance, on such a thing as tea. We never thought that that criticism went quite the length which the right hon. Gentleman himself evidently thought it had, because he repeated the argument, and certainly would not have done so if he had not thought it was a very powerful weapon. It was, of course, a rather taking criticism, and it was one he used in the country as well as in the House of Commons. At any rate, we have now completely stopped that criticism by what we have done. There was another criticism that was made. It was said, "What an outrageous thing that, you should give to the Irish Parliament a power which means that at their will they can compel you in Britain to set up Custom Houses which you do not otherwise want to set up." That result only follows if you give the Irish Parliament power to reduce duties, because it is only if an Irish Parliament reduces a duty that you need have a Custom House to prevent the passing into the country of taxable commodities which have paid a lower rate of duty. We felt that there was some force in that argument which was very much urged by the hon. Member for Monmouth Boroughs (Mr. Lewis Haslam), and we have done our utmost to meet it.
      Mow that we have, as we think, consistently with the scheme of our Bill, made those efforts to meet those criticisms and satisfy those critics, what we are told is this. Every Tariff Reformer in the House spends his time in trying to frighten Liberals by saying, "Your Irish financial, scheme is inconsistent with Free Trade." Every financial purist spends his time, as the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke just now did, in saying, "I used to say you were giving the Irish Parliament too big powers; now I say you are merely letting it nibble with finance." Which is it? We take the view, and this is the view we commend to the Committee, that the right course for us is to confer on this Irish Parliament the maximum powers of dealing with finance which are consistent with the consideration I mentioned. We can-

      919
      not give them unlimited powers. That is why we put on this 10 per cent, limitation in order that we may be sure that they do not exhaust a reservoir on which we might have to draw in an hour of great national emergency. We do not allow them to set up a Customs Tariff in connection with articles which, under our existing system, are not taxed at all, because we think that it is not consistent with the interests of this country that anything of the sort should be done. We do not give them such a degree of freedom in managing their own taxes as would produce practical working inconvenience in calculating the amount and in adjusting the amount. But, subject to that, our view is that the more liberty they have got in this matter the better. It is on those grounds we now put before the Committee the proposals of this Bill, modified as we propose by the Government Amendment.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon and learned Gentleman has really done what I may pay him the compliment of saying he nearly always tries to do, and that is to state and to meet criticisms which have been directed against him. He did so this afternoon. I do not think the way in which he met them was entirely satisfactory. As far as I can make out it consisted of two different statements—the first that it must be met by the general consideration, which amounts to this, that "we mean to give the best Home Rule Bill we can." That was the first statement he made. His second statement was in regard to my right hon. Friend's suggestion as to Income Tax and Death Duty, as to which he used a musical metaphor which I did not quite understand. The hon. and learned Gentleman, as I understood him, said, "We are going to use a different key, but we are going to preserve harmony." I think that would be rather difficult under this Bill. Here is a point which he did not answer, and which I should like him to answer. He has laid down that with regard to Death Duties the scale is to be maintained, because that is necessary for harmony. I should like to know on what principle the retention of the same scale of Super-tax and abatement in regard to Income Tax is not also necessary if harmony is to be preserved?
      Sir J. SIMON: I will answer that at once. The answer is that the Super-tax and the Income Tax are all one note.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: That is beyond me, especially as the hon. and learned Gentleman just said in reply to an interruption of my right hon. Friend that the Super-tax and Income Tax were to be regarded as quite distinct from the point of view of the 10 per cent., while they are now all one note. I should like to point out that, as has been shown already, by the power to vary the abatement they will give, and by the power to put the Super-tax at £500 if they please instead of £5,000, the Irish Government will, if it chooses, have power absolutely to do away with your whole Income Tax. Surely, if it is necessary to keep harmony in the case of the Death Duties, it is equally necessary to put down some provision which will make sure that the whole Income Tax provisions are not upset from top to bottom by what is done by the Irish Parliament.
      As the hon. Member for Waterford has already said, this Amendment raises the whole subject of the financial proposals of the Bill. I can assure the Committee at once that I am not going to attempt to cover the whole ground or anything like it, but there are two or three points of more general interest to which I wish to refer. The Postmaster-General repeated again to-day the statement that there is nothing protective in the Bill. I would like to remind the Committee of what the right hon. Gentleman said about Sir Thomas Pittar's remarks which I quoted in this House. The right hon. Gentleman rather complained of a want of courtesy on the part of my light hon. and learned Friend. This is the courtesy which he extends to a distinguished public servant who has recently retired. He said that Sir Thomas Pittar was "a broken reed," that he was "wrong in his facts," and "completely false in his conclusions." He told us also that he had consulted the Board of Customs. I have come to be very suspicious about any statement made from that bench in regard to the opinions of other people. We had great difficulty in getting the Primrose Committee. When we got it, the Prime Minister promised that if there was a general desire in the House to that effect, he would give us the evidence; yet although more than half the House asked for it, the evidence is not forthcoming. Now I think my suspicion is justified. I would like to know what the Board of Customs think of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman in view of what has happened. He said that Sir Thomas Pittar was "all wrong,"

      921
      that he was a broken reed, and yet the right hon. Gentleman immediately proceeds to put down Amendment after Amendment to meet the very criticism which Sir Thomas Pittar made. I am under the disadvantage that I really have not time to discuss these matters with experts, and therefore in a technical question of this kind one is apt to be wrong. But I think that to a considerable extent the latest version of the Amendment has stopped the Protection which was in the Bill when Sir Thomas Pittar wrote, and which the right hon. Gentleman said was not in it at all.
      What is the position? As a matter of fact, no one who has given any consideration to the subject will deny that it is possible to have Protection of an extreme kind if the regulations in Ireland under which business in bond is carried on are different from the regulations in England. No one will deny either that under the Bill as it stood, when the Irish Parliament had the right to raise the duty on a manufactured article, and lower the duties on the raw materials which were used to make that manufactured article, they had power by that machinery to give Protection to any extent they pleased in regard to this industry in Ireland. The Government have tried to close that door, but how have they done it? It is still left to the Irish Government to make the duties what they please. The Amendment does not alter that. All that has happened is that after the Irish Parliament has done it, after the duties have been in force for may be weeks or months, the Exchequer Board will step in and say that that is not fair as between Excise and Customs revenue. What does that mean? It means that the Exchequer Board is to have the sole voice in deciding a subject than which nothing more important could be brought before any Parliament in any Kingdom in the world. The Postmaster-General said, in reply to one of my hon. Friends the other day, that if this Exchequer Board could affect policy it was an entirely improper tribunal. But it does. This Board decides by its sole authority, without any appeal, whether Protection is or is not to be given to industries in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman said that that is not policy, or, if it is policy, the Exchequer Board is not a proper authority to deal with it.
      I wish to come to the Government Amendment, on which to a large extent we have been talking. The Postmaster-
      922
      General says that this Amendment is only incidental. But what did he say on the First; Reading about this proposal which is "only incidental." The right hon. Gentleman then said:—
      "I think it is essential, and this is a matter of great importance, that it the Irish Parliament are able to effect economy and to reduce taxation, they should he free to reduce whatever taxation they choose, and especially that they should be in a position to reduce those taxes which press most heavily on the poor,"
      That is a matter which is "only incidental." My right hon. Friend has reminded the Committee of what I said the other day. I am very glad that my words have influenced hon. Gentlemen opposite. One of them told us that there was a large number who were opposed to these provisions, and I suggested that if they really were opposed to them they could, without forcing a Dissolution or losing their seats, get what they wanted. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Bolton?"] That is hardly relevant; but if hon. Members opposite are pleased at having obtained the smallest majority that they have had for twenty-five years they are welcome to it. I pointed out that those hon. Members could, if they choose, without losing their seats, get what they wanted. They have done it. The error that my right hon. Friend made was in supposing that I suggested that the Government should do anything because they thought it was right. That never entered my mind. I suggested that those hon. Gentlemen who had some definite convictions about the matter should exercise their power. They have done it, and the result is that relation between the benches to which my right hon. Friend referred. The Postmaster-General said that we wore hard to please, and that he had given us what we wanted. He is entirely wrong. What I objected to was the restrictions between different parts of the same United Kingdom. They still remain, if the Irish Government has a right to vary Customs and Excise. It is quite true that there would not be smuggling from Ireland to England, but if they made the duty higher there would be smuggling from England to Ireland. The Solicitor-General said that that does not matter, as it does not interfere with English trade. He seems to forget that if there is a danger of that smuggling the cost of collecting the taxes must rise, the collection must cost a great deal more, and that concerns us because we have to pay the cost of collection. The Solicitor-General referred to my old illustration about the donkey race. Strange to say the hon. and learned Member for

      923
      Waterford put that very case. He said this afternoon that under the arrangements of this Bill no Irish Chancellor of Exchequer, unless he were a fool, would take off the duties so long as he had a fool as Chancellor of Exchequer in England who would take them off for him. That is what would happen.
      I wish the Committee could have clearly in mind some of the fundamental features of these financial arrangements. I would give a great deal—I am afraid it is impossible—if the Government would send their proposals to a Primrose or other sane Commission, and ask them to give their opinion upon them. Their Report would be the most valuable document ever laid on the Table of the House. Just consider how the scheme will work. I think it is a very good thing in a way that you only give the Irish Parliament power to raise a tax, because it makes perfectly plain what we all know, but what the hon. Gentleman has concealed from the people in Ireland, that the effect of this Bill will inevitably be that Irishmen will have to pay double taxes; they will have to pay the British taxes, and also whatever taxes are put on to run the Irish Government. It is very desirable that it should be plainly seen that, from the Irish point of view this Bill means more taxes for every one in Ireland. I said that the donkey race was not concluded. By no means. My right hon. Friend the other day pointed out that one of the things which the Exchequer Board would have to do is to estimate the yield of an Irish tax. The Solicitor-General gave us his method of dealing with an Irish tax. Suppose a different Tea Duty were imposed in Ireland—sixpence instead of fivepence. The Solicitor-General says that what would be done is that the Exchequer Board would make a calculation as to what the duty would have been in Ireland at the old rate; they would not give the Irish Parliament the benefit of one-sixth of the total revenue. Suppose that is the method, can anyone imagine a calculation more difficult? The Exchequer Board may say that there has been a falling off in consumption on account of the increased tax. The Irish Government would say that the falling off had nothing whatever to do with the tax. How can you settle that question] It is to be settled by this Exchequer Board, and on the way in which "they settle it depends the finance both of Ireland and of England. Yet the Post-
      924
      master-General says that it is not to affect policy, or it would not be proper for the Board to have to do it. But that is not the method proposed in the Bill as I understand it. The method in the Bill is this. It is very difficult to follow, but I will read Clause 16 (4):—
      "The proceeds of any Customs Duty charged under this Section in Ireland on any article shall, to the extent to which they exceed the proceeds of the Customs and Excise Duty which would have been charged on the article in Great Britain be deemed to be the proceeds of a Customs Duty levied as an Irish tax."
      These words seem clearly to indicate—otherwise Great Britain would not be brought in—that what the Irish Parliament will get is their proportion of the total yield of the tax. If that is true the donkey race comes in again. It is a wonderful system of finance. When our Budget was going through the Chancellor of the Exchequer justified high spirit duties on the ground that they promoted temperance. Suppose the Irish Parliament desired to promote temperance. I think it is very unlikely, seeing that the backbone of the Nationalist party are the publicans in Ireland. But suppose it did happen; see what the provisions of the Bill are. If they were to put 50 per cent, additional on the present spirit duties in Ireland, the yield to-day being something like £2,000,000, and the effect was to reduce the yield to £1,500,000, the Irish Government would not lose a single penny; the Transferred Sum would remain precisely the same as it is now, the loss would all fall on the British Exchequer. That is not all. Under this interpretation by the Exchequer Board the Irish Government would get one-third of the £1,500,000, although the total revenue had fallen by half a million. Therefore in promoting temperance, they would have promoted it at the cost of £1,000,000 sterling to the revenue of the British Exchequer, and they would not be hurt by a single penny. That is your system of finance! I do wish somebody would explain why it is that the Government—or rather hon. Members below the Gangway, for the Government have nothing to do with it—insist upon maintaining this small interference with the Customs. Why do they want to do it? It is not to relieve the taxpayers in Ireland. They told us at first that was the main object. That has gone. It is to get revenue. Now I put to the Committee what

      925
      revenue can they get taking the Customs Duties? Except spirits and beer, they can only get 10 per cent. They could only get more revenue by increased duty on tea, sugar, or other articles. The uttermost they could get out of this would be £300,000 a year. They tell us they can get it from Excise. The Primrose Commission has shown that already, so far as Ireland is concerned, the higher scale of duty has stopped the yield of revenue. [An HON. Member: "No."] It has. If the hon. Member will look at the Report he will see that since 1896 the yield of the Spirit Duties is one million less than it ought to have been in proportion to the increase of taxation.
      Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD: That does not apply to beer.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I am coming to that. It is perfectly true that you may raise more by raising your Beer Duty. If you do raise any considerable sum of money it can only be done by putting a duty on beer so high that there will be the irresistible temptation to smuggle. Everyone knows that that is a kind of thing that is easily smuggled. If the duty is high enough in the one country against the other, it will lead to smuggling. Anyone who knows what happened during Grattan's Parliament knows that there was an immense amount of smuggling between the two countries. I think it is obvious that you cannot get any large sums of money from this provision without a lot of trouble. Nothing more clearly points out that you have gone into a foreign country than when you land there to be subjected to the Customs House examination. That will remain in Ireland even under this arrangement. You will be doing all that for the sake of an additional revenue at the most of half a million sterling. I venture to say in the, field of taxation still left open to the Irish Government, especially when we have to pay the cost and they have to get the proceeds, it would not be easy to raise that money by methods which would not cost an enormous sum, and a considerable amount of friction between us.
      There is only one other point. Since the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Postmaster-General the other day, I really do not know where we stand in regard to this Bill. My idea, drawn from the speech of the Prime Minister in introducing the Bill, and in speeches on the First and Second Reading of the financial arrangements, was this:
      926
      That you were going to take the present financial arrangement between the two-countries, stereotype it, and that in the future Ireland was to live on her own resources, with two exceptions—the two millions, or a little more which she gets from us, and the liability to taxation in the event of a great emergency. It is what I understood. More than that, the Bill shows that that was the intention, because by Clause 26 the Government contemplate, if ever the revenue from Ireland reaches, the expenditure, that Ireland will then begin to contribute towards Imperial needs, but not till that period is reached! What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Postmaster-General tell us? They told us that it is the intention of the Government if any further taxation is required for Imperial needs, to put it on Ireland as well as Great Britain. It is their intention to do so. What becomes of the deficit that is only to be wiped off after all these years? If the taxation is big enough, as it might be next year—if the First Lord of the Admirality were here-he would not deny that there was a possibility of increased taxation next year—the whole question of readjustment would again be raised. That is not all.
      Under the Bill any taxation on any account imposed by this Parliament will automatically fall upon Ireland. The Government tell us that was the intention, but they say it would not be fair to impose on Ireland taxes for social reform affecting England only. I admit that. I do not think any Government, of whatever party, would try to do it. But suppose there was increased expenditure for armaments and social reform. No Chancellor of the Exchequer that ever lived could point to the taxes and say, "That is for armaments; this is for social reform." The thing is impossible. That is the position to which we have come. Under this Bill Ireland is not only to pay the taxes which are contemplated by our existing position; she is going to pay any new taxes which are imposed, and she has to pay them when her Members have been reduced by a third to what they are now, and when they will have that much less voice than they have to-day in determining whether the taxation which you propose is fair or not. Hon. Members below the Gangway think perhaps that I am raising a point that only affects England. The first time I spoke on this Bill I said that if there was to be Home Rule at all I would rather have I it on the Canadian model; that Ireland

      927
      should live on her own resources, and we on ours. We do not want that Home Rule by which you start Ireland in a condition which means immediate bankruptcy. That is what your Bill does. Why do hon. Members below the Gangway accept it? They do not state to the people of Ireland what the Bill means. If there was any possibility of reaching the ordinary Nationalist elector as we reach the English or Scottish electors, you would only have to explain what the Bill means to Irishmen to make it impossible that they should ever accept it under its conditions. Why do they accept it? The Nationalist leaders are like Gentlemen who sit on the benches opposite me. Their whole fate is bound up in getting some kind of Home Rule Bill, and if they cannot get the Bill they want—not from any hostility on the part of the Government, for they will always give them what they want—but from the attitude of hon. Members behind, the Irish Members come down and say, "It does not matter very much." They are willing to take the Bill for two reasons. The first is they must get a Bill to save their own reputations, and, secondly—and this is the main reason—because they know that if they have the leverage of an independent Irish Parliament in Dublin, that with that leverage, supported by the presence of forty Members here, they can get whatever they like.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I rise for the purpose of replying at once to what the right hon. Gentleman has said. He quoted Sir Thomas Pittar, and I propose to deal with that point to show that the illustration I made was not illegitimate in the course of a controversial debate. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that in declaring that the Board of Customs supported my view that there was no Protection in this Bill—that there was no loophole for Protection—and that Sir Thomas Pittar was wrong in his facts and his conclusions, I was not justified by anything that the Board of Customs could have supplied me with. He even went so far as to say that he was very suspicious of any Member of this Government, when he quoted from any authority, as to whether that authority really bore out what that Member of the Government declared to be borne out. The Memorandum which the Board of Customs supplied me with on this very point is dated 8th November, before I spoke. It followed a verbal communication which I had with
      928
      them. It contains a number of comments on other points, but it is in the form of a confidential Memorandum. Therefore I do not quote from it, because if I did so it would be necessary to lay it upon the Table of the House. Since, however, the right hon. Gentleman has not scrupled to throw doubt upon the Memorandum, I pass it across the floor of the House for him to see. I think when he has looked at it, especially when he has noted the marked passage, he may think it well to revise his previous remarks.
      The reason why, in spite of the opinion held by the technical advisers of the Government, we have, nevertheless, put down further Amendments, is not because we have any doubt as to what will be the effect of the Bill as it stands. We have no doubt. We consider that there is no question but that Protection would be excluded, and that the Irish Parliament would not have the power it is suggested they might have. Since we want to make it clear to everyone that that is so, since the right hon. Gentleman opposite raised the point, and said that in their view it is so, and quoted the authority of Sir Thomas Pittar to support their views—we do not accept that opinion—nevertheless, in order to avoid any possibility of doubt, and for greater caution, we have put down an Amendment which must convince everyone that our interpretation of what the Bill will effect is the correct interpretation. I am glad to know that the right hon. Gentleman to-day has, in fact, said that the Amendment as it now stands will completely exclude—
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I only say so far as I can judge.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That is quite sufficient for me. The Bill does now affect what we have always said is the purpose and effect of its wording. That is the main point which I rose to deal with. I do not propose to deal with or argue the extreme and impossible cases to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. The suggestion that if Ireland put an increased duty on beer it would be easy to smuggle beer in large quantities into Ireland I think is misplaced. In view of the revenue restrictions upon the movement of alcoholic liquors, I think such illicit supply would very soon be detected and stopped. His suggestion that the Irish Parliament would seize the opportunity to increase enormously the Excise Duty upon spirits in order to

      929
      reduce the consumption, with consequent loss to the Imperial Exchequer, is not a contingency likely to occur. The right hon. Gentleman said that in any case by varying these Customs Duties the Irish Parliament would never be able to get revenue of more than £300,000, or possibly £500,000 in view of the restrictions imposed upon them. That would be so, no doubt, if the 10 per cent, limitation applied all round. But it does not apply to beer and spirits. If the Irish Parliament did increase the Beer Duty they might obtain a revenue very much larger than the sum quoted by the right hon. Gentleman. Lastly, he said that the scheme of the Bill was defective, because in case we impose new taxation upon the United Kingdom generally, it would fall automatically upon Ireland: whether the purposes for which the taxation was levied was a purpose common to the whole of the United Kingdom or limited to Great Britain.
      8.0 P.M.
      I do not quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's use of the term "automatic." New taxation would be levied in the Budget by a Budget Resolution of this House, and by an Act of this House. But this House is not an automaton. It does not automatically impose any taxes upon any portion of the community. It would be entirely within the province of this House if it chose at any time to declare particular taxation or taxation for any purpose to apply to Great Britain and not to cover the whole of the United Kingdom. But suppose that was not found practicable, suppose it was the Income Tax that was increased and had to be levied throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, nothing would be easier than to give Ireland the benefit of the proportion due to her either by addition to the Transferred Sums or in some other form. There was one remark made by the right hon. Gentleman with which I am in entire agreement; there was one fact which he presented in a way which I do not dispute, and it is that if there is to be a choice of levying fresh taxation on Ireland over a series of years, that might have the effect of bringing closer the day when the deficit would be over and the financial scheme would be revised. That is so, and so far from that being an evil it appears to me, at all events from the point of view of the British taxpayer, that if that day can be accelerated when the deficit is over and the burden on the British taxpayer is re-
      930
      moved, so far from that being an objection, it is an added merit to our financial scheme.
      Mr. AMERY: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General opened his remarks by saying that the key of the whole financial policy, in the general consideration was that we should give the Irish Parliament powers of finance consistent with Imperial convenience and practical work. I must confess the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues seem to have opened the wrong door with that key. That door opens a prospect of confusion and discord which I think is comparable to that which presented itself to the eyes of Fatima when she opened another door. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think that we are taking up an inconsistent attitude on the ground that we are complaining of the extent to which the Irish Government is given powers to vary Imperial taxation, and that at the same moment we suggest that some of these powers are mere nibbling at revenue questions. Both these complaints are equally true and justified. These powers are big enough, applied as they are to Imperial taxation, to cause endless confusion; and at the same time, in view of the height at which Imperial taxation already stands, and such limitations as exist, they are not powers which are likely to produce substantial revenue. The whole thing comes back to the point we urged upon one Amendment after another, that you have never really faced the federal problem you profess to face. If you had but really faced that you would in some way or another have made up your minds as to what taxes should remain to Ireland and in future to England and other federal sub-divisions—what are to remain United Kingdom taxes and what amount of taxes are to be provincial. The experience of every federation in the world indicates that federal finance is only possible on the basis of a joint Customs Tariff for the central Government, and moderately low direct taxes by the central Government which would enable the local Governments to have further direct taxes for their own purposes. Even if you left that and try to use the present fiscal system of this country as a basis of a federal system, you must, make up your mind, if you want to have a sympathetic working, what kind of taxes are to be federated taxes and what kind are to be local taxes; and if you did that and believed that the evils were going to go on under Home Rule, your obvious

      931
      course is to give Ireland a temporary Grant-in-Aid on a scale and on whatever principle you feel justified. If Ireland cannot pay her way for ten years, have it on a scale down to ten years; and so if she cannot pay her way for twenty years, have it on a scale down to twenty years; but do not introduce a system entirely incompatible with the federal scheme and bound to give all the disadvantages of dual ownership of the same taxes.
      One after another my hon. and right hon. Friends have shown that the moment you give the Irish Government power to vary taxes imposed by the Imperial Government, or the moment you give the Imperial Government power to impose taxes in Ireland which Ireland has imposed for her own purposes, you are bound to get endless occasions for friction and difficulty. If the division in the taxes is to be in accordance with the rate imposed, of course you get the difficulty that the Irish Government may add a very heavy surtax which may increase the cost of collection and reduce the total rate, when the disadvantage would fall upon the United Kingdom and not upon Ireland, because Ireland gets a proportional share of the total. In that way the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer could inflict a direct loss upon the Imperial Chancellor and spoil his estimate. If, on the other hand, the solution is that the Irish tax is always a secondary tax, you always estimate what the British tax would have yielded if the Irish tax was not there, and subtract the one from the other, then you get the difficulty to which I ventured to draw attention on Thursday, that the British Chancellor of the Exchequer could come at any moment and destroy the value of the taxes of the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer and compel him to abandon that tax and to try and find a new one. I do not wish to go into the details, referred to many times, but whatever way you take it you are bound to get cause of endless friction to be settled by the Joint Exchequer Board, with which certainly the Irish will not be content.
      Then you have still further questions of various modifications introduced, but, as far as I can see, they only add to the complications without in any way clearing the matter. Let me take the question of Death Duties, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. At present and for the future, automatically, if these new provisions are introduced, the Death Duties are imposed for the whole of the
      932
      United Kingdom upon the whole estate of deceased persons in the United Kingdom and upon a rate proportionate to the total of that sum. That will continue. Now the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer has a right to reduce or to remit altogether the Death Duties. What would happen if a man's estate is half a million in Ireland and half a million in Great Britain? If the Irish Government abolish Death Duties in Ireland, are we to understand that the British Exchequer will raise Death Duties on a scale applicable to the whole million? Or, again, if the Irish Government reduced the Death Duties to a lower scale, does the British Government still exact its scale upon the whole and leave the heirs of the deceased person to get some sort of refund from the Irish Government? It seems to me that the only way to deal with it should be as a provincial matter, and that each province should only take Death Duties upon the total property in their care, but the Bill does not provide that. Then we come to the question raised the other day. If the Bill proceeded on the framework as laid down in the First and Second Reading speeches, then the argument advanced by the Postmaster-General does mean that all taxation imposed in this House automatically falls upon Ireland and that all savings made in this House are also savings for Ireland. As I venture to point out, if the saving is for purely British purposes, it is an injustice to Great Britain, and in the case of expenditure on British objects it would be an injustice to Ireland. How are we to deal with that? The Postmaster-General gave two answers. He said in certain cases you need not impose taxes upon Ireland. Then you get a fresh source of difficulty.
      Suppose you impose a Customs Tax added to the Tea Duties in this country to cover new expenditure, let us say, on old age pensions, and do not add the same amount to the Tea Duty in Ireland, you at once defeat the effect of the concession with regard to Customs. You at once introduce a difference as regards Customs Duties between this country and Ireland, and you have a higher Customs Duty here than in Ireland. That is not merely theoretical, but practical, for it is practically certain, whatever fiscal system we have, we have come in this country pretty well up to the limit for the time being of our direct taxation. Any further expenditure for social reform or Imperial

      933
      defence is going to be got by the imposition of indirect taxes. If we do not extend that to Ireland, then in the whole range of our Customs Duties we will be forced here to put up taxes against Ireland, and if you do not do that, you would be driven to the right hon. Gentleman's other alternative. Presumably the Joint Exchequer Board would have to estimate how much taxation would be raised from Ireland by the additional taxation laid upon Ireland as rightly attributable to the particular purposes in this country, which is local, not Imperial. It would have to decide what is local and not Imperial, a matter of immense difficulty and matter of policy and opinion, and when that is done it has got to allocate an Irish equivalent Grant which Ireland would be given back, and Ireland would have that money to remit other taxes. I think the Chief Secretary for Ireland knows how much controversy has been created in the past in the allocation of equivalent Grants to Ireland, and here, under what we are told would be a comparatively simple system, you would be back at once, not only to the contract system and its vices, but to the further vices of the system of equivalent Grants. More than that, the assumption is made by Irishmen—the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for West Islington has made that assumption—that Ireland was consistently over-taxed and most specifically so in regard to indirect taxes. Under this system you are going to continue to over-tax Ireland, but you would give a considerable sum of money to Ireland in the way of equivalent Grants. Unless the Irish Government wants to plunge still further into greater and more extravagant expenditure far beyond what the Union has already committed the Irish Government to, she must proceed to reduce taxation, and by the Amendment introduced to-day she is not allowed to reduce her Customs taxes.
      A number of new Customs taxes are to be imposed upon Ireland, but the Irish Government is not allowed to reduce taxes in order to get rid of the equivalent Grant, but must reduce her direct taxes. You are making it impossible for Ireland to get a system of taxation suitable for her needs, and if Ireland economises at all you are going to give her a system which aggravates the present case. Of course you are also left in this position, that you have no finality whatsoever. Instead of having the system which is to work more or less automatically, the question of what taxes Ireland is to pay depends at any
      934
      moment upon the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day in this country. One Chancellor of the Exchequer may think that Ireland is not to have new Imperial taxes, or he may take off existing Imperial taxes in Ireland when he takes them off in this country. Another Chancellor of the Exchequer may think the opposite. He may reduce the Tea Duty here and not in Ireland on the ground that the reduction has been made possible by British domestic expenditure. He may also put all the new British taxes upon Ireland, and give Ireland an equivalent Grant at a moment when the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer may find it extremely inconvenient to have this large sum of money thrown at his head. The whole case for Home Rule is that you cannot efficiently and economically govern Ireland unless those who spend the money have control and are responsible for the difficulties and the unpopularity of raising the money. All that is now thrown to the winds, and you have a system under which the Irish Government gets one contract sum; it gets taxes imposed upon it for which it may get no equivalent whatever. It may or it may not have a tax imposed upon it when it does not want a fresh revenue, and yet have the fresh revenue thrown at its head, and be asked to modify its system. That cannot lead in any sense to economy, efficiency, or to harmony of working.
      The Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman seems to me to have done nothing to meet our objection to the right of Ireland to interfere with the Customs system of the United Kingdom, and if it has done away with the objection of seventy or eighty hon. Members opposite, they are easy to please. I thought their objection was to the breaking up of the fiscal unity of the United Kingdom, and the possibility of an Irish Parliament introducing protective measures into this country. I thought their objection was to smuggling across the Irish Channel, when now I find their only objection is smuggling one way across the Channel. I think the Liberal Free Trader is a very poor watch-dog of Free Trade. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General throws him his sop as easily and effectively as his prototype the no less impeccable Æneas threw the honeyed bun to Cerberus. It seems to me that very objection we have raised remains in substance, and the only argument for giving Ireland the power of modifying its taxes is the one which has been abandoned by this

      935
      Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford seemed to think that this was an immaterial matter, and the Postmaster-General agreed with him because there was no prospect of Ireland having any economies within any time we could contemplate, which would make it possible to reduce the deficit. The hon. and learned Member was answered most effectively by the hon. Member for Northampton who pointed out that there might be no possibility of reducing the total amount of the deficit. One of the first things to do would be to reduce the very high Customs Duties and introduce other taxes which would give the same rate. That one argument in favour of modifying the Customs system has been our objection, and it has not been met in the least, in fact automatically you have a new protection introduced. Nobody can deny, and in fact that they have all admitted it, that the mere examination of Customs is costly and inconvenient. It is costly to the State, it is an expense and inconvenience to the man who wants to send his goods across, and it means increased cost and delay. It is an inconvenience to have to send every parcel to the Post Office with a declaration. Under this system of traffic from England to Ireland, you have got this inconvenience and expense, and whether it is 1 per cent, or 2 or 5 per cent, in the case of parcels, it may be a very considerable expense. In the case of traffic from Ireland to England you have not that expense, but does the right hon. Gentleman not see that by virtue of that you have a protection in Ireland against British traffic, whereas you have not a protection in this country against goods coming from Ireland?
      As regards the Parcels Post or small parcels, you have the essence of protection there already, and if the Irish Government likes to insist that bales of woollen goods are likely to contain saccharine, and to impose regulations which really makes the search troublesome, you will get a very effective protection against British woollen in the Irish market. Nobody has yet answered the point we have made on the question of bounties and monopolies, namely, that however operative or innocuous those powers of granting protection might be if they had to come within the ordinary revenue of the Irish Government, the moment you give them the power to raise Customs and Excise Duty you make it perfectly easy by a very little arrangement to raise the Customs Duty.
      936
      Supposing you raise the Customs and Excise on tobacco by Is., and arrange that the whole of the proceeds of that duty is at once to go back in the shape of Grants, or however you like, to the growers of tobacco in Ireland. What you do in effect is to make the Excise Duty on tobacco in Ireland even lower than it is to-day, and you make the Customs Duty not only 1s. higher but practically something like 2s. higher. Once a general tariff is introduced, you do give a power of protection against protecting every article which Ireland wishes to tax. That point has never been answered, and I do not think it is of vital importance to this country, and to the dissentient Liberal Members opposite to understand that the opportunity for protection still is there. My hon. Friend said he agreed that this Amendment withdrew opportunities of protection, but surely he meant opportunities of granting protection by differentiating drawbacks, and not the opportunity of granting protection which is still left by giving the Irish Government power to grant bounties or to establish a monopoly, in which case it might remit both Customs and Excise altogether, and buy the article at such prices as may suit it and the Irish producer best. Lastly, all these powers are in point of revenue unnecessary. They can only be given either to satisfy a sentiment which will at once be made a handle for demanding more or to deliberately invite attempts to circumscribe, to rig, and to complicate the fiscal system of the United Kingdom. In all these attempts you are bound to add to the cost of collection which falls upon us and not upon Ireland. By giving Ireland not a field of taxation of its own but the power to meddle and to interfere with the whole field practically of United Kingdom taxation, you are setting up a system which is bound to lead to friction, which is bound to break down on the first opportunity, and which I venture to say you would never have introduced but for one reason and one reason only. You have not had the courage to face the situation fairly, either as regards the people of this country or as regards the hon. Members below the Gangway. It is because you have not been prepared to state fairly to the people of this country what actual Grant-in-Aid they have got to give now and for fifteen, twenty or thirty years to come, and because you have not been prepared to state fairly and clearly to the Irish Members that their powers are going to be limited to such powers as will be

      937
      given to Scotland and Wales in the future, that any Grant-in-Aid Ireland's present position may require will also be strictly limited in quantity and in point of time, and that they will really be compelled to make those savings about which we have heard so much, but which apparently there is so little disposition really to attempt to carry out.
      Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I desire first of all to offer my hearty congratulations to the Solicitor-General for his happy incursion into the domain of music to find the illustration which he used. He seems to find harmony in this Bill by one of those happy inspirations which occasionally flash across Members on the Front Bench opposite in a way which I hope will attract the respectful attention it certainly ought to attract. Dealing with the question of variation by the Irish Parliament of the Death Duties and the Super-tax, by which it is contemplated that Super-tax and Death Duties will be allowed to be imposed in Ireland at one rate at the same time that they are imposed in England at another rate, he said they were going to write these duties in different keys but so as to preserve harmony. I would suggest that when he gets a few moments' relaxation from his public duties he might conveniently take somebody, if he can find anybody willing to sacrifice himself, into a room where there are two pianos, and let them play upon the pianos at the same time the same, tune in different keys. He will then get the harmony he contemplates, and will, when he has carried out that operation, realise how thoroughly true was his illustration of the harmony likely to result from this Bill. Clause 15 contains one Sub-section which I really cannot help thinking the Postmaster-General must have overlooked, because the object of the whole of the Amendments we have been discussing this afternoon is to provide that in future, when dealing with Imperial taxation, the Irish Parliament shall only have the power of adding to them, and not of taking from them. That Sub-section, which, as far as I can see, is untouched by any of the Amendments discussed up to the present time, gives the Irish Parliament power, either by way of addition, reduction, or continuance, to deal with any Imperial tax in Ireland. What is the good of our solemnly discussing an Amendment that they are only to have the power to add to Customs Duties and not to reduce them if you leave them the power of discontinuing them alto-
      938
      gether? It sounds so foolish that I cannot help thinking my reading of the Bill must be wrong, but here are the words staring us in the face in the Sub-section:—
      "The Irish Parliament shall have power to vary (either by way of addition, reduction, or discontinuance) any Imperial tax so far as respects the levy of that tax in Ireland."
      Mr. EDGAR JONES: That is qualified in the next paragraph.
      Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: No. Paragraph (a) deals only with Customs Duties.
      Mr. EDGAR JONES: Certainly, and there is the Amendment.
      Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: That is exactly what I say. The Clause, with paragraph (a), provides that you are to deal with Customs Duties, and the Amendment limits the powers as to Customs Duties to additions.
      Sir J. SIMON: I think if the hon. and learned Gentleman will just look again he will see that is not really so. If it were so we should no doubt wish to put it right. May I call his attention to the first words of Clause 15 and the Amendment combined:—
      "The Irish Parliament shall have power to vary (either by way of addition, reduction, or discontinuance)."
      Therefore, you vary Imperial taxes, whether you add to them, reduce thorn, or discontinue them. The Bill speaks of variation as a thing which may happen either by way of addition, reduction, or discontinuance. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will be now good enough to look at the Amendment of the Postmaster-General on the Paper, he will see that is a provision that the Irish Parliament shall not have power to vary except by way of addition. I think if you put those two things together it follows you have a general provision giving the Irish Parliament power to vary either by way of addition, reduction, or discontinuance, followed by a provision that in the case of Customs they shall not have any power to vary except by way of addition.
      Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I do not in the least complain of the Solicitor-General's interpretation, but I disagree with it in toto. I am bound to suggest there is no court of the land which, reading this Section, will construe discontinuance as variation. If you have a Section in which you say, a tax being imposed, the

      939
      Irish Parliament is to have no power to vary, and if you leave in the words it is to have the power to discontinue, what is the result? Variation means put up or down. Discontinuance means to strike out altogether. The one contradicts the other. The suggestion of the Postmaster-General is to put in at the end of Sub-section (a), which deals with the Customs Duty words which will enable the Irish Parliament to discontinue or vary the tax. The provision is that there shall be power to vary, either by way of addition or reduction, or discontinuance. It seems to me that to leave, in the words "the Irish Parliament shall have power to vary either by way of addition, reduction, or discontinuance" is unwise. It would be better to provide that the Irish Parliament shall have power to vary Imperial taxation by discontinuance. I hope the Government will consider that point. Before I leave Section 15, let me point out once more the lamentable mistake made by the Postmaster-General in dealing with the Exchequer Board. He reiterated that the only function of the Joint Exchequer Board was to give a dignified countenance to the policy. You have in this Clause 15 what may be compared with the Star Chamber. It has to determine if the Irish Parliament is to have power to impose in Ireland any independent taxes which, in the opinion of the Joint Exchequer Board, are substantially of an important character. What is the responsibility you put upon this Joint Exchequer Board? It will have to decide whether this tax, which has been producing a revenue for the Imperial Parliament, is to produce something over and above for Ireland.
      All we know is that the Joint Exchequer Board is to be enabled to give the Irish Parliament power to impose taxes. But surely the power of taxation should be in the legislature of the country which has to pay. It is suggested there should be a sort of Star Chamber to determine what taxation the Irish Parliament shall have power to impose. That is one of the many points which, in the opinion of hon. Members on this side, make this Bill utterly unworkable. Let us turn to the Amendment of the Postmaster-General which has been discussed, and let us see what powers are given there. They are not to alter the rate of the Income Tax. If it is 10d. in the £ while the Unionist Government are in power, or Is. 2d. in the £ under the Liberal Government, or vice versa, that rate is to be a fixed rate, and
      940
      the Irish Parliament is not to be in a position to alter it. Then we come to the question of how the Super-tax is to be imposed. Under the plan proposed it will relieve the South of Ireland at the expense of the industrial North. You are giving to the Irish Parliament power to impose tariffs which would relieve the Nationalist quarters of Ireland at the expense of the North. Is it wise to have such words in the Bill, and is it wise to leave the Clause in its present form? I suggest it is not.
      Mr. BOOTH: You can do that here.
      Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I do not agree in the least. [Hon. Members: "Why?"] Because you have got here an Imperial Parliament, with representatives of the majority in this country, and they are not likely to tolerate an injustice of that kind, because the conditions are altogether different. You have not got in England an agricultural South and an industrial North.
      Mr. BOOTH: Yes, you have.
      Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: Not at all. You have your agriculture spread over the whole country, and your industries spread all over the country. [HON. Members: "No."] It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Booth) to shake his head and say "No" at intervals like a Greek chorus; that does not help us very much. The only thing I have to add about the suggested Amendment to Clause 15 is that the last part of it is wholly unintelligible—not that that is anything new in connection with this Bill. It says that the power of the Irish Parliament to vary an Imperial Tax, so far as any Customs Duty or Death Duty is concerned
      "shall only be exercised so as to vary the rate of the duty."
      I thought that in a former. Amendment moved by the Postmaster-General it was provided that the only way they could vary a Customs Duty was by way of addition. If that is so, why not say so in plain English? If what you mean is that the only power is to be the power of addition, you should say so, instead of constantly using the word "variation," which is open to all sorts of interpretations. The whole thing comes back to this that if you are to have Imperial taxation which is to be incident to Ireland, and if you are going to keep forty-two Irish Members in this House to vote upon the question of Imperial taxation, why not keep yourselves the control of the taxation you

      941
      yourselves impose. You should either give to the Irish Parliament a proper, ample, and common sense power to impose its own taxation, or keep the taxation in the hands of this Parliament, as an excuse, at any rate, for keeping forty-two Irish Members here. The bog into which you are falling, and the ridiculous contradictions that stick out all over these Clauses, which are emphasised by the Amendment moved from the Government Benches, all come to this, that you are trying to impose what is repugnant to common sense You have an Imperial Parliament, an Empire whose affairs it directs, which is still representative of all sections of the community. Why cannot you leave to the Imperial Parliament the power to impose and collect Imperial taxation? The moment you give to what you profess to be a subordinate Parliament in Ireland the power to interfere with the taxation imposed by this House, then you are likely to get the condition of harmony so ably outlined by the Solicitor-General in his simile of the tune being played in two different keys at the same time. The simile is perfectly apt. If we are to have Imperial taxation keep it in Imperial hands, and leave to the Irish Parliament the power to impose and collect their own taxes.
      Mr. HEWINS: I have been waiting to hear from the Government Benches a reasoned defence, based upon practical experience, of the proposals adumbrated in their Amendment. we have had ingenious arithmetical speeches, but, so far as I remember, we have had no single reference to the trade and resources of Ireland and Great Britain, no reference to the people who have got to work the arrangements introduced by the Government's Amendment, and no trace that the Government has ever taken into consultation the business men and practical men interested in this great question. You have got to give Home Rule—that is the idea of the Government—and to provide some scheme which will enable the people upon the benches opposite to vote for this particular measure; but, so far as I can see, they produce no defence whatever of the scheme they have propounded, and apparently they do not propose to do so. The striking fact about the relations of Great Britain and Ireland is that they are relations of inter-dependence. Nearly all the trade of Ireland is with Great Britain. I think they have only some £10,000,000 of trade outside, and any scheme that is introduced must take that into account. I could understand bringing in a scheme
      942
      which said that Ireland was to be considered as a complete fiscal entity, organically different from this country, and then giving to Ireland power under such a scheme to make her own financial arrangements in regard to both internal taxation and to Customs and Excise. I could understand the Government making an argumentative case for a scheme of that kind. I think I could demolish that case with perfect ease, but it is a case one could understand. What I cannot understand is that the Government, with all the organisation they have under their control, and all the opportunities they have had of consulting the Irishmen, Englishmen, and Scotchmen interested in these matters, have never produced evidence that they have ever taken anybody into their confidence at all.
      In these circumstances it is extraordinarily difficult to criticise the view of the Government. I listened to the speech of the Solicitor-General. I think he made out what might be called a Departmental case. It was exceedingly ingenious. It was a case similar to that Mr. Gladstone made out years ago for scrapping the ancient financial machinery of this country at the time of the introduction of Free Trade. That is looking at it from the crudest, narrowest, Departmental point of view. Obviously there is no possible advantage to be gained to the economic interests of Ireland or of this country by having separate Exchequers or the arrangements set up by the Government's Amendment. I really marvel at hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are committed to a particular line of policy, agreeing with proposals which fly in the face of all that has ever been said by great financial experts in the past as to what are the desirable relations between Great Britain and Ireland. If there is one thing that comes out of the early history of the nineteenth century or the latter history of the eighteenth century, it is that you have to aim at fiscal unity of the Exchequers of these two countries, and the sweeping away of external and internal differences. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are going right back upon the past; they are abandoning the advice of great financial authorities. No one seems to be more fully aware of the protective element—I use the word in its broadest, general sense—in introducing these differences into the internal taxing system of Great Britain, and especially the Customs, than the Postmaster-General himself. But he seems to me to despise his colleagues upon the bench opposite.

      943
      He knows perfectly well that he has to deal with the ordinary Radical, who is pledged to uphold the old orthodox views on financial arrangements, and he knows also perfectly well that this Bill, in Clauses 15 and 16, conflicts with all the old criteria, but he has to get their support. No one will be more ready to admit his ability, almost his genius, for dealing with these things, but he seems to me just to be content to fool his colleagues upon the Opposition bench. He invents a Departmental way, beautiful in its prim efficiency, of dealing with these questions, and he provides hon. Members opposite with an excuse, for that is what they want, to keep in office, for voting for measures which, if we had happened to be in office, and had introduced anything at all incorporating such principles in any proposals we had done, would have been denounced as being against all the principles of English finance. That is the situation.
      Of course, we on this side are wholly against these proposals even in the modified form of the Government Amendment because they introduce the principle of disintegration into the United Kingdom. They are anti-Imperial. That is our case against them. The details are very interesting, and many fascinating statistical sums can be made out in defending or opposing these proposals, but we are content with the broad principle. For generation after generation, at great sacrifice, at the greatest possible inconvenience and with the utmost trouble, we introduced and carried through, by slow stages, the amalgamation of the two Exchequers and the assimilation of the systems of taxation of the two countries. It was an achievement for which no particular party could claim the credit. The statesmen who approved it were, some of them, Protectionists and some Free Traders. The approval of this movement is common to all the great financial experts of the past. It bear analogies with all the great constructive schemes which have been carried out on the Continent, and we say on this side that directly you introduce these differences you introduce a system which is going to drive you into further and further extremities. You cannot stop where you are. As your internal differences grow—I mean, in Ireland and in Great Britain—you will find that vested interests will be created which it will be very difficult to remove, and you will never achieve fiscal unity again, without the same diffi-
      944
      culties which we had in the past. We will not have that on any terms whatever. We are not opposed to the proper expression of national sentiment. There is no Irishman keener about Ireland than we are about our own country. We say that you can satisfy this national sentiment—this Home Rule sentiment—in a way which we have practised over and over again in the course of our history, and it certainly does not involve a breach in the fiscal unity of the United Kingdom.
      9.0 P.M.
      I come now to the particular proposal of this Amendment. I should like to point out the extraordinary misconception that appears to lie in the mind of the Solicitor-General. I do not know how far it lies in the mind of the Postmaster-General—that he has done away pro tanto with the objections that have been raised on the ground that his proposals involve the setting up of Custom Houses between the two countries by confining the powers of the Irish Parliament to additions to Customs. That is not the point at all. The necessity for separate Custom Houses does not arise from the fact that you have a reduction of duties. The necessity for separate Custom Houses arises from the elaborate drawback system which is involved in this Bill, and any variation—it does not matter what it is—in duties as between the two countries, involves the setting up of Custom Houses, and you will find that it will bring something like £100,000,000 of trade subject to Customs to which it is not at present subject. But it is the variation up or down coupled with the drawback system which involves the setting up of Custom Houses, and from my point of view the Postmaster-General has done nothing whatever by the Amendment which he has introduced. I take another point—the extraordinary provisions which are introdued into the Amendment, and what I may call its correlative Amendments, by the Amendment of the Definition Clause 47. We understand that no variation upwards is permitted to the Irish Parliament on any item in the Schedule unless it covers all the correlative items in the Schedule. They have all to be proportionate. Then in the Amendment to Clause 47 we have this:—
      "For the purposes of this Act duties on a raw material and on articles produced, prepared, or manufactured from that material, and any group of duties fixed in relation to some common basis, shall be deemed to be correlated duties."

      945
      What in the world does that mean? I am very much astonished to find the party opposite committing itself to the principle of calculating duties on the basis of raw material. It is the very worst form. There is no important tariff in the world which takes that as the basis of calculation. I am very much surprised that the Government propose to perpetuate and emphasise this particularly bad feature in the present tariff system of the United Kingdom. They propose to tax raw material, and to work out the duties all through a given Schedule upon the basis of raw material. The one thing which shall not escape from taxation, from the point of view of the other side, is raw material. I have only to read out this very interesting Amendment in any industrial constituency, let us say in Lancashire—[An HON. MEMBER: "Bolton."] Yes, Bolton. Unfortunately, this was not down in time for the Bolton election. It might have been worth any number of votes to our side. I might ask a question of the Government which is frequently put to me, and which I have answered over and over again. What is a raw material? Will the Postmaster-General kindly tell me? And what is the possible defence for this particular provision? I admit, indeed I complain that we tax raw material now but after all I suppose this Bill is intended to last for all time. It is not intended to be revised and altered in its fundamental provisions a few years hence.
      Mr. BOOTH: Are we to understand, Mr. Healy, that if a discussion takes place now with regard to this definition of raw material, the Chairman will rule it out of order later on when we get to the point in the Bill?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. T. M. Healy): I can hardly answer for what my successors may do.
      Mr. HEWINS: I am on the Clause, which has been subject to debate for the whole afternoon, and this is merely a defining Clause, defining what are correlated duties, and I can only understand the interruption of the hon. Member opposite on this basis, that he does not like the idea of the Liberal party committing itself to taxation of raw material, which it is doing by this particular Amendment. But that is not the end.
      "And may group duties fixed in relation to some common basis."
      946
      What common basis I [An HON. MEMBER: "Alcohol."] I see. That is another common basis. Supposing we have great financial responsibilities to meet and suppose the opposite side—which, as a matter of fact, many Governments have examined into—propose to meet the necessary expenditure by duties on imported luxuries. Are they prepared to advance the proposition that they are going to tax these in proportion to the raw material involved? What is the situation? We know the line upon which we propose to tax imported articles upon this side. What is the line on the other side? Are we to understand that they propose in the future relations of Great Britain and Ireland to take raw material as the basis for the calculation of Customs Duties? I can only say that of all the principles I have ever heard of for regulating the financial relations between two countries, this is one of the worst. It will certainly lead, if it is ever adopted, to the greatest possible friction and difficulty between the two countries, and it will tend necessarily, if we at all change our system, to accentuate the difficulties and differences between the two countries. Looking at the matter quite impartially, I do sincerely hope that the Government will give a more general and more generous interpretation to the correlative duties than they have done in this particular Amendment. One of the results of the limitation of the Irish Parliament which the Government have adopted by this Amendment will be to drive them more and more to differences of internal taxation, which we all deplore on this side, and which I think every civilised country deplores. As a matter of fact, these differences of internal taxation are more serious than those connected with the variation of Customs Duties. I would like to see the Government adumbrate a scheme more fitted to the circumstances of Ireland, and which would show that it appeals to business experience and the evidence of practical men, so conspicuously lacking in all these proposals.
      Mr. EDGAR JONES: The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hewins) starts with the great psychological and economic fallacy which pervades the minds of hon. Members on that side. The fallacy is that all economic virtue resides in Englishmen, and that nobody else has any. That was the burden of the hon. Member's speech, and he gave point to that by an historical reference which was very interesting. The great thing that commended itself to him, historically, was the fact that after a great

      947
      deal of trouble an amalgamation was brought about of the Exchequers of Ireland, Scotland, and England. That is one of the points on which there is disagreement. The people of Ireland have always said that was bad for them, and I have known forcible criticism of the change on the part of Scotchmen. Englishmen brought that amalgamation about for their own purposes and nothing else. They should remember that while from the point of view of Englishmen it has been all right, it has always been regarded by Irishmen as bad for them. The hon. Member for Birmingham, who spoke earlier in the Debate, went upon the same fallacy of assuming that you never could expect any kind of spirit, or business common sense, or compromise, or general working arrangement from Irishmen.
      Mr. HEWINS: I suggested that one of the conspicuous faults of the Government proposals was that they had not consulted Irishmen from the business point of view.
      Mr. EDGAR JONES: If the hon. Member means consultation with some of the large manufacturers and merchants in the North of Ireland, those are the last people in the world who could safely be consulted upon taxation, for, in giving their advice they would take particular care to keep taxation off their own particular trade or industry. I do not think the hon. Member opposite gets rid of the difficulty by relying upon that point in his speech. There is the general pervading fallacy that you are going to have in Ireland people with no conception of the spirit of compromise, which is essential in any country, and in any kind of business whatever. The thing that interested me in listening to the speeches of hon. Members is that they make their arguments ridiculous by the accumulation of the destruction that is in them. Take what was said by the hon. Member for Birmingham. He started with the Income Tax, and worked through the Super-tax, the Death Duties, and the Customs Duties, and gradually proved to his own satisfaction all the way through that there was not a single tax you could allow Ireland to have any special revenue from at all. Of course, if you are going upon that line, you cannot set up any kind of federal system here, and do what was done for the German Empire. That, according to hon. Members, passes the wit of man. It is not very much use therefore putting these
      948
      fiscal posers. After all, the question is a very broad one. The Irish people need for education and local development certain resources of their own. Our pro posal is to give them the maximum liberty. The hon. Member for Birmingham kept on emphasising that you are giving them this power and the other power. I say more power to the elbow of the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sorry the Government have seen fit to put as many restrictions as they have done upon the Irish Government. We should trust the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer, just as the German Chancellor trusts the Chancellors of States which are subsidiary. Side by side with that there is the economic fallacy of assuming—the absolutely impossible assumption—that our fiscal system now, our system of taxation, is a logical one, and one to be commended as something that hangs together in a beautiful fashion, coherent and dovetailed. Everybody knows that Continental observers and others are absolutely baffled when they endeavour to understand the peculiar system we have here.
      Our system of taxation would not work for a day were it not for the fact that the people of this country, without pedantry or folly, proceed on ordinary rough business lines. That is what is going to happen in relation to these two countries. There are details which have been referred to by hon. Members. One hon. Gentleman talks about the Super-tax limit coming down to £400, and the tax being specially allocated on Ulster. That is the same old assumption that you cannot look for a spark of virtue in an Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer, that there is nothing in him but original sin, and that he is going to look at these taxes with the view to taxing Ulster out of existence. Then there is the argument which has been mentioned several times to-day about bounties. Hon. Members seem to suppose that the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to reduce the duties on tea and sugar, and that on the top of that he is going to reduce the Income Tax, and add to the Super-tax. The main argument has been that, after reducing the taxes on tea and sugar, and increasing the Super-tax, the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to create bounties right and left in order to create a system of Protection in Ireland. I submit that hon. Members are discussing it a little too much. They are overdoing it, and the whole fabric of their criticism

      949
      is made up of things which are being said simply for the sake of criticism. I have yet to hear some kind of constructive suggestion as to what kind of finance hon. Members think would work better within a Home Rule scheme, because we assume that Home Rule is going to become law. I myself do not believe that Irish Chancellors will want to meddle with Imperial taxes very much at all. I believe that in many little ways Irish Chancellors can discover suitable methods of taxation. I am not sure that in this country we are taxed in the best way, without hurting the people. I have no doubt that the Irish Chancellor will rely on that rather than on conflicts with the Exchequer Board and with the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealing with Imperial taxes. As to the apparent inconsistency between the original declarations of the Government about the levying of the Imperial taxes over Great Britain and Ireland at the same time and the declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer since then, I do not see where the difficulty comes in. The whole thing seems to me to be admirably arranged. If you deal with a country in a spirit of pedantry, it is easy enough to imagine inconsistencies.
      If you proceed on the assumption that the Irish Chancellor is going to seek friction at every opportunity, you can conjure up all kinds of difficulties; but, looking at it on broad lines, it is quite plain that if this Bill becomes law, starting to operate Irish local functions for which the Transferred Sum is provided, the Irish Chancellor will have to deal with his Irish taxes for that purpose. But the Bill provides that in case of war or a great calamity, or national emergency, we can put a tribute on the people of Ireland for that special emergency, and only so long as it lasts; and for Imperial purposes that is a thing very much to be desired, and will work quite simply. I put the point to the Postmaster-General—and he informed me that it is all in the Bill—that he should provide clearly that when the Joint Exchequer Board is going to calculate its three years' obliteration of the deficit it should not bring into the calculation this special extension of the special Imperial Tax for a war or period of emergency. I take it that that would not be so in practice, and that on neither side of the Channel would it be thought that the incidence of a special War Tax comes within the tax that has to deal with the deficit. Subject to that I am very
      950
      glad that the Government has stuck so well as it has to the Bill, and I only wish it had stuck to it as it was. I only trust that from this onwards, at any rate, it will proceed on the assumption that there will be a few sensible men in Ireland similar to the men who have built up businesses. The hon. Member was referring to business men, and I will ask any of such men, if they had proceeded in the pedantic manner in which he wishes Chancellors of the Exchequers to proceed, would they ever have built up any business in the North of Ireland or anywhere else? It is because these men have acted in a large manner, with a good deal of give and take, and refrained from being guided by punctilious details that they have been able to succeed. What applies to business men in their own business applies equally well to the Chancellor of Exchequer either in Ireland or in England.
      Captain CRAIG: I hope I shall be able to answer the hon. Member for Merthyr in what he described as a broad, intelligent manner. May I take his last remark firsts He said that if the business men in the North of Ireland accepted this Bill without picking holes in its details in the same way as they built up the great industries in the North of Ireland, he was sure they would be able to make a success of Home Rule. Several of the great business men to whom he refers have met together and have discussed the financial portion of the Home Rule Bill from A to Z, and I have here the result of their inquiries, and if the hon. Member cares to look through the volume he will see that there is not one single part of the financial proposals of the Government that will stand the criticism of really hard-headed business men. That is where the hon. Member's arguments fall to the ground. Not only that, but he said that we should not deny to an Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer such a small thing as the power to impose this little extra taxation. Does he for a moment remember when saying those light words that what is proposed by the Government and is striven to be avoided by the Amendment is that the great fiscal system of this country, Customs, revenue, and every form of taxation, which has been built up after centuries of arduous work, and reports by Committees and those best able to judge, is to be thrown aside for what he admits to be only a very trifling advantage of internal extra taxation in Ireland?
      Mr. MacVEAGH: Hear, hear.
      Captain CRAIG: Even the Nationalists agree with that sentiment.
      Mr. MacVEAGH: Hear, hear. You are making a Free Trade speech.
      Captain CRAIG: The lion. Member said that the Irish Members should certainly have the right to decide how that small amount of money should be raised in the first instance by varying the way in which taxation is raised and deciding how7 it should be spent in the second instance. Does not the hon. Member bear in mind that it is not as though you were turning all the Irish representatives out of this House. But you are still keeping them here for the very purpose of having their voices heard as to the system of levying taxation in this country, and therefore it is quite unnecessary to allow this Clause to go through without the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. I will give the hon. Member one concrete instance of what I propose, illustrating the very thing proposed by the Government and supported by the hon. Member. Everyone knows that on the passage of the National Insurance Act through this House there was a differentiation insisted upon by the Nationalist Members that there should be no medical benefit in Ireland. The result is confusion most absolute and intolerable. Take the case of anybody who lives on this side of the water for perhaps three or four months, a servant or a labourer, or anyone who happens to have occasion to be in Great Britain, and comes under the Insurance Act in England or Scotland. Owing to this very differentiation which the hon. Member would perpetuate, the employer and employed over here have the right, under the National Insurance Act, to stick on a stamp, which carries with it to the person concerned full medical benefit; but the moment you cross the Channel, owing to a change in the machinery, no medical benefits at all are offered in Ireland. [An HON. MEMBER: "You get them."] Not under the Act. I know what the hon. Member suggests: that they can go to the local dispensary doctor, but that is quite a different thing from the medical benefits given under the National Insurance Act. In Ireland, owing to this differentiation, they pay a lesser rate, because the stamps obtained are minus medical benefit. When you come to this country, what happens? Because you have paid the proper rate you get the medical benefit. I only quote that
      952
      instance to show how, in a small way, the moment you begin to split up the taxation of the United Kingdom, or indeed the machinery—as in this instance of a big Act like the National Insurance Act—the whole thing becomes utter chaos.
      What does it mean I It means that you are to have the same power of taxation, the same Income Tax, the same Death Duties, the same taxes which are levied by the Imperial Parliament, but, over and above that, there is to be machinery for drawbacks and rebates—a system under which a bounty can afterwards be given to a particular trade—and all these are to be kept in the hands of the Nationalist Parliament in Dublin. If one pictures the real facts of the case, which hon. Members opposite will never face, it amounts to this, that you will have in Ireland a very-large representation of agriculture in the Nationalist Parliament in Dublin—no one denies that for a moment—and that House will probably deal excellently with all the agricultural problems, but when it comes to the great industries, which, after all, are the making of the country, and which are exactly the industries which require to be represented under this Bill, they are almost unrepresented. The taxation, so far as agriculture is concerned, is very small, and where you tax great industries that is exactly where you want representation. Places like Galway, Cork, and other parts of Ireland, if you look at the present powers, do not compare in the slightest degree favourably with some of the places in the North. In Dublin and Cork the rates are 10s. 3d., as against 7s. in the North of Ireland and in Belfast. In every other direction the same thing is seen, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that we on this side talk with the facts and figures before us, while hon. Members opposite, especially the Welsh Members who are so fluent, deal with the subject in a light and airy way, which we can well imagine, when they address their constituents.
      We, here, are dealing with the real facts, and it is impossible for hon. Members to convince us who live on the spot, and who understand all these matters thoroughly, that the proposal of the Government is not a most meddlesome and vexatious interference with a system of taxation which hitherto has proved satisfactory for the whole of the United Kingdom—one Custom House, one centre for the receipt of taxation, and then an allocation afterwards to the various local

      953
      authorities throughout the country. This system which is proposed by the Government is quite different. First of all, it sets up two Chancellors of the Exchequer who may not always agree, it sets up also a Joint Board of Exchequer, about which everybody has a different view. Even the right hon. Gentleman himself said that it would be necessary to give an appeal from that Board. You set up a most intricate system in place of a system which has worked satisfactorily, and you elect as arbiters over business men throughout the whole of Ireland the Nationalist Parliament sitting in Dublin—a Parliament composed of men who never earn more than £400 a year, and that not through any great business capacity on their part. Ulster, of course, is more concerned in this matter than any other part of Ireland. We have always said that the danger of the Government proposal lies less' in legislation which may be attempted in the Nationalist Parliament of Dublin than in administration.
      It would be easy to bring in a method of vexatious taxation in Ireland which might be used by the Nationalist Parliament in order to drive a certain class—I will not particularise further—out of the country, and to use that power in the same way as are used the powers now possessed by the United Irish League and the Ancient Order of Hibernians. This power of Vexatious taxation would be simply used as a lever to further those two associations, and would be used in the same way as the Nationalists use any little power they have in the North of Ireland. Take the Death Duties. They differ, because there they can alter the rate of the duty, although they must not alter the machinery by which it is worked. Could anything be more unfair than that? Taking the hon. Members in this House, I presume they would be the Nationalist Parliament in Dublin, or, at any rate, there would be the same class of representatives in the Nationalist Parliament as there are here, and I do not think Nationalist Members claim to be high financial experts. The consequence is that it would be as easy as possible, if there happened to be, as probably there would be, very strong feeling on any particular subject, to do exactly what the Chancellor of the Exchequer did in this House, when he said, "If you will not pass the Licensing Bill I will be able to attack you in a different manner and more successfully." The
      954
      same sort of weapon would be in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Nationalist Parliament in Ireland, and he would be able exactly in the same way to use as a threat that, if they would not take a particular measure, he, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, would have to arrange duties or drawbacks in such a way as would be worse for them than if they accepted his Bill.
      Mr. MacVEAGH: Would you rather have Lloyd George than an Irishman?
      Captain GRAIG: Neither. I come to a matter which affects the position of this question. Several Members, including the hon. Member for Northampton, made a strong appeal to this House on account of the poverty of Ireland. That hon. Member said, "If Ireland was as rich a country as England, it would be quite as ready as England, and it could go ahead with their taxation and have her benefiting at the same time as you have the people in England, Scotland, and Wales," but, he said, you are dealing with a poor country. Those hon. Members kept on saying that entirely forgetful of the fact that Ireland was never more prosperous than she is today. Take the Returns and look at them as you will. I rather fancy that Belfast is the fourth greatest revenue paying city in the United Kingdom. It has the largest tobacco manufactory, and shipbuilding yard, and rope factory, and a great many other industries which are larger than any you have in this country. If you take the standard of wealth by the deposits in the Savings Bank and in the joint stock banks, and the great railway companies, and the amount of stock which is sold throughout Ireland, if you take all those statistics, I defy any hon. Member in this House to say that Ireland was ever as prosperous as she is at the present moment. Therefore I do hope that hon. Members when they are dealing with this subject will always face that argument, when they begin to say, poor Ireland, and that it is necessary for her to have some other form of taxation. One drawback of the proposal of the Government is that the alteration of the system of taxation proposed under this Clause may be carried out by the Nationalist Parliament in Dublin, but it has to be done through the machinery of the British tax collector. The probability will be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his advisers in Ireland would be able to so put forward a system of collecting the tax that the expense might, like

      955
      the Land Taxes of the Budget, be far more for the cost of collection than the tax itself produced.
      The effect of that would be that this House would have no method whatever of interfering with the tax proposed by the Nationalist Parliament, although they could clearly see that the cost of collection was out of all proportion to any result they could ever hope to obtain. That of itself is a farce like a great many other things in the Bill. In fact, having heard the arguments used by every hon. Member tonight on the benches opposite, I cannot conceive why any person would dream for a moment of upsetting a system which has, at all events, worked smoothly through all parts of the country, and with the final arbitrament in the hands of the House here of all the interests concerned, for such a very petty result, as has been suggested by hon. Members, simply in order to say that the Nationalist party-have some power over taxation. They may have the power of taxation, but when they come to collect those taxes I may tell hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite not one penny piece will they ever get from Ulster. We have made up our minds about that long ago, and therefore the Nationalists will have to finance themselves from the other three provinces, and God help them. I am sure there will be a great deal of increased taxation on the land of Munster and Connaught and other parts. For goodness sake let them have that, let them raise, and rebate, or act in any way they like, but never forget that the determination of the business men remember, and of all concerned in Ulster, is that, however you dodge, they will never help you by paying taxes to carry through your nefarious Bill.
      Mr. LOUGH: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken told us that the system of finance we are discussing has been built up for centuries. There is no part of it even a century old. It was changed half a century ago, and it has been changed at almost every epoch of the connection between Great Britain and Ireland during the last hundred years. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that it worked perfectly satisfactory to everyone. I give him self-credit, and I believe his hon. Friend who sits on his left, for being advocates of the existing financial system, but they are almost alone in that. All Irishmen agree that the financial system, at any rate, has worked very hardly to the
      956
      island. I heard as good a speech on that subject from the right hon. Member for Trinity College as ever I heard some years ago.
      Mr. MacVEAGH: And Colonel Saunderson.
      Sir E. CARSON: May I say I was one of the few Members who opposed the idea, the separatist idea, of taking separate accounts, and I refused to join with Colonel Saunderson and others who were in favour of going on that system.
      Mr. LOUGH: I got a Whip signed by the hon. Member, and a Whip which we carried against his own Government, by which we got a full contribution under the Agricultural Rates Act. At all events, all I said was that Irishmen were not in favour of the present financial system. The hon. and gallant Member said that Ireland was enjoying the greatest prosperity at the present time. At the present moment the population is lower than ever before. It has dwindled down to the lowest point, and the taxation upon that unhappy people is far greater than ever it was in any other period.
      Captain CRAIG: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why, if that be the case, does he support an Amendment which permits of such taxation to be increased?
      Mr. LOUGH: The hon. Member does not know what I am going to do with regard to the Amendment.
      Captain CRAIG: You will never vote against the Government.
      Mr. LOUGH: I often voted against the Government. I think it is hardly fair of the hon. Member to interrupt me in that way. The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows the great suffering Ireland has got to endure with regard to the unfortunate treatment she received in connection with the outbreak of cattle disease. I believe there never was a period in which a greater blow was dealt to the industries of Ireland than within the last few months.
      Captain CRAIG: You have a rotten Vice-President, and that is the reason.
      Mr. LOUGH: I am only pointing out the inconsistency and how little thought there appears to be in the speeches of hon. Gentleman opposite. One speech is just a repetition of the other, and a veiled attack on the Government. To come to the Amendment, we had a series of very

      957
      striking illustrations from right hon. Gentlemen on both Front Benches in the Debate this afternoon. We have had a series of very striking illustrations, and the Solicitor-General, following the same line, expressed the hope that he had made it clear that, if to-night he was speaking in a somewhat different key from before, he was at any rate playing the same tune. I must confess that in the new Amendment which the Government have put forward I cannot recognise a single bar or note of the same tune that we have had in the financial scheme presented to the House. We have had from the other side an Amendment depriving Ireland of that part of the Clause which would allow her to reduce taxation, and on that Amendment have been allowed, and the Government have taken full advantage of the permission, to discuss the Amendment which the Postmaster-General put on the Paper only on Friday last. I am placed in a most uncomfortable position by these two Amendments. The hon. and gallant Member opposite said that doubtless I was going to support the action of the Government. I regret that I find it absolutely impossible to do so. Either Amendment seems to strike at the very root not only of all the principles I have ever held in regard to Irish taxation, but also of the policy which the Government themselves up to this night have advocated and of every recommendation made by any Royal Commission that they have themselves appointed.
      As this matter interests me profoundly, perhaps the Committee will bear with me while I try to make my position clear. I have always thought that the words which this Amendment proposes to omit—that the Irish Parliament should have power to vary either by way of addition or reduction or discontinuance—especially "reduction or discontinuance," were some of the very best words in the Bill, and that they opened up the possibility of Ireland's effecting great economies and relieving the heavy burdens of her people. It was for this reason that I so enthusiastically supported the financial scheme. Even so late as Tuesday last, I find on referring to my notes of a rather rough speech made under difficulties, that I exhausted my superlatives in praise of the Government. The whole scheme as then proposed I now find swept away. The present proposal is utterly contrary to the explanations of the Bill that we have had up to the present moment. In support of that statement I will go one step further. If any Member
      958
      looks at the White Paper circulated with the Bill explaining the financial proposals, he will find on page 4 these words:—
      "The new Parliament may reduce any tax levied in Ireland with the exception of certain stamp duties."
      That is how the Bill was introduced That is how simple persons like myself have been defending it for months up till yesterday evening. Now I am asked to say that there is to be no power to reduce any tax—or perhaps not quite that, but I will explain how far it goes. We had an Amendment preventing the Irish Government from dealing with the Income Tax. I think that that Amendment should not have been put down. It appears to me that all parties are united in agreeing that whatever difficulty may have been caused with regard to indirect taxes, as far as direct taxes are concerned full control might be left to the Irish Parliament. And so it was in the Bill, until apparently the Postmaster-General had a colloquy with the Inland Revenue Department, and finding there might be some difficulty he first took away the Income Tax, and now he has taken away the indirect taxes. It is contrary, not only to the Bill, but to every recommendation we have ever had in regard to this subject. But I must give the Postmaster-General all the credit I possibly can. He dropped a tear on the coffin of his original scheme. So did the hon. Member for Waterford. But I am not going to part with it so easily. I cannot help thinking that my right hon. Friend has been unduly influenced by a storm in a teacup on these back benches. If he had allowed one or two of us who* understand the Bill, or who think we understand it, to explain it, before he assumed that my hon. Friends would have done anything hostile, I believe we would have got the Government out of every difficulty. I hold in my hand the Report of the Scottish Members on the Bill. That report is supposed to be the origin of the opposition to these powers, and here id what it says:—
      "Ireland, however, ought to have the right of adjusting her own burden of taxation to her own expenditure, and this is the origin of the right to vary as embodied in the provisions of the Irish Bill."
      The Report of these Scottish Members approved the Bill.
      Mr. MOLTENO: It was a small Committee.
      Mr. LOUGH: My hon. Friend questions the authority of a small Committee. The

      959
      smaller the Committee the more sensible it would be. On the next page I find these words: that the right given to the Irish Parliament to vary the rates of a tax—
      "must also he conceded to Scotland, although it does not appear to us necessary that in her case it should extend to Customs and Excise."
      Even the liberty which the Scotsmen claim for themselves is not now left to Ireland. This is a matter of considerable interest. Possibly the Government have never seen this Report; they have been too busy, and they did not know that it is only one or two gentlemen who were not influenced by the solid arguments of the Committee, who managed to pretend they were a hundred strong, and have induced the Government to alter the powers. My own feeling is that not six would have gone into the Lobby against the Government.
      Captain CRAIG: Not one.
      Mr. LOUGH: I will take a third step—the Report of the Primrose Committee. This Primrose Committee is enveloped in mystery. We can never see the evidence, but we have been allowed to see the Report. That Report is in favour of—
      "conferring on the Irish Government full powers over the raising of revenue as well as over expenditure in Ireland."
      That was a most important Committee; it was presided over by an Englishman; it sat for a long time; heard many official witnesses, and could come to no other conclusion than that embodied in those words. As to Customs, it reported:—
      "It may he objected that the freedom of communication and in consequence the facilities for trade, between the two countries will be impaired. This too must be admitted for what it is worth. But does it really amount to much."
      And so it goes on. The Primrose Committee approve of the setting up of Customs and full powers being left to the Irish Parliament. I will go one step further. I have consulted every great authority on this question, and I come now to the greatest of all, the Report of the Royal Commission on the Financial Relations between Great Britain and Ireland. This is the greatest study ever presented to this House on these matters. It is a practically unanimous Report, signed by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford as well as by Gentlemen who sat above the Gangway opposite, and not one principle or conclusion of that Report has ever been shaken during the fourteen years it has been in existence. Let me recall to the memory of hon. Members some of the observations of this Commission, which re-
      960
      ported so long ago that the point—it was vital—may be forgotten. It reported, first—
      "That Great Britain and Ireland must, for the purpose of this inquiry, be considered as separate entities."
      This Amendment treats them as one.
      "(2) That the Act of Union imposed upon Ireland a burden which, as events show, she was unable to bear. (3) That the increase of taxation laid upon Ireland between 1858and 1860 was not justified by the then existing circumstances."
      I venture to add this remark, that if there had been an inquiry into the burdens imposed upon Ireland in the period of five years from 1905 that it would be found that much too heavy burdens had been imposed; also I think the conclusion urged with regard to the period of 1853–60 would be repeated in regard to the taxation of the second period.
      "(4) That identity of rates of taxation does not necessarily involve equality of burden."
      I would draw the attention of my hon. Friend behind me to that point, for it appears to me he is still a little misguided on this point of the Customs. I draw the hon. Member's attention to point (4). These were the recommendations of the Committee. Let us look at the Report of Lord Fairer, Lord Welby, and Mr. Currie—the latter a great representative of finance in London. They dealt with this very matter and particularly with one question which has been raised by the hon. Member for Colchester in this Debate. They spoke of the taxation paid by England, by Scotland, and by Ireland, and said—
      "Whereas taxation was not paid by geographical districts, but by individuals."
      That is the particular argument we heard restated here by the hon. Member for Colchester in an interesting speech, as if it had not been all disposed of fifteen years ago. These two Noble Lords and the banker go on to deal with it. They say that the whole case has been given away. Mr. Gladstone gave it away in 1S86, and Mr. Goschen gave it away in 1890, when he ordered his inquiry into the separate position of the two countries. He said that the Union gave it away and that there was no basis in history or reason for the contention that there ought to be equal taxes between the two Islands. It is on that principle, I think, that this Amendment is based. They conclude:—
      "It is therefore abundantly clear that of the two conflicting theories, that is the one which regards Great Britain and Ireland as one country for the purpose of taxation and expenditure and the other

      961
      which regards Great Britain and Ireland as separate partners—the second is-the one upon which our instructions are founded, the one which has the greatest support in history and the one upon which all parties in Parliament have recently acted."
      10.0 P.M.
      I venture to suggest that every authority that has examined into this matter has reported against the step which the Government have taken here to-night, or that the Government propose to take in their Amendment. I wanted to come a little closer to the Amendment. I do not understand where we are. There are two parts to this question. I will try to make them quite clear. The one part is the setting up of a Customs House. That is not inconsistent with the Amendment which the Government have put down. But do they intend to prevent a Customs barrier being set up? Are they going to deprive Ireland of a Customs House? I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General if he can tell me that? He seemed to me this afternoon to use so many equivocal words upon the point. He said something about a Customs existing for the purpose of the increased taxation of 10 per cent. I do not know whether I am quoting aright or whether a Customs barrier is to be set up.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It depends what the hon. Gentleman means by a Customs barrier. If he means a Customs House for the purpose indicated, that certainly will exist whether the Irish Parliament alters the Customs or not. It would have to exist under the Bill if the Irish Parliament had the power to reduce the Customs, but not the Excise.
      Mr. LOUGH: That is a most important statement, and I flatter myself at having got my right hon. Friend, who is always clear, to say that. What does it mean? It means that a Customs barrier is to be set up. If an old lady wants to bring over a trunk of tobacco instead of the trunk being filled with baby clothes—[An HON. MEMBER: "An old lady?"] Well, anybody. Mark what the result would be. Hon. Members behind me, I believe, have wondered on that point. I believe what they were really striking against was the Customs barrier. They have not got rid of that at all. A Customs House is still to be set up—
      Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: And in this country, too.
      Mr. LOUGH: The right hon. Gentleman gave us—
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not wish to be misunderstood. Of course, the collection of statistics by a Customs House does not really involve any examination of passengers who come across. That is necessary for the prevention of smuggling. The Clause dealing with the collection of statistics is Clause 16, Sub-section (1). I would point out that supposing the Irish Parliament had the power to raise or to lower the Customs, and it did not exercise that power—and the hon. Member will agree that possibly for many years they might not exercise that power at all—still they would have power to obtain the information for statistical purposes, and in order to get the measure of Irish trade.
      Mr. LOUGH: Yes, but there is another point. How about ascertaining the income between the two countries, and how about finding out what duty is paid in Ireland and what duty is paid in Great Britain? You must put up a barrier for that purpose. Absolutely that was forgotten in the debate this afternoon. My right hon. Friend says no barrier. I agree with him. I was only using the words in order to put my case plainly to my hon. Friend. It is not a barrier at all; it is a bridge over which Ireland will pass from ruin and decay to prosperity. Therefore, I withdraw the word "barrier" and say a "Customs bridge" is to be set up. I ask my hon. Friends from Scotland or England, or wherever they come from, what is left? We are not to have the first part taken from us—the Customs or registry of Irish trade, which would show us now, for example, how many cattle have been excluded and so on, in the last few tragic months. I attach great value to that.
      I come to the other point of hon. Members behind me. I give the greatest weight here to the arguments particularly in the speeches of the hon. Member for Monmouth Boroughs who appears to be a leader in this foray. Perhaps my hon. Friend will excuse me if I say I did not find him very convincing. I give the case as it struck me. I have tried to understand my hon. Friend and everybody else who has spoken on these points. They say: Supposing we take a shilling off the Tobacco Duty, the Irish would have cheap tobacco. Of course, they would have that advantage! That makes my Scottish friends miserably unhappy. My hon. Friend, the Member for Monmouth Boroughs is also miserably unhappy over that. If the Irish have the advantage of

      963
      cheap tobacco or cheap food should we begrudge it? I would remind my hon. Friends that every country has got an advantage of some sort. In Monmouthshire they have the advantage of very cheap coal. What would you say to Irishmen if they got sore heads because the people in Monmouthshire got cheap coal? If they may have cheap coal in England why not cheap tobacco in Ireland? Against the single advantage of cheap tobacco there are many disadvantages. It is a very wet climate; it is a very poor country; wages are very low. The wages of the agricultural labourer are scarcely more than half what they are in Scotland. That is a disadvantage. Then, again, they have the disadvantage of having hardly any money, and if they are to have a certain advantage of cheap food, why should my hon. Friend seem miserable about it? I wonder whether my hon. Friend ever went to France. If he went there he would find wine very cheap. He would get a bottle thrown in perhaps with his lunch. Why should that make him miserable? Every country has got some advantage. In Great Britain we have the advantage of cheap coal; it is a great centre of commerce; it has splendid industries long established, and the people enjoy great wealth. Why should we grudge giving Ireland some hope of some small advantage. My hon. Friend got into some complicated argument. He said: If Ireland had cheap tobacco it might help her to get some of the tobacco trade in other parts of the world which she would not otherwise get.
      Mr. LEWIS HASLAM: I did not say that.
      Mr. LOUGH: I think my hon. Friend said that if they had these commodities cheaper in Ireland than in Great Britain it would enable Ireland to establish a monopoly in these commodities.
      Mr. HASLAM: No, no.
      Mr. LOUGH: I thought that was his argument. At any rate, I heard it from some hon. Friends here. I would point out that there is not a shred of foundation for that statement. Whatever the duties are, supposing it was only 2s. on tobacco, if tobacco was exported from Ireland, it would bring no harm to the Imperial Tobacco Company, that great monopoly which does 60 per cent, of the trade done in these islands. My hon. Friend took as his third argument that it might encourage smuggling. Would it encourage
      964
      smuggling? Ireland at present is the home of smuggling. Does my hon. Friend know that there is hardly a part of Ireland or, at any rate, that there used hardly to be a part of Ireland where you could not buy poteen that never saw a gauger. It is the cruel hardship of the conditions which this House has imposed upon Ireland that encouraged smuggling and that created poverty and other difficulties. The right lion. Gentleman the Member for Leith Burghs (Mr. Munro-Ferguson) went for the Irish Customs, which I am glad to say are not entirely to be destroyed. He said, "I want to make an offer," and here I am glad to say he got the ear of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who repeated the offer afterwards. Perhaps I will be corrected if I am wrong. At any rate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leith Burghs made an offer. "I am willing," he said, "that the Irish Government should get half a million more in consideration of not being allowed to set up Customs." Am I right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition lent his support to that offer?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman is more nearly accurate than usual. I said I would prefer that to the arrangement then in the Bill.
      Mr. LOUGH: Quite so, every little scrap tells and gives help. What I want hon. Members to notice is that once these Gentlemen suggested taking away the Customs House, they offered to give some compensation. To-day the Customs is taken away and no compensation is given. So I would say to my hon. Friends that whenever the Government tries to do some little good for Ireland, do not try to stop them. My right hon. Friends on the Front Bench have now destroyed the whole thing by their Amendments without giving any compensation whatever. I say that very grave questions are raised by this matter. The whole system of finance worked by this House never alters. It has been the same in the last three years as in 1853. The better the Chancellor we get—and I admit that the present Chancellor of the Exchequor is the best we ever had—but the better the Chancellor the harder it is for Ireland and the more taxes he applies to Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman was here he would not mind me saying that Mr. Gladstone was a great Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was a great Chancellor, and he lived for years

      965
      upon the fame of the Budget of 1853, but that Budget struck the most cruel blow at Ireland of any Budget in the whole of the connection between the two countries. The better the Chancellor is here3 the more cruel is the system and the harder it always is for Ireland. The truth is that 'the same system is followed, and has been for one hundred years, in regard to this matter. A few articles are selected for taxation, and in choosing these articles care is taken, I might say almost devilish care. [Hon. Members: "Oh, oh."] Well, perhaps I should withdraw that.
      The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): The longer the right hon. Gentleman goes on the wider he goes. I must remind him if other hon. Members followed his line of argument, I do not know where it would end.
      Mr. LOUGH: I had no intention of extending the scope of my argument at all. I find the Amendment is tremendously wide. I withdraw the expression I used with regard to the selection of articles for taxation, but this House picks out a few articles, and this Amendment deals with the question that the Irish shall not take off the taxes upon any article which the British Chancellor of the Exchequer selects as taxible in this country, and however high the tax is to be for the British the Irish shall not reduce it. The whole basis and principle of the Bill was, that if the Irish took off taxation they had to pay for the reduction made in the reduced yield of the taxes. Now they are to pay these taxes, and shall have no power to reduce them. This House has displayed immense ingenuity in selecting articles for taxation and in piling huge burdens upon Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that Irish revenue has been increasing lately. It never increases except in one way, and that is by increasing taxes. I do not quarrel with my right hon. Friend's figures, but I have had an opportunity of looking into the taxes of the last fifteen years, and I find that it is by increasing the rate of taxation levied that any increase is got out of Ireland. That is a very onerous system, and I think it has contributed to the decay of Irish finances and to keeping down commercial undertakings, and it lays a burden far greater on a poor country like Ireland than she can bear. What I see in this Amendment is this. I approve of this Bill, I accept it with the greatest enthusiasm, not because it gives Ireland anything
      966
      except very little, but because it gave to Ireland the power to reduce her burdens if she paid for it.
      The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester, agreed in that principle with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said if Ireland can reduce her taxes, Ireland has a right to get the benefit of it. Lord St. Alwyn, when Chancellor of the Exchequer in this House, accepted the same principle, and said Ireland should get the benefit of her economies. That was the principle upon which the Bill was founded until to-night, and now we are told that whatever Ireland does she cannot reduce her taxes below the level fixed in this House. That seems to strike at the financial foundations of the whole of this Bill. The financial provisions were based upon four principles: first, that accounts shall be taken through the Customs; secondly, that a Custom House should be set up; thirdly, that Ireland might lower taxation at her own expense; and fourthly, that the provisions were transitional, and that Ireland should enjoy a greater measure of freedom after a little time. Those were the provisions, but what is left of them now? My hon. Friend says that three out of four are left. I attach vital importance to the power to be given to the Irish Parliament to lower any tax at her own expense. The only hope of Ireland is economy. What else have we been saying in all these financial Debates when attacking expenditure in this House, and now we are not to be allowed to reduce the expenditure? My hon. Friend said expenditure can only be reduced in some directions in order to spend it in others. My point is that the Irish wish, if they save anything, to put the money into their own pockets, and you will not allow them to do that. I do not think my hon. Friends have made out a case for the very grave change they have made in the Bill, and I appeal to the Government to modify their proposals in any way which would commend itself to a great many thoughtful supporters in this House, and at the same time make the Bill more acceptable to Ireland.
      Sir GILBERT PARKER: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) is the only Member opposite who has not found a means for supporting the Government in the change which has been made in the Bill. I think the right hon. Gentleman is well justified in making his

      967
      protest. He believes that there ought to be complete financial independence for Ireland, and he accepted the proposals of the Bill, not because it satisfied his demands, but because it did something to satisfy his demands. He is now in grief and sorrow over the action which the Government have taken. To a man of simple mind like myself, who is not a financial authority, but who is not wholly unacquainted with fiscal systems, the action taken by the Government is very curious. I have been in this House a number of years, and I have never listened to a Debate on the Irish Estimates in which Members of the Irish party have not continually made complaint that the taxation upon Ireland was too heavy, and in its incidence unjust and unfair. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington takes the ground that there should not be equality of taxation, and he is a defender of a federal system. My reply to him is that the whole essence of a federal system is that there should be equality of taxation. I do not suppose there is a federal system in the world, either upon the Continent of Europe or in our own Dominions, where the incidence of taxation does not fall as some sections of the community think, rather heavily upon them. For instance, take the farmers in the western portion of Canada, they all feel that the tariff taxation of Canada does hit them hardly in some particulars, but they take the ground that the members of every confederation have taken that out of the taxation as a whole and the tariff as a whole there comes a general advantage to the whole community at large, that as part of the federal system they are bound patriotically to have regard to and to support. We on this side of the House, and others, have pointed out that Ireland will get under this Bill and under the new conditions, a certain advantage, and the hon. Gentleman says Ireland ought to have this particular advantage in regard to tobacco, tea, or sugar, or whatever it may be. That is absolutely antagonistic to the Bill if the Bill is to be, as we were told at the beginning, and have been told ever since, the basis for a federal system. This afternoon we heard the hon. and learned Member f or Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) say it does not matter, because in any case Ireland did not expect to have any particular reduction in taxes for a good many years. I ask hon. Members if it has not been the case from the beginning of these Debates that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the
      968
      Postmaster-General, and every Member on the Front Bench opposite, have said that one of the reasons for giving Ireland the rights of adjusting all these Customs Duties was to enable her to effect economies? To-day all that is thrown overboard, in the interests of what? The Government, with its usual pusillanimity, have yielded to a fear that about seventy Members in this House might go into the Lobby against them. I, for one, think the Government had no reason to fear. The hon. Members who protest and profess their Free Trade principles so loudly when it comes to a question of whether this Bill shall pass are quite willing to swallow their principles and to keep in power that Government which never two days alike knows its own mind. The right hon. Gentleman said he could not help but drop some tears over the new attitude of the Postmaster-General. I imagine there are a good many tears being shed, but it does not matter. The solid Liberal party, no matter how unsound the proposals, will come day after day to the support of the Government. I think my right hon. Friend who opened the Debate this afternoon had a right to some direct reply from the Members of the Government concerning points which he raised. My right hon. Friend, for instance, said that under the Bill as it now stands there could be dif-ferentation between the people of Ireland and of England who possessed the same income, and he asked whether the Government felt that was a fair thing to set up in a Bill which was to be the basis of a federal system. Should you have in Ireland one class of people income-taxed and people in the same position of life in England paying a differential Income Tax? Nothing like that has ever been known in any federal system, or, indeed, is likely to be known, because I do not think any federal system is likely to be set up in the United Kingdom if this Bill is ever passed, because England and Scotland would never accept the conditions which the Bill imposes in regard to Customs or Excise. My right hon. Friend said you might have heavy Land Taxes in Ireland, and right is given to the Irish Legislature to give a preference to certain industries in Ireland, thereby putting them in an inferior position to a similar individual industry in Glasgow. I have not heard a single word in reply to that contention, and I think my right hon. Friend is entitled to one. [An HON. MEMBER: "Subject to local rating."] This is the first time I ever heard that a

      969
      difference in local rating should be taken into consideration in imposing a general financial system. I think that that interruption is hardly to the point. The right hon. Gentleman who last spoke has a very strong supporter in the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). The right hon. Gentleman has made a plea for the Government to return to the original conditions laid down by the Bill. But those original conditions did not satisfy the hon. Member for East Mayo. This afternoon we had the question of financial independence pooh-poohed. But on 24th April the hon. Member for East Mayo declared that they had in this Bill far more financial independence than was enjoyed by Canada, Bavaria, or Würtemberg, or by the State of New York, or any of the great Southern States of the Union. If it is the case that the Bill contains that financial independence, what becomes of the argument advanced by the Postmaster-General and by his colleagues, that there is being now given to Ireland, not financial independence of any kind, but a very slight power to increase the taxation which this Government makes Imperially through this Parliament? I have tried in vain to find either the logic, reason, or justice of the Amendment of the Government or of their original proposal. I find this in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few days ago—he is speaking of the differentiation or varying of taxation:—
      "Suppose it was beer. Suppose the Irish Parliament increase our Beer Duties. I cannot imagine what possible injury that would inflict upon the industries of Great Britain, except in regard to the quantity of beer that might be imported."
      Hon. Members on this side of the Committee have declared that the proposals of the Government would open the way to Protection. They have been met with scoffs, jeers, and arguments, and endeavours have been made to show them that there is no possibility of any protective incidence in the taxation which would be imposed under the power given to vary the taxation imposed by the Imperial Government. If it is the case that the effect of varying the taxation would be to decrease the quantity of beer that may be imported into Ireland under that taxation, may I ask this Committee how in the world any Member of the Government, or any Member on the other side, can possibly take the ground that there can be no protective incidence in the taxation imposed? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right, then the Postmaster-General and others are completely wrong. We on this side have taken the ground
      970
      that the proposals of the Government open a way to Ireland, by way of bounties, by way of monopolies, by way of varying the taxation, to introduce into Ireland that which they have long wanted—that is, something in the form of a protective system. We have not had any sufficient argument from the other side to show us that our contention was wrong. I, for one, am quite certain that the Government, in the weakness they have shown, in the change of front they have suddenly made under pressure from behind them from Members of their own party they do not think they can trust to support them, have to-day, quite shamelessly in the presence of their past statements, justified Members of the Unionist party in every criticism they have made in regard to this Bill.
      Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD: I should like to say a word in regard to the justification brought forward by the Postmaster-General in regard to the Amendment which is down in his name. He said, in regard to that Amendment, that it was not vital to the finance scheme of the Bill. I agree, but I cannot help thinking that he very much underestimated its importance. The principle of the scheme, as it originally stood in the Bill, was that the Irish Parliament should have power to adjust its own revenue to its own expenditure. That principle is departed from to-day, and we are told it is departed from, because the Irish Parliament, till the revision of the financial arrangements takes place, is very unlikely to want to reduce the present expenditure. We are told that, though there are certain services in Ireland at present extravagently administered there are certain other services that need more money than they actually get, and that the economies effected on the one class can be applied to the other. I know that is true, and I daresay it is also true that so far as these services are concerned a balance between them can actually be made.
      But I want to put a practical point that has not been put hitherto, which the Irish Parliament will almost certainly have to, face, and which I do not think was considered when this Amendment was proposed. I might perhaps have taken two-points. I might have taken the sum included in the Transferred Sum under the Grants-in-Aid of local taxation, but I take, in preference to that, the case of the Dublin Metropolitan Force and the Royal Irish Constabulary. The Dublin Metropolitan

      971
      Police force is to be handed over to the Irish Parliament as soon as this Bill comes into operation, and the Royal Irish Constabulary is to be handed over to the Irish Parliament six years after the Bill comes into operation. At the present moment the cost of both these forces comes out of tax revenue. We have always maintained that it would have been to the advantage of Ireland if the Government of Ireland had been conducted in a different way from the way it actually has been conducted hitherto under the Union, and to have had a local police instead of the central police, which has been in existence under the Union. But how can they substitute for the central police, as it is now, a local police unless they are to have the power of reducing the rates of their taxation? They go to the local authorities and say, "We propose to hand over to you the control of the police in your own district, and, of course, you must make yourselves responsible for the payment, at any rate, of a considerable portion of the cost of those police, and that cost must come out of local rates. It is true you are paying the whole cost now through taxes, and we must insist upon your paying a portion of that cost over again. through the rates. We are not allowed by the Imperial Parliament to reduce
      taxation and all that we can promise to do is that we will make the best use of the £1,500,000 which you pay through taxation in other directions, than in the payment of police." It appears to me that that is putting the Irish Parliament into an absolutely impossible position. You are going to force it, until the financial revision takes place, whether it desires it or not, to maintain a central police force governed from Dublin and to prevent it from substituting for that a police force under local control. This Amendment unquestionably restricts the responsibilities of the Irish Parliament for the control of the interests submitted to its charge, and I think restricts it unduly. I profoundly regret that the Government has brought it forward. I have hesitated long as to how I should vote, but I have come to the conclusion, I confess with reluctance that it is my duty to vote for it, because greatly important as I recognise it to be I hold that the general issues involved in the passing of this Bill are still more important.
      Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 167.

      Division No. 324.]

      AYES.

      [10.40 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

      Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Chancellor, H. G.

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      Adamson, William

      Chapple, Dr. William Allen

      Essex, Richard Walter

      Addison, Dr. C.

      Churchill, Rt Hon. Winston S.

      Esslemont, George Birnie

      Agnew, Sir George William

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Falconer, J.

      Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

      Clough, William

      Farrell, James Patrick

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

      Clynes, John R.

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

      Arnold, Sydney

      Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Ffrench, Peter

      Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

      Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

      Field, William

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Fitzgibbon, John

      Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

      Cotton, William Francis

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Barnes, G. N.

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

      Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

      Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

      Gill, A. H.

      Barton, W.

      Crooks, William

      Ginnell, L.

      Beauchamp, Sir Edward

      Crumley, Patrick

      Gladstone, W. G. C.

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Cullman, John

      Glanville, H. J.

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

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

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Davies, E. William (Eiffon)

      Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

      Black, Arthur W.

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

      Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

      Boland, John Pius

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

      Griffith, Ellis J.

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Dawes, J. A.

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

      Bowerman, C. W.

      De Forest, Baron

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

      Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

      Delany, William

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Brace, William

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Hackett, J.

      Brady, P. J.

      Devlin, Joseph

      Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      Dickinson, W. H.

      Hancock, J. G.

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Dillon, John

      Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Donelan, Captain A.

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Doris, W.

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Duffy, William J.

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

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

      Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

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

      Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

      Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Mason, David M. (Coventry)

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

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

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

      Hayden, John Patrick

      Meagher, Michael

      Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

      Hayward, Evan

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Robinson, Sidney

      Hazleton, Richard

      Menzies, Sir Walter

      Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Millar, James Duncan

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Henry, Sir Charles

      Molloy, M.

      Roche, John (Galway, E.)

      Higham, John Sharp

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Hinds, John

      Money, L. G. Chlozza

      Rowlands, James

      Hobhonse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      Mooney, J. J.

      Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

      Hodge, John

      Morgan, George Hay

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

      Hogge, James Myles

      Morrell, Philip

      Samuel, J. (Stockton)

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      Morison, Hector

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Muldoon, John

      Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

      Hudson, Walter

      Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

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

      Hughes, Spencer Leigh

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Sheehy, David

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      Nellson, Francis

      Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

      John, Edward Thomas

      Nicholson, Sir Charles (Doncaster)

      Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

      Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Nolan, Joseph

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Norton, Captain Cecil W.

      Snowden, Philip

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

      Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

      Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Sutton, John E.

      Jowett, Frederick William

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Joyce, Michael

      O'Donnell, Thomas

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Keating, M.

      O'Dowd, John

      Tennant, Harold John

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      O'Grady, James

      Thomas, J. H.

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

      Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

      Kilbride, Denis

      O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

      Verney, Sir Harry

      King, J.

      O'Malley, William

      Wadsworth, J.

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

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

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      O'Shee, James John

      Wardle, George J.

      Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

      Waring, Walter

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

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

      Leach, Charles

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Webb, Henry

      Lewis, John Herbert

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

      White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

      Pointer, Joseph

      Whitehouse, John Howard

      Lundon, Thomas

      Pollard, Sir George H.

      Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Whyte, Alexander F.

      Lynch, A. A.

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Wiles, Thomas

      Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

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

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs

      Pringle, William M. R.

      Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

      McGhee, Richard

      Radford, G. H.

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

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

      Raffan, Peter Wilson

      Williamson, Sir A.

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

      Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

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

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Winfrey, Richard

      M'Callum, Sir John M.

      Reddy, Michael

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

      M'Kean, John

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

      Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

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

      Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      Manfield, Harry

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

      Martin, J.

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      NOES.

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

      Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Boyton, J.

      Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

      Aitken, Sir William Max

      Bridgeman, William Clive

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Amery, L. C. M. S.

      Burdett-Coutts, W.

      Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

      Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

      Burgoyne, A. H.

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Astor, Waldort

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Cripps, Sir C. A.

      Baird, J. L.

      Butcher, J. G.

      Croft, H. P.

      Balcarres, Lord

      Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

      Denniss, E. R. B.

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Campion, W. R.

      Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

      Dixon, C. H.

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      Cassel, Felix

      Doughty, Sir George

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

      Cave, George

      Duke, Henry Edward

      Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

      Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hick's

      Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

      Fell, Arthur

      Beckett, Hon. Gervase

      Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

      Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

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

      Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

      Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

      Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

      Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

      Beresford, Lord C.

      Clive, Captain Percy Archer

      Fleming, Valentine

      Bird, A.

      Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

      Forster, Henry William

      Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

      Cooper, Richard Ashmole

      Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

      Courthope, George Loyd

      Gibbs, G. A.

      974

      975

      Goldman, C. S.

      Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

      Sanderson, Lancelot

      Gordon, Hon. Johfn Edward (Brighton)

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

      Sassoon, Sir Philip

      Greene, W. R.

      Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Gretton, John

      Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

      Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

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

      Smith, Harold (Warrington)

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

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

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      McCaw, William J. MacGeagh

      Stanier, Beville

      Haddock, George Bahr

      Mackinder, H. J.

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

      M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

      Steel-Maitland, A. D.

      Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Stewart, Gershom

      Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

      Malcolm, Ian

      Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

      Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

      Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

      Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

      Talbot, Lord E.

      Harris, Henry Percy

      Moore, William

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

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

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

      Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

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

      Mount, William Arthur

      Touche, Gerge Alexander

      Hewins, William Albert Samuel

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

      Tyron, Captain George Clement

      Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

      Neville, Reginald J. N.

      Valentia, Viscount

      Hill, Sir Clement L.

      Newdegate, F. A.

      Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

      Hills, J. W.

      Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

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

      Hill-Wood, Samuel

      O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

      Wheler, Granville C. H.

      Hoare, S. J. G.

      Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

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

      Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

      Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

      Horner, A. L.

      Pretyman, E. G.

      Winterton, Earl

      Hunt, Rowland

      Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

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

      Ingleby, Holcombe

      Ratcliff, Major R, F.

      Wood, John (Stalybridge)

      Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

      Rawson, Colonel R. H.

      Worthington-Evans, L.

      Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

      Rees, Sir J. D.

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

      Kerry, Earl of

      Rolleston, Sir John

      Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

      Knight, Captain E. A.

      Ronaldshay, Earl of

      Yate, Col. Charles Edward

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Royds, Edmund

      Yerburgh, Robert A.

      Larmor, Sir J.

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

      Younger, Sir George

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

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

      Lewisham, Viscount

      Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir H.

      Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

      Sanders, Robert A.

      Carlile and Mr. J. C. Lyttelton.

      Question put, and agreed to.

      Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow (Tuesday).

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.

    GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY (GRIMSBY FISH DOCK) BIXL [Lords].— [By Order.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read the third time."
    Mr. JOHN WARD: As the House will see, I and my hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) have Motions on the Paper to recommit this Bill, and enable the Committee to insert a Clause "providing for a minimum rate of wages of not less than 6d. per hour for all navvies and labourers employed in the construction of the works authorised by the Bill." But you, Mr. Speaker, have intimated that on this Bill such a Motion would be out of order, and under these circumstances, of course, it will be impossible for me to proceed with the Motion which stands in my name. I should like, however, to make one or two observations relating to the situation. On the point of Order, I am given to understand by you, Sir, that this is a public question—a question of public policy which can only be decided either by a Resolution proposed as an Amendment to the Address, or as a Motion on Private Members'
    976
    day, such as Wednesday or Friday, at the beginning of the Session. I just wish in this respect to announce the fact that I and my Friends associated with me have decided by some means or other that this question must be considered in future in connection with such Bills as this, and the promoters may take it for granted, as far as the future is concerned, we will direct our opposition to measures of this description which do not fulfil reasonable requirements as to wages and working conditions. They will therefore know that during the next Session of Parliament, at any rate, we shall do everything we can to obstruct measures of this kind unless they comply with these terms. There is one question I would like to put to you, Sir. When the North Killingholme (Admiralty Pier) Bill was discussed, it was, except that it was promoted by a Government Department, practically in the position of a private Bill. It was brought up some time last week I think, and a Motion was received that the Bill be rejected unless it contained a Clause dealing with the question of housing and the minimum wage, such as is suggested in this instruction. I suppose that the ruling on that occasion was caused by the Bill being promoted by a public Department, and that the House had full control to decide the matter. At any rate, I should like some information as to the reason for

    977
    the difference in treatment in this case from that of last week.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not remember the circumstances under which the Motion was made with regard to the North Killingholme (Admiralty Pier) Bill, but I presume it must have been with reference to some special circumstance arising in connection with that Bill. I will look into the matter and see whether it differs at all from this case. The reason which the hon. Member gave for my not allowing his instruction is a sound one, namely, that on Private Bills you cannot deal with matters which are of general public policy. It has been several times ruled in this House both by my predecessors and by myself that matters such as the application of an eight hours' day to workers, a minimum standard rate of wages, the provision of third-class sleeping cars on trains, and so forth, are matters of public policy, which, if made applicable, should be made applicable to all railway or dock Bills, and the House
    978
    is not at liberty to take the Bill of a dock or railway company and apply general provisions to it. It was relying on these former decisions that I intimated to the hon. Member that his Motion on this occasion would not be in order. He has quite correctly stated the general proposition that matters of that kind must be brought up for the general consideration of the House, and if approved they can be embodied in a general statute.
    The Orders for the remaining Government business were read, and postponed.
    Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14tth October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Adjourned accordingly at Eleven o'clock'.

  Road Board (North of Scotland).
  Road Board (North of Scotland).
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  WELSH INSURANCE COMMISSION.
  WELSH INSURANCE COMMISSION.
  ALLOWANCE TO SUB-POSTMASTERS.
  ALLOWANCE TO SUB-POSTMASTERS.
  SELLING INSURANCE STAMPS.
  SELLING INSURANCE STAMPS.
  Estate Duty Valuations (Ireland).
  Estate Duty Valuations (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  British Museum (Bookbinding).
  British Museum (Bookbinding).
  Customs Examination of Baggage.
  Customs Examination of Baggage.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Third-Term Rents (Ireland).
  Third-Term Rents (Ireland).
GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD.
  CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD.
  PRIVATE BILLS.
  PRIVATE BILLS.
  IRISH HOUSE OF COMMONS.
  IRISH HOUSE OF COMMONS.
  VARIATION OF DUTIES.
  VARIATION OF DUTIES.
  National Education (Ireland).
  National Education (Ireland).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
ROYAL NAVY.
  NEW CONSTRUCTION (1906 TO 1912).
  NEW CONSTRUCTION (1906 TO 1912).
  BATTLESHIPS IN DOCKYARD PORTS.
  BATTLESHIPS IN DOCKYARD PORTS.
  Royal Horse and Field Artillery.
  Royal Horse and Field Artillery.
  Army Administrative Staff, Salisbury.
  Army Administrative Staff, Salisbury.
  Territorial Force (Musketry Training).
  Territorial Force (Musketry Training).
  National Reserve.
  National Reserve.
  Rifle Ranges.
  Rifle Ranges.
  Fowl Stealing (Monmouth Petty Sessions).
  Fowl Stealing (Monmouth Petty Sessions).
  Education (Finance).
  Education (Finance).
  Conviction for Sedition (Egypt).
  Conviction for Sedition (Egypt).
  Mr. Arnold's Case.
  Mr. Arnold's Case.
  Old Bengal Funds.
  Old Bengal Funds.
  Elected Second Chambers (Money Bills).
  Elected Second Chambers (Money Bills).
  Monopolies (Foreign Countries).
  Monopolies (Foreign Countries).
  Mental Deficiency Bill.
  Mental Deficiency Bill.
  Committee on Irish Finance.
  Committee on Irish Finance.
  Births and Deaths (England and Wales).
  Births and Deaths (England and Wales).
  Poor Law Institutions (Destitute Women and Children).
  Poor Law Institutions (Destitute Women and Children).
  Unemployed Seamen.
  Unemployed Seamen.
  London Postmen.
  London Postmen.
  Mail Bags (Mechanical Cleansing).
  Mail Bags (Mechanical Cleansing).
  Messenger Postmen.
  Messenger Postmen.
  Post Office English Stores Department.
  Post Office English Stores Department.
  Telephone Service.
  Telephone Service.
  School Medical Inspectors.
  School Medical Inspectors.
  Quarantine (Cardiff).
  Quarantine (Cardiff).
  Horses Exported from United Kingdom.
  Horses Exported from United Kingdom.
BARONY OF STRABOLGI.
Committee for Privileges to meet for the hearing of further evidence on Thursday the 5th of December next, at half-past Ten o'clock.
EARLDOM OF OXFORD.
Several witnesses ordered to attend the Committee for Privileges on Monday next, and one of them to produce a document.
REPRESENTATIVE PEER FOR IRELAND.
Writs and Returns electing the Lord Decies a Representative Peer for Ireland in the room of the Lord Crofton, deceased, with the Certificate of the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland annexed thereto: Delivered (on Oath), and Certificates read.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
1. Provisional Regulations, dated 20th November, 1912, made by the Insurance Commissioners entitled the "National Health Insurance (District Insurance Committees) Regulations (England), 1912";
2. Regulations of the National Health Insurance Commission (Scotland), dated 14th November, 1912, as to the time within which a re-engaged seaman, marine or soldier may elect to have deductions made from his pay and within which a discharged seaman, marine or soldier may become a member of an approved Society or apply for re-admission to the Army and Navy Fund:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 170.)

TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Petition in favour of; of the Corporation of Glasgow.
Petitions against; of The Brewers' Association of Scotland; and persons signing (4).
Petitions for amendment of; of the Corporation of Oban; and persons signing (3).
Petitions against amendment of; of the Corporations of Goorak, Newton Stewart, Falkirk, Grangemouth, Stranraer (2), Burnt Island, Troon, Peebles, Kilreany, Anstruther Wester, Anstruther Easter, Crail, Selkirk, Milngaire, Dalkeith, Tillicoultry, Macduff, Elgin, Banff, Lossiemouth and Branderburgh, and the Convention of Royal Burghs of Scotland.
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

BETTING INDUCEMENTS BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to prevent the writing, printing, publishing, or circulating in the United Kingdom of advertisements of any betting or tipster's business—Was presented by the Duke of Devonshire (for the Lord Newton); read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 171.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House a Question of which I have, given him private notice—namely, whether he is able to tell us what arrangement of business he proposes for the remaining days of this week.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I understand that it would not be altogether convenient to some members of the House to carry on the discussion in Committee on the Scottish Temperance Bill until late this evening. Therefore I propose that we should sit up to dinner this evening and resume the discussion of that Bill in Committee to-morrow. I hope there will be at any rate a fair chance of finishing the Committee stage of the Scottish Temperance Bill before a late hour to-morrow. In that case the Agricultural Holdings Bill, which is down for to-morrow, would be taken on Wednesday; and it probably would be for the convenience of the House to take the Criminal Law Amendment Bill on Thursday instead of, as was originally intended, on Wednesday. I throw out these suggestions in the hope that the noble Marquess may approve of them.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I should like, not on behalf of myself but of others, to make one reminder to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. This Bill is of certain interest in Scotland, and if you sit late to-night, now that there is pressure in another place and facilities for telegraphing, of course, to Scotland are less good than in the case of the Press nearer London, it may tend to inconvenience in this respect, that the reports of the proceedings may be so abbreviated that those who are interested in the matter in Scotland would not know what had really happened.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I entirely appreciate the noble Lord's point, and I am sure in that case he will do his best to help to the conclusion of the Committee stage, within the limits of fair discussion, by a reasonable hour to-morrow.

PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIRMA- TION (No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered (according to Order), and agreed to.
FALKIRK BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

THE TERRITORIAL FORCE.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH rose to ask His Majesty's Government the following Questions relating to the Territorial Force—
1. What was the strength of the Force on 1st October, 1912.
2. What was the number of officers, non-commissioned officers and men who were present in camp for 15 days or over.

I. The number who were in camp for 8 days.

II. The number who were in camp for less than 8 days.

III. The number who did not attend camp at all.

IV. The number who were absent from camp with leave.

V. The number who were absent from camp without leave.

3. What punishments were inflicted on the 41 officers and 6,703 non-commissioned officers and men who were absent without leave from camp in 1911.
4. Of those whose engagements expired on 30th September, 1912, how many re-engaged for further service in the Territorial Force.
5. What was the number of recruits taken during the four years ended 30th September, 1909, 30th September, 1910, 30th September, 1911, and 30th September, 1912, respectively.
6. What is the number of non-commissioned officers and men whose ages are under 19.
What steps are taken to verify the ages given by recruits taken for the Territorial Force.
7. How many recruits were tested in musketry; how many qualified; how many failed.
How many trained men were tested; how many qualified; how many failed.
Of those returned as "qualified," how many passed the standard test; how many "qualified" merely to enable the County Associations to draw allowances for them.
8. How many battalions of Infantry carried out battalion field firing; how many carried out company field firing.
9. What was the number of horses in camp with the Yeomanry. How many of these were (a) the property of officers, non-commissioned officers and men; (b) how many were hired; (c) how many were the property of Government; (d) how many belonged to the Associations.
10. Territorial Horse and Field Batteries: were these batteries marked for "fire tactics" at annual practice; how many batteries carried out annual practice in 1912; what percentage does this represent of the total number of Horse and Field Batteries; did all the Horse and Field Batteries that went to camp have their full complement of horses.
11. What was the total cost of the Territorial Force for the year ended 31st March, 1912.
12. What is the number of officers who have resigned their commissions during the year ended 30th September, 1912, and the number of new officers who have joined the Force during the same period.
13. What is the strength of the Territorial Force Reserve; how many of those who left the Force during the year ended 30th September, 1912, joined the Reserve.
14. Is the National Reserve part of the Territorial Force; if not, why was it shown under the heading "Territorial Force" in the General Annual Report of the British Army for 1911.
15. Were any regiments of Yeomanry or any batteries of Artillery trained in camp together with the Infantry of the Force; or did these arms train separately.
16. Was not the infantry of the Force put back to "company" training by the orders of the Inspector General of the Forces.
17. What was the average number of drills, exclusive of camp, performed by the men of the Artillery, the Yeomanry, and the Infantry of the Force respectively.
18. How many qualified signallers are there in the Territorial Force. Is this an increase or a decrease on the figures of the previous year.
Is the signalling in a satisfactory condition.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I do not think it is necessary that I should trouble your Lordships by reading the list of Questions standing in my name on the Paper, but I would ask the noble Lord who is to reply to me to be good enough to answer each Question seriatim. Perhaps I might run through the list, touching upon any Question upon which there may be a point requiring explanation. Questions Nos. 1 and 2 are perfectly clear, and I think speak for themselves. They are very similar to those put by me last November to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. As regards Question No. 3, the figures there given of officers and non-commissioned officers and men who were absent without leave from camp in 1911 are the figures that were given to me in November last, and I specially want to know whether those men have been, as they ought to be, properly punished. As regards Question No. 4, I am specially anxious to get an answer in regard to re-engagements, because, as those of your Lordships who are connected with military matters are aware, it is usual in the Regular Army only to allow 10 per cent. to reengage in order that you may maintain a sufficient Reserve. I have no comments to make upon Question No. 5; and in regard to Question No. 6, I ask what steps are taken to verify the ages given by recruits taken for the Territorial Force.
990
I want to know whether a boy's mere statement is sufficient, or whether any steps are taken to verify the statement. Question No. 7 speaks for itself.
As regards Question No. 8, in which I ask how many battalions of Infantry carried out battalion field firing and how many carried out company field firing, I should like to read to your Lordships a private letter which I have received from a responsible officer. It is a perfectly bona fide letter, although I am not in a position to mention the name of the writer. I think the letter is interesting, as it illustrates how field firing has to be carried out and the great difficulty attending it when you have to deal with semi-trained men. The incidents which this letter describes took place early in August last year on a sandy stretch of sea shore on the coast of England. The general idea was that an invading force had landed or was about to land. A brigade of Infantry (Territorials) who had bivouacked close by during the night were hastily called up to repel the invader. This is the description given by the officer in his letter—
"My orders were to weed out of my company, first, all recruits; secondly, all men who had not passed the standard test; thirdly, any men who were such fools as to be unworthy to be trusted with ball ammunition. With these heavy losses my company looked very meagre, for out of some eighty men thirty had to be turned out as unsafe and untrained in the use of a rifle. We were then allowed to advance. When we reached a certain spot we were given plenty of time to extend. In war time all these movements would have had to take place very rapidly. These extensions had to be made under the personal and individual supervision of the officer commanding the company. Owing to the shortage of officers in my battalion we had only one officer per company. When we reached another spot the left and right-hand men had to stand by certain flags. This was to ensure the whole line being absolutely straight, so that one man could not get in front of the other. I cannot imagine flags being placed in position on a modern battlefied! All this time no ammunition had been served out, and, in fact, no ammunition was served out until the men actually reached the firing line. They were then given twenty-five rounds per man, which had to be placed in the pouches, and not in the rifle. The individual company officer could give no commands to his men except on the call of the Brigadier's bugle. Every movement—fire, cease fire and advance—was made by the one bugle belonging to the Brigadier. On the bugle blowing 'Fire,' then, and not till then, were the picked men allowed to load their rifles. Furthermore, although it is a general order that empty cases should be gathered after firing, on this morning the rule was suspended, and no empty cases were allowed to be picked up by the men actually firing. This was to avoid the possibility of an untrained man swinging his rifle round and firing off at his

991
comrade at his side. It was interesting to note the way in which every officer and sergeant kept very well to the rear of his men, even though all these precautions were taken, for we all know that, with men who necessarily had had so little experience of firing, owing to excitement and lack of discipline, there was quite a sporting chance of a stray bullet finding a billet. We all felt that these precautions laid down by the General Staff were wise and necessary precautions, and that if they had not been taken casualties would certainly have occurred. The behaviour of the men on the whole was calm and good, as it ought to be, considering that it took us two hours to advance a mile over the sands. The fact that such precautions were necessary shows clearly in what estimation the Territorial Force is really regarded by those Regular soldiers who are responsible for the annual training."
That, my Lords, is a perfectly bona fide letter, and I think it is very eloquent of the importance of the Question.
Question No. 9 is perfectly straightforward and clear, and I have nothing to comment upon it. Neither have I anything to say on Questions Nos. 10 to 15. But when I come to Question No. 16—in which I ask, Was not the Infantry of the Territorial Force put back to "company" training by the orders of the Inspector-General of the Forces—I do feel that if this is so it is very unsatisfactory, because, as noble Lords know, company training is, so to speak, the lowest class of training. It is very unsatisfactory if the Infantry of the Force have to be put to company training after their fifth year in camp. The next Question is perfectly clear and straightforward. I ask Question No. 18, as to how many qualified signallers there are in the Territorial Force, because I am informed, I believe on good authority, that out of the 203 battalions only 95 have officers in possession of the signalling certificate. Everybody knows of what great importance it is that in these days the signalling should be in an efficient condition. I do not wish to occupy your Lordships' time at any length. I am really out this evening for information.
But before I sit down I feel that I must call attention to a speech delivered by General Bethune, the Director-General of the Territorial Force. It is stated—I do not know for what purpose—that certain persons and associations of persons are actively engaged in disparaging the Territorial Force. That seems to me to be in itself a very inadequate argument, because all that we have to consider is, Is the Territorial Force an efficient military machine? I am bound to say that I have never known any language more tending
992
to disparage the Territorial Force than the language which is being held by the Director-General and which he himself allows to be used in his presence. On October 5 of this year the Director-General went to Edinburgh for the purpose of assisting recruiting and promoting the welfare of the Territorial Force. A luncheon was given by the Lord Provost, and there was a meeting in the evening at which the Lord Provost recommended, among other things to make recruiting easier and to make the Territorial Force more popular, that it should be optional for a man to skip camp each alternate year. That was greeted with great applause. General Bethune, the Director-General of the Territorial Force and a most distinguished officer, as we know, allowed that remark to pass unrebuked; and, following the Lord Provost, he said that he would like to see every country disarm. He thought war was an "old-fashioned thing they had grown out of"—rather an ill-timed remark to make within a few days of the outbreak of the great war in the Near East which is going to change the political map of Europe. But what did General Bethune say specially with regard to the Territorial Force? He used these words—
"Why should not they look upon soldiering as a sport, and take it up in the same way as they took up cricket and football and golf?"
It is quite evident that General Bethune had not had the controlling spirit or the controlling advice of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. The noble and learned Viscount, speaking on January 28 of this year on the occasion of the opening of a new riding school at the headquarters of the 4th Northumbrian Howitzer Brigade at South Shields, said—
"There were some people who spoke of the Territorial Force lightly, as if it were a pleasure ground on which people might amuse themselves. He hoped that notion would soon be rooted out of the minds of those who indulged in these light fancies. Defence was a necessity."
That is the language of a responsible Minister. I am bound to say it is in strange and weird contrast to the ill-advised utterances of the Director-General of the Territorial Force. Coining from hint language of the kind I have quoted in reference to the Territorial Force is especially unfortunate, because it gives a sort of official countenance, if I may say so, to the belief which is already far too prevalent and which I maintain is fatal and injurious to the self-respect of the Territorial Force—namely, that invasion

993
being impossible the Territorial is merely a sort of sop thrown to a stupid political antagonist. If reasonable criticism of the Territorial Force is to be twisted into disparagement of that Force it is doubly unfortunate when the Director-General gives the appearance, both in his own language and in what he allows to be said before him, that the Territorial Force is not one which ought to be really seriously considered. I ask these Questions because I think it is reasonable and just that the country should know from time to time exactly how we stand, and I hope that the noble Lord who will answer me will act up to the spirit of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, who in November last when Secretary of State for War said that I had touched on many questions affecting the Territorial Force "upon which it was his duty to give me as full information as he could." I beg to put to the Government the Questions which stand in my name, and I again repeat the hope that the noble Lord who will reply will be good enough to answer each Question seriatim.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I hardly think that your Lordships will expect me to follow the noble Earl in his remarks as to the Director-General of the Territorial Force, for the matter which he has raised in that connection is entirely extraneous even to the vast number of Questions he has upon the Paper; and in view of the fact that not the smallest notice has been given that that particular question would be raised I think I may be excused from following the noble Earl in that matter. I will now deal seriatim, as the noble Earl has asked me to do, with the Questions of which he has given notice.
Question No. 1. The strength of the Force on October 1 was 9,236 officers and 252,152 non-commissioned officers and men. Question No. 2. The number who were present in camp in 1912 for fifteen days and over were 6,855 officers and. 154,995 non-commissioned officers and men. (1) The number who were present in camp for eight days and less than fifteen was 1,014 officers and 66,366 men. (2) The number present for less than eight days was 47 officers and 314 non-commissioned officers and men. (3) (4) and (5) The total number who failed to attend camp was 1,362 officers and 33,350 non-commissioned officers and men, of whom 1,325 officers and 27,331 non-commissioned officers and men were absent with leave
994
and 37 officers and 6,019 non-commissioned officers and men without leave.
Question No. 3. With regard to the 41 officers and 6,755 non-commissioned officers and men who were absent without leave from camp in 1911, disciplinary action was taken in the case of 20 officers and 2,490 other ranks. Of these officers 16 resigned, one was reported to his General Officer Commanding, and action is still being taken in the case of the remaining three. Disciplinary action was taken against 2,490 of other ranks, of whom 1,012 were struck off the strength under Paragraph 268 of the Territorial Force Regulations, one was discharged on the grounds of unsatisfactory conduct, 895 were prosecuted, 347 were prosecuted and fined, 97 were fined by County Associations, three were allowed to purchase their discharge, 53 were warned, three were reduced, and action is still being taken in the case of 79. Question No. 4. The number whose engagements expired between October 1, 1911, and September 30, 1912, was 80,403, and the number who re-engaged during this period was 39,681. Question No. 5. For the year ended September 30, 1909, 110,020 recruits joined; for the year ended September 30, 1910, 42,239 recruits joined; for the year ended September 30, 1911, 39,086 recruits joined; for the year ended September 30, 1912, 57,946 recruits joined. Question No. 6. The number of non-commissioned officers and men under 19 on October 1, 1912, was 40,684. The steps taken to verify the ages given by recruits taken for the Territorial Force are laid down in Paragraph 132 of the Territorial Force Regulations.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: Will you kindly explain what steps are taken to verify the ages?
LORD HERSCHELL: Paragraph 132, to which I have referred, reads as follows—
"Should a recruit appear to be under the age standard, inquiries should be made before final approval."
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: Is that done?
LORD HERSCHELL: I understand that is so. Question No. 7. In the musketry year 1910–11, from the Yeomanry, Field Companies, Royal Engineers, and Infantry 52,590 recruits were tested in musketry; 31,976 qualified, and 20,614 failed; 125,322 trained men were tested, of whom 111,432 qualified, and 13,890 failed. All the men given above as

995
having qualified passed the standard test. In addition to the number I have given as having qualified 17,932 recruits and 12,316 trained men qualified in musketry by attendance at classification 30 yards, or miniature ranges, in accordance with Paragraph 361 (2) or (3), of the Territorial Force Regulations. I presume that this is what the noble Earl means by the latter part of his Question. At the same time it is not for one moment admitted that the object of these Regulations is to enable County Associations to draw allowances. The object of the Regulations is to ensure that those men who are unable, owing to various circumstances, to do the training necessary to pass the standard test shall at any rate be in a position to have some training in the use of the rifle. Question No. 8. Thirty-four battalions of Infantry carried out battalion field firing. The number of battalions in which all companies have been exercised in company field firing is 92. There are 62 battalions in which some, but not all, companies have been exercised in company field firing, and there are 53 battalions in which no company field firing was performed. Question No. 9. There were 20,817 horses in camp with the Yeomanry. Of these, 8,034 were the property of officers, non-commissioned officers and men, 12,761 were hired, 14 were the property of the Government, and eight were the property of County Associations.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: Did the noble Lord say 14,000 were the property of the Government?
LORD HERSCHELL: No, fourteen. The total number is 20,817 and I had already accounted for 8,034 and 12,761. Question No. 10. Territorial Horse and Field batteries were not marked for "fire tactics" at annual practice. In 1912, 131 batteries carried out annual practice, and, in addition, the eleven batteries of the 1st London Divisional Artillery fired a modified course at Shoeburyness during Summer on Saturday afternoons. For this horses were not required. This represents 78 per cent. of the total number of Horse and Field batteries, not counting the eleven batteries mentioned. Of all the Horse and Field batteries that went to camp, 102 took their full complement of horses. The average deficiency in the remaining 29 batteries was eleven horses, but almost all had sufficient for the personnel who attended camp. Question No. 11. The actual cost of the Territorial Force for the year ended
996
March 31, 1912, cannot be given, but it is estimated at £3,200,000.
Question No. 12. During the period from October 1, 1911, to September 30, 1912, 1,364 officers were appointed to the Territorial Force, including the Unattached List, and 1,184 resigned. These figures do not include the reduction owing to death, transfer to the Reserve, and compulsory retirements. Question No. 13. The strength of the Territorial Force Reserve on October 1, 1912, was, according to the Army List, 313 officers and 865 men. The increase of non-commissioned officers and men in the Reserve during the year has been 375, and this is roughly the number who have joined from the Territorial Force during the period. Question No. 14. The National Reserve is not part of the Territorial Force. As, however, it is administered by County Associations it was considered convenient to record its strength in that part of the General Annual Report which deals with the Territorial Force Reserve which is also administered by the County Associations.
Question No. 15. According to information received from the Commands, in the Eastern Command the Surrey Yeomanry and the 1st Home Counties Brigade, Royal Field Artillery, trained with Territorial Infantry units. In the London District the 3rd County of London Yeomanry trained with the Infantry of the 2nd London Division. The Artillery of the Honourable Artillery Company trained with the Infantry of the same unit. The Artillery of the 1st London Division trained with the Infantry of that division. In the Northern Command no Yeomanry or Artillery units trained with Infantry except the following: The 1st and 2nd North Midland Brigades Royal Field Artillery, and North Midland (Staffs.) Heavy Battery Royal Garrison Artillery trained with their division. The 1st and 2nd East Riding batteries Royal Field Artillery carried out their second week's training at Army manœuvres. In the Scottish Command no regiments of Yeomanry or batteries of Artillery trained with Infantry; these arms trained separately. In the Southern Command the South Midland Royal Garrison Artillery trained with the Infantry of the South Midland Division. The 1st Wessex Brigade, Royal Field Artillery, trained on Salisbury Plain at the same time as two Infantry Brigades of the Wessex Division. The 1st South

997
Western Mounted Brigade took part in Army manœuvres. Other Yeomanry regiments trained separately. In the Western Command no regiments of Yeomanry trained with Infantry. Eight batteries of the West Lancashire Division, five batteries of the East Lancashire Division, and six batteries of the Welsh Division trained with the infantry of their Division.
Question No. 16. The Territorial Infantry was not put back to company training by the orders of the Inspector General of the Home Forces. That officer has, however, had occasion to call attention to the advanced nature of the training carried out by certain units, and the attention of the General Officers Commanding-in-Chief has been directed to the principle laid down in Training and Manœuvre Regulations that, as the time available for the training of the Territorial Force is so limited, Squadron, battery, company, and battalion training is all important.
Question No. 17. The information as to the average number of drills, exclusive of camp, performed by the men of the Artillery, the Yeomanry, and the Infantry of the Force respectively does not form part of any of the ordinary returns furnished to the War Office. The following figures for the year 1911 have been obtained at the cost of a vast amount of labour for Mr. Hunt, in reply to his Question in the House of Commons, by calling for a special Return and it is hoped that these figures which I am about to give will prove sufficient for the noble Earl, as it would be hardly justifiable to ask the staffs of the Territorial Force units to work out these figures again for 1912. During the year from November 1, 1910, to October 31, 1911, the average number of drills, exclusive of camp, performed was—By the Yeomanry, officers 11·92, other ranks 16·58; by the Artillery, officers 24·96, other ranks 22·72; by the Infantry, officers 18·19, other ranks 18·35. The average number of working days spent at courses of instruction, including attachment to training centres, was—By the Yeomanry, officers 2·79, other ranks ·17; by the Artillery, officers 5·42, other ranks ·27; by the Infantry, officers 3·63, other ranks ·09. The average number of weekends spent in camp—that is to say, extra training—was: By the Yeomanry, officers ·12, other ranks ·08; by the Artillery, officers ·57, other ranks ·24; by the Infantry, officers ·48, other ranks ·22.
998
Question No. 18. The number of qualified signallers in the Territorial Force is as follows: 257 offcers (instructors), 428 assistant instructors, and 1,444 qualified signallers. These figures are taken from the Report of the Commandant, Army Signal School, for 1911. The numbers in the previous year were 234 officers (instructors), 417 assistant instructors, and 2,635 qualified signallers. It is to be observed that the examination has been made more severe, and this accounts for the large drop in the number of qualified signallers. In conclusion, I may say quite frankly that the signalling in the Territorial Force is not at present in an altogether satisfactory condition, and that the subject is engaging the attention of the Army Council.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the information which the noble Earl behind me has elicited is of the utmost importance, some of it, I am afraid, not of an entirely reassuring character. I do not, however, desire to comment upon it this evening. I rise merely for the purpose of offering a suggestion to the noble Lord who has just addressed the House, and it is that it would be for our convenience if he would lay on the Table the figures he has used this evening and let us have them in the form of a War Office Return. It is obviously not easy to follow them when quickly read, and their publication in an official form would be more convenient than that we should rely upon Press reports.
LORD HERSCHELL: I shall be pleased to see that the noble Marquess's suggestion is carried out.
THE EARL OF ERROLL: With regard to the noble Lord's answer to Question No. 9, I should like to know whether hired horses are counted two or three times over if they go out with different regiments. If so, it obviously gives a false idea of the number of horses available.
LORD HERSCHELL: I will make inquiries into that, and will see that the information is, if possible, put into the Return when laid on the Table.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: When will the Government be able to let us have the Return?
LORD HERSCHELL: It shall be laid as soon as possible. I cannot promise more than that.

TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, before the House goes into Committee on this Bill I desire to say a few words, not with any idea of retarding the progress of the Bill, but more or less in the way of a personal explanation. I have always believed since I have been in this House that when the Government of the day introduce an important measure it is right and proper and due to the Government and also to your Lordships' House that some notice of it should be taken by those who sit on the Front Opposition Bench. The other evening when this Bill came up for Second Reading I had fully intended to say a few words upon it, but by one of those accidents that sometimes happen the debate abruptly terminated at a moment when I, unfortunately, was not in my place, and I lost my opportunity. I do not greatly regret that, because after the speeches made by my two noble friends on this side of the House I should only have been able to tell your Lordships that I had arrived at the same conclusion as theirs, and that we did not desire to deny the Bill the Second Reading which we were asked to give it.
I will this evening make one observation, and one observation only. This Bill comes to us in the guise of a Temperance Bill. It is described as a Bill to promote temperance. I am not at all convinced that that is a proper designation to give to this Bill. There are, it is true, clauses in it with regard to clubs and one or two other clauses which do touch the question of temperance, but the real object of the Bill is not the promotion of temperance. Its real object is to transfer the power which is now entrusted to the licensing authorities in Scotland to a majority of the electors within the areas provided for by the measure. No doubt that change in the law is suggested in the hope that temperance may result therefrom; but it is quite evident that if, contrary to the expectations of the promoters of the Bill, the electors should prove to be indifferent, or if the extinction of a large number of certificates should
1000
lead to a great increase in the number of clubs, or if, again, the areas should be so prescribed as to lead to additional drinking in one area while drink is diminished in that which adjoins it—if any of these things happen the result will not be the promotion of temperance. I am strengthened in my opinion that the Bill ought not to be described as a Temperance Bill by an observation made in the other House of Parliament by the Lord Advocate, who used, these words—
"The object of the Bill is not to extinguish licences, but to transfer to voters in certain areas discretionary powers now confined to the magistrates."
That, said the Lord Advocate, was "the sole object of this measure," and I think that is a more correct description than that which was given to us the other evening by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill.
The noble Earl told us that in his opinion the Bill did not introduce a new principle. I venture to say that it does introduce a new principle, and a principle which may prove extremely dangerous and far-reaching. The principle is this, that from a tribunal which is in a sense an experienced tribunal, which has responsibilities attaching to it, which has a judicial character, you are going to take these functions away and hand them over to a body of electors who have no judicial characteristics, who have no responsibilities, and who have no experience. Now that, as I said a moment ago, is a new principle, and to my mind a very important one. I will say no more upon it. We have been told on excellent authority that this Bill is largely supported in Scotland. That being so, we on these Benches did not desire to refuse it a Second Reading; but we regard it as a very hazardous experiment, and we desire that this experiment should he carried out under the most careful conditions possible. We do not think that the conditions laid down in the Bill as it now stands are sufficient for the purpose, and I am very glad that several of my noble friends on this side of the House have put Amendments on the Paper with the object of rendering those conditions more adequate than I believe them to be at present.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Date of Act Coming into Operation.
1. This Act shall, except as otherwise in this Act provided, come into operation on the expiration of five years front the first day of June nineteen hundred and twelve.
LORD LOVAT: I move to leave out "five years" and to insert "fourteen years." In this Bill the Government aim at introducing an entirely new licensing authority based wholly on the popular vote instead of on the elective principle as at present. Whether or not the result will be that a certain number of licences will be taken away, it remains, I think, for this house to see that as far as possible adequate compensation is given to those who are deprived of their licences. It is now proposed that the Bill shall come into operation at the expiration of five years, and I venture to suggest in my Amendment that the period shall be altered to fourteen years. This point turns on the question of the property in the licence. It is quite true, as the noble Earl in charge of the Bill pointed out in moving the Second Reading, that the certificates are only made out to May 28 of the year following the date on which they are issued, but it by no means follows that the receiver of the certificate is not likely to obtain a renewal. In fact, the very reverse is the case. Except in the event of default by bankruptcy or improper conduct, or in the case of the premises not being suitable, or in the case of a conviction having taken place, it is the universal rule that these licences should be renewed. So much is that the case that, when licensed premises are bought and sold, from fifteen to eighteen years of the net profits is the rate at which they change hands. These premises have been so dealt with for a considerable number of years, and men of all sorts and kinds, poor men as well as rich men, have invested their money in them, and some have sunk their little all in property of this nature.
Again, the fact that these licences are renewable is taken into account for purposes of local taxation, and it is customary for the sum which is assessed for the goodwill of the premises to be calculated by
1002
the number of years for which the lease runs. We have in Scotland County Assessment Rolls, and it is easy to see for yourselves exactly what the assessment is fixed at for all these premises, and the fact that the assessment is high and is based on the principle of the number of years of the lease shows that it is an accepted principle that, given good conduct on the part of the licensee, a licence once granted will be renewed. Then, again, we have the question of the Death Duties. The Death Ditties are based as a rule on something like seven years' profits of licensed premises. If there is no expectation or certainty of a renewal of the licence, it is very difficult to see on what grounds Death Duties are so charged. One might even say that the mere fact of five years' grace being given in the Bill as it now stands clearly shows, even if it is not, admitted by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, that the framers of this Bill, who were private Members and not the Government, had the idea in their minds that some grace should of right be allowed to the licence-holder. Therefore it does appear that the licence-holders have a right to reasonable treatment.
The question is to fix exactly what this reasonable treatment should be, and I have inserted in my Amendment a period of fourteen years. I think it should be possible in that period for the people affected to so arrange matters as to give up their licences at the end of the period without absolute and complete loss. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, speaking at Perth in September, 1908, on the English Licensing Bill, said—
"The brewer, the distiller, and the owner of licensed premises were just as much entitled to justice as any one else, and the Government intended to deal fairly with them."
The noble and learned Viscount went on to say that in the case of the English Bill they had fixed the limit of time at fourteen years, and that the result of their careful calculation had been that this wits a fair estimate of time within which licence-holders might recoup themselves. I ask, it being admitted that licence-holders have a claim to have their position considered, that Scottish licence-holders in the year 1912 should be given fourteen years in the same way as it was proposed in 1908 to treat English licence-holders.

1003
There is another argument in favour of extending the period now in the Bill. Should it be considered in any district that the individual licence-holder is not fairly treated, it is more than probable that the question of the reduction of licences would be decided from the point of view of justice to the licence-holder rather than of advantage to the community. If it is felt that the man holding the licence has had sufficient time in which to work out his own salvation, I think there will be much more probability of those who believe that the reduction of licences would be a good thing voting to reduce the number. After all, the question of the reduction of licences is largely in the nature of an experiment. A reduction may reduce the drunkenness with which, I regret to say, Scotland is so cursed at the present day, but we are by no means certain that that will be the result. I can only offer an opinion about a small stretch of the country that I know. I can assure your Lordships that the two most drunken districts there are those in which public-houses have been ruthlessly put down. The explanation is simple. Where an individual is unable to buy a single glass of whisky he is forced to buy a bottle. Moreover, it is not the liquor that is purchased and consumed in public-houses which causes the disgraceful drunkenness which takes place certainly during the last ten days of December, but the bottles of whisky which men carry with them, the contents of which they not only partake of themselves but share with every one they meet. My experience is that it is much more a question of the management of the public-houses and the class of liquor that is sold there than the number of licensed houses which exist in special districts. It is for these reasons that I urge that these licence-holders should be treated with justice, that they should be given time in which to work out their own salvation. I believe also that those who have studied the question carefully and consider that in any particular district it would be advisable to reduce the number of licences will be much freer to vote for such reduction if they feel that the licence-holders are given time to get back a certain portion of the capital they have invested. I beg to move.
Amendment moved.
Page 1, line 6, leave out ("five") and insert ("fourteen").—(Lord Lovat.)
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): I regret that the speech of the noble Lord, following that which was made by the noble Marquess upon the Motion to go into Committee, is somewhat ominous with regard to the prospects of agreement being generally reached during the Committee stage in this House. The noble Lord has moved an Amendment which makes so large an extension in the time to be given before this Bill comes into force that it goes almost beyond the limits of amendment, so great a difference does it make. But although the period in the Bill is set down at five years the licence-holders themselves have had a great deal more than five years in which to prepare for a Bill of this kind. The noble Lord himself probably remembers that the Minority Report of the Peel Commission, which was issued in 1899, recommended a period of five years for Scotland, and they said that at the end of that time a wide measure of direct popular control might be applied, under proper safeguards, to Scotland. Further, it was undoubtedly contemplated by the Minority Report that there should be considerable reductions during the fiveyears period. It is not expected that that would be the case with regard to this Bill. It is probable that during the five years the reductions would be very few in number. It is only after the five years that they would begin to take effect. It seems to be suggested that at the end of the five years all licences will be swept away. I need hardly say that none of us expect that.
Lord Lovat laid emphasis upon the fact that there is a great deal of drunkenness in no-licence areas, and he is of opinion, therefore, that in the districts where a limiting resolution is in force drunkenness will probably decrease. But the noble Lord's Amendment applies equally to the limiting resolution as it does to the no-licence resolution, and it would be quite impossible for any reduction of licences to take place on the scale contemplated by the Bill if this Amendment were carried. The matter has been before the country since the year 1899, and this Bill has been before Parliament for three years. Everybody admits—the noble Lord himself admitted—the existence of drunkenness and the urgent need for legislation. The Amendment constitutes indirect compensation of a large

1005
kind to licence-holders. His Majesty's Government do not admit the necessity for that compensation. We think five years a reasonable notice to give to licence-holders. Lord Balfour of Burleigh, in the Second Reading debate, admitted the necessity of further control and reduction, and I think on the whole, subject to Amendments, he considered that this Bill was the proper way in which to secure those ends. It would be a lamentable prospect to have to look forward to fourteen years before anything of the kind should take place, and therefore on behalf of His Majesty's Government I am afraid I must say that we are quite unable to accept this Amendment.
EARL GREY: My Lords, I hope my noble friend will not press his Amendment. I think a time limit is a very bad method of compensation. I do not propose to argue what compensation it is desirable to give to a dispossessed publican, but to prolong the time during which he might press the sale of alcoholic liquor on the public is about the worst form of compensation you could possibly devise. I do not like five years as a time limit, but to extend it to fourteen years would be a most lamentable thing. The noble Lord concluded his speech by pointing out that it was not the number of public-houses but the character of the management which is the real question we have to discuss in Committee on this Bill. Amendments will be moved later to insure the people having the opportunity of securing disinterested management for the houses in the locality in which they live, and there are Amendments which go further and propose that of the profits made by the houses placed under disinterested management a certain percentage should be used to give a money compensation to the dispossessed publican. If there is to be compensation—I do not wish to commit myself on that point at the present moment—I say that money compensation is a sound way of proceeding. But to extend the time limit, as proposed in the Amendment now before the House, is the worst possible form you could adopt for compensating a publican.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I have some hesitation in intervening but my reason for doing so is that I am one of those who are sincerely anxious to see this Bill in some form or another become law. If there is to be no compromise, no arrangement, no give and take between some of the
1006
extreme proposals in this Bill and some of the Amendments put forward, I think the prospects are not very hopeful. In my opinion the speech of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill was at least as discouraging to any one who wants to see a middle course pursued as, I might even say more discouraging than, the speech of the noble Marquess on this side of the House. The noble Earl referred to the Minority Report of Lord Peel's Commission and to the fact that this Bill had been for three years before Parliament. But, my Lords, any fair study of the Minority Report must, I think, carry with it this, that there was to be, in the opinion of the Commissioners, five years from the time when the new arrangement, whatever it is, was brought into force. You cannot say, because that Report is some years old, that licence-holders have had such and such warning that such and such things may happen. Nobody begins to make their arrangements until they see that Parliament has really carried into effect the proposals put before it. The noble Earl went on to say that every licence would not be taken away in five years. That is true. But it is no consolation to the unfortunate individual whose licence has been taken away that somebody else is allowed to keep his licence and perhaps make a profit by what I regard as the injustice of taking away by a popular vote a licence in so short a period as five years.
The noble Earl, Lord Grey, says a time limit is a bad form of compensation. I am not prepared to suggest anything better. But there are one or two considerations I want to put before the Government as against the proposal now in the Bill. I agree that to adopt this particular Amendment would postpone the whole operation of the Bill. It is not an Amendment which I could support. But I do say most earnestly from a careful study of the question that five years is too short a period for bringing in a popular vote on the subject of prohibition in any particular area. It is perfectly true, as the noble Lord who moved the Amendment said, that a licence is usually renewed except in case of misconduct. That is common ground. Nobody who supports this Bill will attempt to deny it. I say it is the inevitable result of the system which for long years has been pursued in regard to licences. You regulate the traffic. People are selected to hold licences, and it is inevitable if a man behaves

1007
himself and fulfils his contract that the licence will be renewed. It has been in the public interest that the good man should have his licence renewed. That was the only check—it may not be a satisfactory check—upon bad management. I do not put the matter as high as some people, but the fact is beyond dispute that property in these licences has been allowed to grow up. The licence is a marketable property. It is so acknowledged by the Exchequer, because they take Legacy, Exchequer, and Death Duties on the value of the licence. If they are right in taking those duties from the estate of a man who leaves the licence to a son or a widow, it seems to me perfectly idle to deny that there is a property in the licence. It is an asset, and such an asset as ought to be acknowledged fairly and properly when you are making a change of system.
I had some experience in this matter in 1903. I went very carefully under the guidance of the Law Officers of the Crown into the conditions of licence holding in Scotland. I came to the conclusion that they were not actually the same as in England, and that they varied much more as between one another in Scotland than the average English licence. I believe there are licences in the case of well-conducted houses in good districts which go up to a long period of years in value when they pass from hand to hand. There are others I know, in less orderly parts of large towns, which live from hand to mouth, so to speak, and whose transfer is not more than one year's profits or something like that. The only point I want to make at this stage of the Bill is that there is a real and substantial asset in the possession of the licence, and you will be doing an injustice, a rank injustice, if you arbitrarily take it away without due compensation to the holder in some form or another. Since the Minority Report of the Peel Commission the position of the licence-holder has been made much more onerous that it was before. He is much less able to make provision in these days on account of the extra taxation than he would have been at the time of the Peel Report. I am not able to support this Amendment as it stands, and I am disappointed with the speech of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, because he did not seem to me to hold out any hope of a compromise on this particular point. I am not convinced myself of the fairness of the same period for total prohibition and for a
1008
reduction, and I think that is a matter well worthy of consideration.
But what I really rose to do was to make an appeal to the Government that they should hold out some hope of a reconsideration and extension of the period of five years now in the Bill. Unless they can do that, and also see their way to stand to it in another place, there is extreme fear of what I shall venture to describe as the calamity of the loss of this Bill. It is very difficult to take a moderate line in this matter. I have been in receipt of a great many communications since I made my speech on the Second Reading of the Bill. Some of the extreme advocates of prohibition, of what they call temperance, are intemperate in their language, and cannot even believe that a person who differs from them can be honest. I received one letter which, contrary to the custom of many, was signed by the writer. He wrote to me, I admit, more in sorrow than in anger. He said that he once had a great deal of respect for me, but my speech on the Second Reading of this Bill had made it entirely evaporate. He contended that there was no asset at all in a licence, and that the period of five years was too long. He went on to say—
"one would think that a leading elder in a Christian Church would rather disagree with the Government in giving five years; but Jacobus says, and says truly, a man's high position in the Church is no positive proof of his piety and no absolute security against perdition. Wicked men may be appointed to important posts in the services of Christ."
That may be perfectly true and it may be applicable to myself, but I replied to the letter—the whole of which I have not read to the House—in courteous terms, and expressed my sympathy with the gentleman at his want of logic and his total absence of Christian charity. But that is the sort of thing with which we have to deal. I venture to say that in that sort of spirit you will never get a settlement of this matter. Unless you can make up your minds to deal fairly with those who have invested their money in a legitimate undertaking and whose property has been recognised by the Exchequer, you will never carry with you the opinion of the people who are going to vote; and unless those who are going to vote feel that their neighbours are going to get fair terms, you will not carry into effect the provisions of this Bill as they stand. It is for that reason that I appeal to His Majesty's Government to reconsider the matter with a view to meeting this undoubted difficulty.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down has rendered great service to the cause of temperance, and we know the practical character of his mind; but for once I confess I feel a little disappointment. He appealed to us to do something, but he has given singularly little light as to what he would have the House do. He starts out by saying that fourteen years will not do. He will not have the proposal in the Amendment. Indeed he could not, because the noble Lord himself, in the discussion on the English Licensing Bill, warned this House and his colleagues in the strongest way against applying English analogies to Scotland and recognising that right of property which, he said, truly existed in a qualified form in English licences but never has existed as regards Scottish licences. Then the noble Lord said, quite truly, that there is reasonable security for renewal, and that the Crown takes toll of it for the purpose of the Death Duties. That is so. But it is so of a great many things in connection with which there is no tangible legal right. When you come to that you get involved in a sea of difficulty out of which the noble Lord did not help us.
What is to be the measure in a case of this kind? Certainly not fourteen years. You could not defend that because we all know that the principle on which licences are renewed from year to year in Scotland is totally different from that which obtains in Ireland, and very different front that which obtains in England. It has been insisted time after time, and never controverted, that the licensing authorities reserve to themselves full discretion. No doubt it is true that when a man carries on his business well and in an orderly fashion there is usually a renewal. But that it not always true. The licensing authorities always have insisted that they have the fullest discretion in the matter. If that is so, you have got something; but whatever it is it is not a right of property of a kind which you can measure, and when you come to deal with a question of this kind you must look at it from a practical point of view The noble Earl, Lord Grey, in what seemed to me to be the admirable speech which he made upon this subject, said, Whatever you do, do not have a long time limit. I entirely agree with him. A long time limit is fatal to every possibility of temperance reform. On the other hand, the noble Lord
1010
opposite did not have the courage to suggest that a money compensation should be raised out of the rates or the taxes, and I gather from his manner that he would scout any such proposal.
We cannot have a time limit. We cannot have money compensation. What are we to have? The view of the Government is to have a time limit of moderate length based on what may be reasonable expectation. Lord Lovat quoted a speech of mine, made some years ago, about its being wise as well as right in those who bring forward temperance legislation to have regard to the position of others, and particularly to the position of licence-holders and brewers and distillers, who, after all, carry on their business with the sanction of the law. I entirely agree. I think you must have regard to their position, but because you ought to "have regard," do not rush into the other extreme, do not destroy every possibility of bringing forward a workable Bill by setting up a right of property which does not exist. Fourteen years is out of the question. Money compensation is equally out of the question in Scotland. What you come to is some time limit, a warning—whatever you like to call it—and the scheme of the Bill has been to take five years. I cannot agree with the argument of the noble Lord that you ought not to take into account the fact that this was the period mentioned in Lord Peel's Report a long time ago, and that this whole question has been the subject of a settled determination on the part of a large number of people that they mean to redress a great social evil and that a measure of this kind is one of the ways of doing it. Those who have taken on licences have taken them on with the knowledge that their chances of renewal were more precarious than hitherto. The Bill gives a full five years, indeed, more than five years, because a certain period will have to elapse before the machinery can be got into working order. In these circumstances I think it is reasonable to say that five years is, on the whole, just about as near as you can get to the equivalent for that chance of renewal which has existed hitherto, but which cannot be measured in terms of figures. I venture to think, having regard to the totally different position in which the title to renewal of a licence-holder in Scotland stands to that elsewhere, that five years is a reasonable time. If your Lordships tried to fix another period

1011
you could not find any better example than in the speech of the noble Lord who has just addressed the House of the extreme difficulty of doing so. On the whole we think five years a fair period, and that is why we cannot accept the longer period proposed by the noble Lord in the Amendment now before us.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: After the description given by Lord Balfour's correspondent of those who occupy offices in the Church, I feel some diffidence in intervening in this discussion; but I should like to say how cordially I support the appeal made by Lord Balfour To the Government to make the period a little more than five years. The noble and learned Viscount who has just spoken complained of Lord Balfour because he did not state the specific period of years—somewhere between the five years and the fourteen years—which he would like to see adopted. I understood my noble friend to refrain from a specific proposal with a view to leaving it to the Government to make the suggestion themselves. To many of us who are thoroughly in accord with the principles of this Bill, with the spirit in which it is drafted, and with the general intention of it, it will be exceedingly hard if we find a lack of support in many quarters where we might have hoped for it because of this provision fixing the period at five years. I believe that there are many, who would otherwise agree to the proposals in the Bill, who would feel that the bringing into operation of the machinery of the Bill in five years was not reasonable or fair. Many of us will feel deeply disappointed if, at the outset of the discussions in Committee, we are told that five years is the fullest possible time that can be allowed for reaching the very different state of things which this Bill would bring about; and speaking as one who would support the Bill in its main principles right through I feel it would be difficult to do so as readily if one were limited in that way. Personally I could not go as far as fourteen years, but I should have thought ten years a reasonable time. I do not, however, express any opinion regarding that. If the Government would hold out some hope that they would modify the term now suggested in the Bill it would relieve many of us who desire in a large way to support the Bill. Therefore I join in the appeal made by Lord Balfour.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Like my noble friend Lord Balfour, I greatly regret that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill should have charged us—I think he did so in effect—with unreasonableness because we propose to extend the somewhat ruthless time limit which the Bill at present provides. Is it not quite obvious that a time limit of this kind must be an open question, must be a question of degree? No one can say that the five years term of the Bill is calculated on a scientificbasis and is therefore absolutely right, and that fourteen years is absolutely wrong. The noble and learned Viscount who spoke afterwards on behalf of the Government said that five years was as near as His Majesty's Government could get to it. I think that shows that in his mind, at all events, this question is not one that can be determined in any very reasoned or precise manner. The position of my noble friend Lord Grey seems to me to be much more logical. He objects to a time limit altogether, and would desire to get rid of it. He says it is the worst possible form of compensation. I will not argue that question with him now. But what I wish to point out to the House is that it is at present the only form of compensation to be found in the Bill, and if the people who are to be dispossessed under this Bill are to be compensated at all it must apparently be in the form of a time limit.
The noble Earl in charge of the Bill told us that we were making too much of the grievance because it would not follow that the whole of the licences would be swept away. But surely I am right in supposing that wherever a no-licence resolution is carried the whole of the licences will disappear, and that that will happen which the noble Earl seems to think impossible. To my mind my noble friend Lord Lovat demonstrated the inadequacy of this five-years time limit. He referred—I think very properly—to the precedent of the English Bill of 1908, when, as we all remember, the Government proposed a fourteen-years time limit with a seven years "run," as it was called, afterwards—twenty-one years altogether—accompanied by compensation. The noble and learned Viscount told us that the circumstances were different in Scotland from the circumstances in this country. That, no doubt, is true. Nevertheless I venture to maintain that, so far as the principle is concerned, the two cases are at any rate analogous—that in both cases there is an

1013
interest which is a valuable interest, which is bought and sold as a valuable interest, which is taxed as a valuable interest, and which ought to be treated by any Government with at any rate a certain amount of consideration. It seems to me a monstrous thing that the same Government should tax an interest of this kind as heavily as the value of these certificates is taxed upon the assumption that there is some amount of permanency or durability about them and then should proceed to legislate with regard to them upon a wholly different basis. I feel very strongly with my noble friend Lord Balfour that in the interests of the policy which this measure embodies it is desirable that the terms upon which these people are dispossessed of something which, if not legally property, is at any rate something of a by no means negligible value, should be terms reasonably generous; and I am convinced that if we fall short in that respect the result is likely to
Resolved in the negative.
be to put a serious obstacle in the way of those who desire to obtain a diminution in the number of these certificates.
I do not desire at this moment to commit myself to the view that the fourteen years which Lord Lovat proposes is exactly the most appropriate time limit, but if he goes to a Division I shall vote with him as a protest against the exiguous character of the time limit provided by the Bill. It may be that hereafter, when the other portions of the Bill have been dealt with, we may see our way to arrive at a middle term; but meantime I shall vote in favour of my noble friend's Amendment.
On Question, Whether the word proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 43; Not-contents, 60.

CONTENTS.

Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Ashby St. Ledgers, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Morley of Blackburn, V. (L. President.)

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Moulton, L.

Blythswood, L.

Reay, L.

Crewe, M. (L. Privy Seal)

Channing, L.

Rotherham, L.

Colebrooke, L.

Rowallan, L.

Lincolnshire, M.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

St. Davids, L.

Devonport, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Clantawe, L.

Shaw, L.

Craven, E. [Teller.]

Glenconner, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Grey, K.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Loreburn, E.

Haversham, L.

Stanmore, L.

Russell, E.

Herschell, L. [Teller.]

Strachie, L.

Inchcape, L.

Tenterden, L.

Sandhurst, L. (L. Chamberlain.)

Kinnaird, L.

Weardale, L.

Airedale, L.

Lucas, L.

Welby, L.

Armistead, L.

MacDonnell, L.

Willingdon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Northesk, E.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Plymouth, E.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Devonshire, D

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Lamington, L.

Marlborough, D.

Westmeath, E.

Langford, L.

Wellington, D.

Lawrence, L.

Falkland, V.

Lovat, L. [Teller.]

Lansdowne, M.

Goschen, V.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Linlithgow, M.

Llandaff, V.

Monkswell, L.

Salisbury, M.

St. Aldwyn, V.

Muskerry, L.

Zetland, M.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Balfour, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Camperdown, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Plunket, L.

Clarendon, E.

Berwick, L.

Redesdale, L.

Cromer, E.

Brancepeth, L. (Y. Boyne.)

Rothschild, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Saltoun, L.

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

Colchester, L.

Sanderson, L.

Halsbury, E.

De Mauley, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Londesborough, E.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Lytton, E.

Gwydir, L.

Sudeley, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Hindlip, L.

Wolverton, L.

Minto, E.

Hothfield, L

Wynford, L.

Morton, E.

Hylton, L. [Teller.]

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: By the vote just taken the House has decided to leave out the word "five." We have now before us the second question as to what number of years shall be inserted. I voted with the majority against the retention of five years, but I frankly say that I think fourteen years is too long a period. If Lord Lovat's Amendment were agreed to in its entirety it would put off the whole operation of the Bill for fourteen years. I do not think that can really be intended, but that would be the effect of inserting the word "fourteen" in this particular place. I have no authority to speak for anybody but myself, but I am inclined to make a renewed appeal to the Government not to confront us with an absolute non possumus in this matter. If it is open to me to do so—and on this I should like the opinion of the Lord Chairman—I shall vote against the insertion of the word "fourteen" for the purpose of inserting "ten." I further say that it seems to me illogical to bring both options in necessarily at the same time, whether it is five, ten, or fourteen years. Why should not a longer period be given to prepare for a total prohibition vote and a shorter period where there is to be only a reduction in licences?
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Question before the House is the Amendment moved by Lord Lovat to insert the word "fourteen." I think Lord Balfour would be in order in moving to amend the Amendment by substituting "ten."
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I should like to ask the noble Earl at the Table whether he is quite clear that it is possible to take this particular course. I can quite understand that before the Division took place it would have been a simple and easy course for Lord Balfour to have moved an Amendment to the Amendment proposed by Lord Lovat. But that Amendment, as I understand, has been carried and forms part of the Bill, and I should not have supposed that at this stage without further notice it was open to the noble Lord to move to amend it. I am merely asking for information and am quite open to conviction in the matter.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: What your Lordships decided by the Division which has just taken place was to leave out the
1016
word "five." If it would be more convenient to your Lordships now to negative "fourteen" and insert "ten," that would be in accordance with the practice of your Lordships' House.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I venture with much diffidence to make a suggestion to the House. His Majesty's Government have given no indication of a desire to accept any figure other than "five." It seems to me that this question of compensation ought to be considered as a whole. There are other Amendments on the Paper which certainly affect the question of compensation, and it occurs to me that we should be in a better position to deal with this point of the time limit when we know how we stand with regard to the other Amendments that will come before the House. Personally I think it would be a relief to some of us, having struck the five-years limit out of the Bill and agreed provisionally to put in its place a fourteen-years limit, if we could reserve the further consideration of the limit question until the discussion on the Bill has gone further.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY): Surely the noble Marquess is mistaken. The House has not agreed to substitute "fourteen" for "five." All that has been agreed upon is that "five" is not to be the figure.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Your Lordships have struck out "five," and you must put something in its place. The Government have refused to give us any lead on the subject. We do not wish to be bound to "fourteen" when subsequent opportunities for discussing the point will arise. I think we shall be in a much better position to determine the precise figure when we have gone through the Committee stage of the Bill. The straightforward thing would be to carry through the Amendment now before the House and insert "fourteen," and consider the matter again when we come to the Report stage.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: Your Lordships have agreed to strike out the word "five," and the proposal now before us is that the word "fourteen" should be inserted. You might, of course, negative that proposal, but the difficulty

1017
of that mode of dealing with the question is that you might have an endless series of figures suggested for consideration. I think the simpler course would be to propose an Amendment to the Amendment to the effect that "ten" should take the place of "fourteen." If that is resolved in the negative, then "fourteen" would take its place in the clause instanter.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: It does not seem any use at the present stage to make a further appeal to the Government to assist us in this matter. I only rise to express the hope that, whatever course the House decides to adopt, we shall have another opportunity of voting on the figure to be inserted in the place of "five," in order that it may be possible for those who, like Lord Balfour and myself, voted with the majority to strike out five years, to make clear that we did so because we thought five years too brief a period and not because we necessarily accepted fourteen years. If Lord Balfour moves to substitute ten years for fourteen years I should vote for that Amendment. If, on the other hand, we are first asked to decide on the question of inserting "fourteen," I shall vote against that. But I hope that, whatever course is adopted, there will be an opportunity afforded of making the matter perfectly clear in the Lobby.
LORD SHEFFIELD: it is clear that there are two limits needed, one for a no-licence resolution and another for the rest of the Bill. You do not meet that point by merely putting in one number; you must put in two numbers. I gather that Lord Balfour would not be at all shocked at a limit of six years for the ordinary parts of the Bill if he secured ten years in the case of a no-licence resolution.
LORD LOVAT: I suggest that for the present "fourteen" should be provisionally inserted, and we could consider on the Report stage the precise number of years to be finally put into the Bill.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am prepared to do what is most for the convenience of the House, but I wish to guard against being quoted as in favour of a period of fourteen years. I hope that whatever we do—and it does not seem to me to matter, if it is provisional, whether "fourteen" or "ten" is inserted—it will be considered whether there might not be a different period for the Bill coming into
1018
operation in the case of total prohibition. I will not divide the House to-day, on the clear understanding that "fourteen" is regarded as provisional, and that a subsequent opportunity will be afforded of making another proposal when we see how the discussion goes on the other clauses.
On Question, That the word "fourteen" be here inserted?
Resolved in the affirmative.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I move to omit from Clause 1 the words "first day of June, 1912" in order to insert "passing thereof." I do not understand why the words which I propose to omit appear in the Bill. I understand that they were not in the Bill last year when it was a private Members' Bill, but the Government after accepting the Bill appear to have made this alteration themselves. It was always customary that an Act of Parliament should come into force on the day of its passing or at some later date, and never until a year or two ago, have we had instances of Bills coming into force before they have passed. In this particular case the reason is obvious, because the Secretary for Scotland admitted in the other House that the first of June was inserted for the purpose of getting round the Parliament Act. The Lord Chancellor said just now that this Bill would not come into force for nearly six years owing to elections and other matters of that sort, but he forgot to notice the fact that according to Clause 1, as it now stands, six months of the time have already run. I submit that it is contrary to the practice of Parliament to make a Bill retrospective, and for that reason I propose to strike out these words and to substitute "passing thereof."
Amendment moved—
Page 1, leave out line 7 and insert ("passing thereof").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: After the explanation given by the noble Earl I can hardly expect your Lordships to agree to the Amendment. Some of your Lordships have already expressed the opinion that fourteen years is too long. The noble Earl evidently contemplates the use of the Parliament Act in connection with this Bill. In those circumstances it would appear that instead of having a time limit of fourteen years the licence-holders would get sixteen years.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I had nothing in contemplation; it was the Secretary for Scotland who had something in contemplation.
EARL RUSSELL: Lord Camperdown cannot quite seriously have considered what he said. He stated that it was not usual to make the operation of a Bill retrospective. Does the noble Earl realise that what is proposed now that Lord Lovat's Amendment has been agreed to is that the Bill should not be operative for thirteen and a-half years from now?
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: What I said was that the Bill as it now stands conies into operation on "the first day of June, 1912," instead of at the time of its passing, and in that respect it is retrospective.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Poll of Electors on Resolutions Submitted.
2.—(1) If, in the manner hereinafter provided, a requisition demanding a poll under this Act in any area is lodged with the local authority, the local authority shall cause a poll of the electors in such area (hereinafter called "a poll") to be taken in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(2) The question to be submitted to the electors at a poll shall be the adoption in and for such area of (a) a no-change resolution, or (b) a limiting resolution, or (c) a no-licence resolution.
(3) On a poll in any area—

(a) if three-fifths at least in number of the votes recorded are in favour of a no-licence resolution, and not less than thirty per cent. of the electors for such area on the register have voted in favour thereof, such resolution shall be deemed to be carried; or if

(b) a majority of the votes recorded are in favour of a limiting resolution, and not less than thirty per cent. of the electors for such area on the register have voted in favour thereof, such resolution shall be deemed to be carried; or if

(c) a majority of the votes recorded are in favour of a no-change resolution, or if no other resolution is carried, a no-change resolution shall be deemed to be carried; and

any such resolution so carried shall come into force on the twenty-eighth day of May immediately following the taking of the poll.
(4) An elector shall not be entitled to vote for more than one of the resolutions submitted at the poll, but if a no-licence resolution be not carried,
1020
the votes recorded in favour of such resolution shall be added to those recorded in favour of the limiting resolution, and shall be deemed to have been recorded in favour thereof.
(5) Any such resolution if carried shall remain in force until the resolution is repealed or superseded as hereinafter provided.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN had on the Paper an Amendment to amend subsection (1) by omitting the words "lodged with" and inserting the words "found by." The noble Earl said: This Amendment and the one standing next in my name depend on whether or not your Lordships accept the Amendment which I have on the Paper to Clause 5, and therefore it would probably be more convenient that I should postpone the consideration of these two Amendments until after that clause has been taken.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I was hoping that I might have been able to meet the wishes of the noble Earl with regard to these two Amendments, but if he does not wish to move them there is no more to be said.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: In that case I will move them and I hope that when we get to Clause 5 the noble Earl will follow out the consequence of what he has done and accept my Amendments in gross.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, leave out ("lodged with") and insert ("found by").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Clause 5 is concerned with a great many other subjects besides the one which is now before us, and I think it well that I should explain to the House what will be the effect, taken by itself, of the Amendment now moved. By the proposal in the Bill as it stands the inspection of the register may be made by any elector, and if the requisition is defective the poll may be declared void and a forged signature or the defacing of a requisition is subject to heavy penalties. Already in the Bill we have provided against the improper use of the power of requisition. The object of the noble Earl's Amendment is to provide a method by direct enactment for ascertaining whether a requisition is duly signed. The Bill as it stands provides that the Secretary for Scotland shall be the authority to make regulations to provide for the procedure

1021
being correct. The noble Earl, as an alternative, suggests that this should be done by direct enactment and that the duty of seeing that the requisition is in order should be laid on the local authority. Under the Bill as it stands the Secretary for Scotland would have to issue regulations. Under the noble Earl's Amendment the local authority would be empowered to do it, and to that Amendment I am quite willing to agree without prejudice to anything which may happen at a later stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, after the first ("authority") insert ("to have been club signed").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to omit from subsection (2) the words "a no-change resolution," and to insert "a disinterested management resolution." The noble Lord said: This Amendment raises a large and important point of policy, and it will probably be convenient to take that point of policy and argue it on this Amendment. I am in favour of the additional option to the electors of what is known as disinterested management. There is an Amendment which follows immediately afterwards in the name of the noble Marquess on the Front Bench (Lord Salisbury) which is also in principle for disinterested management, but he proposes to make a less change in form upon the Bill than I do. As I understand his Amendment, he would put an additional option into the Schedule so that there would be four options instead of three. If your Lordships refer to the Schedule of the Bill you will find that as it stands the voter may vote for one of three alternatives. He may vote for no-change; he may vote for a reduction; or he may vote for prohibition in the particular area with which he is concerned. I have never been able to understand what the object of the no-change resolution is, and I hesitated to put a fourth option in the Schedule mainly for the reason that I thought it would introduce undue complication in the voting. Therefore the proposal in my Amendment is to change the form of the Schedule. There will still only be three options before the voter, but those three will be disinterested management, a reduction of licences, or total prohibition.
I suggest this change, that each voter shall have the power of voting for or against, and, of course, if he votes against all the three options that is equivalent to a no-change resolution. On that point the difference, while material in form, is not, I venture to suggest to the House, very great in substance. There are other points in the Amendment of the noble Marquess, Iris form of disinterested management and its details, which are very different from what I suggest. But in this preliminary explanation of the particular issue which is before the House I shall not discuss the details of the noble Marquess's Amendment, but endeavour to explain in as few and as simple words as I can the option for disinterested management which I propose to insert, and my reasons for doing it. In the discussions on this matter I hope those concerned will remember that under the Schedule in the Bill each voter would have only one vote—namely, in favour of the particular option. In my proposal he would have a vote for or against, thereby making a more distinct record of the opinions of those who vote. The form of ballot paper which I suggest is not altogether new. It is nearly the same as that proposed in a three-fold option Bill brought into the House of Commons so long ago as 1899 by Mr. Parker Smith.
I pass from questions of machinery to the merits of the proposal of disinterested management. In the first place, it is not municipalisation of the liquor trade. It has sometimes been misrepresented as being the same as that, and people have argued against it on that ground and for the reason that it would practically make the whole community, whatever their opinions are about the lawfulness or unlawfulness of drinking at all, partisans and parties to the sale of drink. The proposal I venture to put before the House avoids that danger. The public as a constituency would have no more concern with the liquor traffic than they have at the present time. All that would be done would be that a company of disinterested unselfish persons would be formed to manage the traffic which every one admits requires careful management and regulation, upon unselfish and disinterested lines, and I respectfully suggest to the House that this avoids the danger present in any individual interest in a licence that there would be undue or extravagant inducements put before customers to take more than they would

1023
otherwise desire to take. In other words, if I may repeat one suggestion I made on the Second Reading of the Bill, the interest of the community is essentially different from and opposite to the interest of the individual seller of drink. The individual licence-holder has a great temptation as a man of business, as a man who wants to make his livelihood, to sell as much as he can of the particular article in which he trades. I do not blame him; it is natural; but it is not in the interests of the community that that sale should be so pushed. If people want it, this is a free country and in my opinion they ought to have it. I will resist to the last any control over what I regard as a legitimate thing. Undue control and the prevention of getting what one desires seems to me an interference with what is legitimate freedom which is in itself indefensible. At the same time I am as anxious as anybody can be to do away with illegitimate inducements to people to take more drink than they would naturally do of their own accord.
We must assume in this matter, or at least I must for the purposes of my argument, that there will be public-houses. We are far away from the time when you can hope to prohibit them altogether. It seems to me an idle and foolish idea that you can attain to that within any measurable time. If that is so, then the best interest of the community is surely to see that they are as legitimately, as unselfishly, and as well managed as possible. The licensing authority would remain, and would regulate these disinterested management houses in the same way as it regulates ordinary public-houses. The houses would be open to the police, and there would be none of the interference with private premises which is involved in control of clubs. The locality, under my proposal, would have no direct financial interest in the amount of drink that was sold. The accounts of the company would be open to a Government audit. I am bound to say that during the last few years this idea has been gaining ground. I have received many communications from those whose opinions I value in favour of the idea. But the difficulty of bringing it into operation is very great, because unless you purchase an existing house at an extravagant price or go to the licensing authority and increase the number of houses you cannot get a footing for disinterested management. Our idea is, in
1024
cases where the people are willing that the experiment should be tried, that we should substitute this class of management for—using, I hope, not an undue term of reproach—the selfish management which now exists. It has support from the Minority Report of the Peel Commission, and it has the support of a Committee of your Lordships' House so long ago as 1879. I will not quote the words, because I do not wish to weary the House by so doing. After all, what is proposed is only an option, and I think I may appeal in the presence of the Government to a most notable memorial presented to the Prime Minister from Scotland a week or two ago, to which there were thousands of signatures of some of the most respected men all over Scotland, in favour of having this Amendment inserted in the Bill.
Now, my Lords, I touch upon another point as to which there may be a certain amount of controversy. In my opinion to give this scheme a fair chance you must, in the district in which it is established, give it a practical monopoly. I do not say that you must give it a monopoly as opposed to hotels and restaurants, which cater for a different class of custom, but I do think if it is to have a fair chance it must have a monopoly in the area of retail sale over the counter of ordinary spirits and spirituous liquors. I point out also that it would extinguish—and here is another controversial point—what are known as grocers' licences. There are more of these licences in proportion to the population in Scotland than anywhere else, and I am bound to say that I regard grocers' licences as one of the most pernicious forms of licences. I see no reason why the grocer should sell spirits any more than the butcher or the baker, and from what I hear the sale of spirits by grocers, in the means afforded to women secretly to get these things to a greater extent than they ought to have them, has been productive of a great deal of evil. Therefore it is one of the advantages to my mind that if we could establish this form of disinterested management of public-houses it would put an end in a large measure to one of the worst aspects of the grocers' licence.
I again touch upon a point of controversy. If disinterested management is to be brought in after the period, whenever it is, when total prohibition is enacted,

1025
then I can see no reason why the disinterested management people should have to pay compensation. If, on the other hand, the suggestion which I ventured to make a few moments ago was to bear fruit, and there was to be an option given for a reduction of licences at a less distant period than for total prohibition, and if there was also an option at the same time to bring in disinterested management, I cannot myself see any reason why those who become responsible for disinterested management houses, or disinterested management companies, should not pay their fair quota of compensation to those whom they dispossess. In that matter, however, I speak for myself, and I merely say that because I want to make a real effort to convince the House that I want to be as fair as possible to all the interests concerned. There are details involved as to certificates and the keeping of accounts, the control which the Government, through the Secretary for Scotland or otherwise, would have to exercise, and other matters that do not touch upon at this moment because I am not now moving that Amendment. The question we have to debate on this occasion is whether or not we are to have a disinterested management option in the Schedule, and, if so, in what way it is to be inserted. I am perfectly aware that it is a controversial point, but I am bound to say on the whole, having regard to the balance of opinion, that it seems to me the time has come when the country should be given a real opportunity of saying whether they will accept this proposal. If they want it they can have it under my proposal; if they do not want it, then they will not vote for it. I cannot see that any interest is harmed by the proposal I make, and I am sanguine enough to believe that this is the one hope of rapid temperance reform in the real sense.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line, 11 and 15, leave out ("a no-change resolution") and insert ("a disinterested management resolution").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I was anxious, if your Lordships are going to discuss on this Amendment and at once the whole system of disinterested management, that the various schemes which have been put before the House on the Order Paper should be submitted to your Lordships, and that we should discuss the matter as
1026
a whole. That seems to me a much more desirable course than taking the single Amendment of the noble Lord opposite and discussing it. In those circumstances it would probably be more convenient to your Lordships if we now listened to the arguments in support of the other Amendment in favour of disinterested management.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There seems to me to be an extraordinary reluctance on the part of His Majesty's Government to commit themselves to anything. It appears to me an astonishing way for the noble Earl to treat your Lordships' House, that on every Amendment he stands back and waits for others to indicate to him the line that ought to be taken. Everybody must admit that my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh moved his Amendment with the greatest moderation with a desire to provoke a perfectly temperate and non-controversial discussion, and with a view to helping His Majesty's Government to pass a good Bill. My noble friend laid a good many facts before your Lordships and appealed to many authorities, and he did not, as far as I made out, desire in any way to make a controversial speech. But for some reason or other the noble Earl in charge of the Bill prefers to reserve himself for a later moment. With most of what my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh said he knows very well that I agree. He knows that I and those who sit on this Bench beside me are also believers in disinterested management, and as far as I know none of us have ever said anything inconsistent with that view. We believe that the time has come when the effort which has been made for many years towards disinterested management in a spasmodic sort of way should receive a more official sanction, and we hope that before this Bill passes into law an Amendment in that direction may be inserted.
I do not think that your Lordships would wish me to repeat the arguments of my noble friend, because I should only say far less efficiently what he has just stated, and there is no reason why I should repeat it. I desire, therefore, in one sentence to associate myself with most of what my noble friend has said. But when we come to the precise proposal which he has made I see considerable difficulties, and we have thought it right to put another

1027
proposal before your Lordships' House. In the first place, I do not think my noble friend's Amendment, if he will allow me to say so, errs on the side of simplicity. It is very elaborate, and it makes a radical change in the drafting of the Bill. I think that is unnecessary. No one will accuse me of being too respectful to the Bills of His Majesty's Government, but I do not think it is necessary that we should make changes unless they are changes of really considerable importance, and many of my noble friend's changes seem to me to be not really necessary, although he may think them advisable for the object he has in view. I take, for example, his method of voting in his Schedule. He thinks that he would get a truer picture of the popular view by means of his Schedule, but I confess that if I were an elector presented with his Schedule I should feel a great deal of difficulty as to what the result of my voting would be. I do not profess to be particularly intelligent, but I dare say I am as intelligent as many electors are, and I should find great difficulty in that respect. Every elector is to have six votes, for or against any one of the three propositions. [Several noble LORDS: Three votes.] No; he has six alternatives which lie may adopt, with three votes. That is an accurate way of putting it, I think. I confess I should not be at all sure what the result would be if I voted with a voting paper of that kind. If, for example, I vote "Aye" in favour of a limiting resolution and there were no limiting resolution, I have no idea what the result of that would be. [A noble LORD: A spoilt paper.] Why should it be a spoilt paper? The Bill says that every elector must indicate his vote by placing a cross opposite the resolution for which he votes, but no elector may place more than one cross opposite any one resolution. I do not propose to put more than one cross opposite any one resolution. I propose to put one cross opposite the limiting resolution, and one opposite the no-change resolution, both for. What is the effect of that? I may be very stupid, but I confess I do not understand it.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: It seems to me the effect is perfectly clear. When the votes are counted those resolutions which get a majority of the votes will be carried into effect, and those which have not a majority will not be carried into effect.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But as you may vote in all three cases it seems to me that the elector who would have to choose where he would put his crosses would be placed in a position of very great difficulty. And let me say this. If, after considerable discussion in this House, we did arrive at what actually would take place that really is not sufficient. You have to have something which is quite clear to the elector, and unless the thing is perfectly simple and clear for him to understand I submit that in this, after all, very small matter of machinery my noble friend's Amendment is not well drawn. I rather gathered from him—I am sure I do not desire to misinterpret him for a moment—that he is quite open to accept the other form of voting, namely, the voting which I suggest—that there should be four options, and in the ordinary way the elector should be asked to vote for any single one of the four he desires, and that that should be the only alternative open to him. That seems a simple matter. My first reason, therefore, for not quite agreeing with my noble friend is that I think his Amendment is too complicated.
I think that in other respects my noble friend's proposal goes a little too far—not too far, let me say, in the case of new licences. With regard to all licences granted after the passing of the Act I think he and I are absolutely agreed that where the electors have chosen the disinterested management option all new licences should be granted subject to disinterested management. That is a very large measure of agreement. In all growing neighbourhoods where this option is adopted henceforward every new licence would be granted subject to the condition of disinterested management. That seems to me a very important point upon which we are entirely agreed.
Now I come to deal with the much more difficult question of the existing certificates, as I ought to call them, in respect to Scotland. What ought to be done in the case of existing certificates? In the first place, I am not quite sure whether my noble friend and I are agreed or not as to whether the authorised companies should be called upon to make any payment. I think I gathered from my noble friend that lie was not averse to asking them to make a certain payment. If that be so, that is another point of agreement between

1029
us, because in my Amendment, differing in that respect from the Amendment of my noble friend, I provide that the disinterested companies should be asked to pay what they reasonably can pay for the privilege—I use "privilege" in its technical sense—of having a sort of monopoly, a limited monopoly as I shall show in a moment, for the sale of intoxicating liquors. Why should they not pay? I think they ought to pay. Let them get the proper interest on the money of the shareholders, the 4 per cent. with regard to which both he and I are agreed. Let them have a sufficient sum of money laid by in order to make a proper reserve fund—that is provided for in both Amendments. But after that it seems only reasonable that they should pay something out of the surplus profits which they earn towards carrying into effect this Act. Not only is it fair in itself, but it would mitigate to some extent the necessary susceptibilities of the dispossessed publican. After all whatever view we may have in this House and in Parliament generally of the proper treatment of publicans, Ave must allow that the publican is entitled to a certain feeling of grievance at being thrown out of his means of livelihood by the operation of this Bill. Personally I think he has got a very strong grievance, and I think all of your Lordships will agree that it is very natural that he should feel a certain amount of irritation at his fate. I think he would feel that it was only reasonable, if he is to be dispossessed, that out of their surplus profits his supplanters—for that is the sort of word he would use—should pay something towards mitigating the blow. There should be some relief granted to him by those who are going to take his place out of the profits which they are going to make from his business, but I do not propose that they should be asked to pay anything unduly. I am quite aware that the disinterested management people will not make so good a business of it as the dispossessed publican. Obviously they will not. It is for that very reason that we want to put this disinterested management in—namely, in order that they shall not press the trade in the way in which the publican naturally, from his point of view, does press the trade. But still they can pay something, and there is no reason in the world why they should not pay something towards mitigating what must be to the dispossessed publican a serious grievance. Upon that there is no very
1030
great difference between me and my noble friend, although he does not provide for it in his Amendment and I do provide for it in mine.
Then comes the question of whether the option is to involve an absolute monopoly, or only a limited monopoly, of a restricted trade. My noble friend says it must be all or nothing. I confess I rather shrink from so extreme a course. I do not think it is likely to be very successful, or to recommend itself to a great body of reasonable men, for, after all, we know very little as to the financial success of these disinterested management companies. They have been in existence a long time and have had a certain amount of success in England, but I do not think any of your Lordships, except one or two noble friends of mine that I see here who have a special knowledge of the subject, are in a position to say for certain that any of these disinterested companies are an assured success. I hear a noble friend of mine say that in one county in England they are a failure. At any rate, they are upon their trial, and I think when a movement is in that position it is not reasonable to say to the electors of a particular locality, "You are in favour of disinterested management, but you do not know much about the companies who offer to give you disinterested management; you do not know much about their financial success or their management success; but if you choose disinterested management at all you must have all or nothing." Surely that is not a proposition which is likely to commend itself to any body of our countrymen, whether they live North or South of the Tweed. They are almost certain to say in the great majority of cases, "We cannot take so extreme a course as that; we shall be very glad to see this experiment of disinterested management tried; we shall be glad to give it official sanction and give it the power of the law behind it in order to bring it into being; but if we are to say straight off that we will abolish every other means for the provision of this necessary refreshment except such as can be obtained by disinterested management, without knowing anything about the subject, then you will not get it at all." If you try to press it intemperately and drive it, as it were, down the throats of the people you will not get it in that way. Therefore I suggest that it is a far wiser thing, wiser in the interests of the movement itself, to allow it to be

1031
tentative. What is the objection to that The objection, so far as I know, is this, that those who are in favour of the extreme form of my noble friend's Amendment are not willing to trust the licensing authority to strike the particular line to the extent to which the experiment ought to be carried. Why should you not trust them? Do you distrust the licensing authority as a matter of fact? I ask noble Lords from Scotland, do they distrust the licensing authority there? Have they found that those authorities are unwilling to interpret what is the public opinion in Scotland? I feel a certain diffidence in speaking on Scottish matters because I have no immediate acquaintance with Scotland, although I have a profound respect for that country, but I believe it to be true that the licensing authority there is already more or less a popular body. A large part of it is subject to direct or indirect election.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The noble Marquess will excuse my saying that in some burghs the licensing authority is entirely in the hands of the justices of the peace. In those burghs in which licensing is in the hands of the town council the town council are, of course, elected, and they appoint the bailies. The bailies are the equivalent of justices of the peace, so to speak, Although the licensing authority is to a certain extent popularly elected there is the intervening secondary election, for the council elects the bailies.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am quite aware that there is the element of secondary election, but in respect to this Bill the burghs are much more important than the counties. No doubt it is in the burghs that the evils which this Bill is directed against mostly exist, and no doubt the licensing authority there is subject more or less to the wishes of public opinion. Would it not be a perfectly reasonable system that you should submit an option to the locality so that the electors may determine whether they wish to have this experiment tried or not, and then the precise details of the extent to which the experiment should be tried should be left in the hands of the licensing authority? That appears to me to be a perfectly reasonable system. I think I have said enough to show both the points where my Amendment agrees with my noble friend's and where it differs. My Amendment is a
1032
much more tentative Amendment than that of my noble friend, and I think it is likely to be much more successful. Moreover, it is much fairer, for I provide the payment of money which his Amendment does not provide. Lastly, it is much simpler. On those three grounds—that it is more likely to be successful and that it is fairer and simpler—I recommend it with great diffidence to your Lordships' House as a suitable alternative to the Amendment of my noble friend.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, your Lordships are now in possession of the arguments in support of the two alternative proposals which have been placed on the Order Paper for the purpose of introducing the principle of disinterested management into this Bill—the proposal of my noble friend Lord Balfour and that of my- noble friend on the Front Opposition Bench, Lord Salisbury. As I have for many years taken a deep and active interest in the application of the principle of disinterested management under very limited conditions to the public-houses in this country I desire to say one word to the House upon this question. There are really two points raised by the Amendment we are now discussing—the question of the principle of disinterested management as a method of controlling the liquor trade, and the question of how, if we approve that principle, it should be applied and introduced into this Bill. I do not think it necessary to say very much about the principle, because so far as this debate has gone there seems to be very general agreement that the principle of disinterested management has a great deal to recommend it.
But at the same time as it is a new principle which has never yet been introduced into the laws of this country and into our official licensing system I should like to say one word in passing about the main principle. Our opinions as to the merits and demerits of that principle depend upon what we look to the principle to do for us, because if it is supposed by anybody that the introduction of the principle of disinterested management is going effectively to reduce and abolish all drunkenness it is quite obvious that those expectations will be disappointed, and if we look to the countries in which this principle has been adopted we should be bound to confess that the principle has been a hopeless

1033
failure. But the fact is that this principle has never been introduced with that object, and it is no more possible for the principle of disinterested management to abolish drunkenness than it is to abolish drunkenness by any other administrative machinery. So long as human weaknesses and appetites are what they are to-day you will never be able to abolish drunkenness by administrative machinery. The only thing claimed for disinterested management is that it is a better system for controlling the liquor trade than that of the licensing of private individuals which we have in the country to-day. From that point of view I claim that it has been an unqualified success in the only countries in which it has really been carried out.
My noble friend who spoke just now said we knew very little about this principle of disinterested management. It is quite true that in this country we know very little about it because it has never been really completely established. Thanks to the wisdom and energy and enthusiasm of Lord Grey and of the Bishop of Chester and others who introduced the principle into this country under what we know as Trust public-houses it has been tried partially in scattered districts and under very hampering conditions. But in order to see how the principle works one must look to the country in which it has been applied without those hampering conditions and on a general scale. Therefore if we turn to Norway and Sweden, the home of this principle—the only countries in which it has been fully applied—I claim that in those countries it has been universally accepted as a better alternative method of controlling the retail liquor sale than the licensing of private individuals which we have in this country to-day and which existed in Norway and Sweden before the principle of disinterested management was introduced. In Norway and Sweden there are temperance societies, the Good Templars, the Rechabites, and other societies, the members of which believe in the total prohibition of the sale of liquor and look forward to that as the ultimate ideal of any temperance policy. They hold, in fact, precisely the same views on the question of temperance as do the Good Templars and Rechabites in this country, and yet all the members of those societies in Norway and Sweden, although they would certainly wish to abolish the disinterested management companies because
1034
they would like to abolish all facilities for obtaining liquor upon licensed premises, although they are opposed to the disinterested management system in that sense, they are all agreed in preferring it to the system which prevailed beforehand, and you will not find one of those societies who would be in favour of doing away with the system of controlling the trade through disinterested management companies and going back to the old system of private licensing. I claim, therefore, that in those countries where it has been tried, whatever may be the differences of opinion as to its merits as a final measure of temperance reform, by universal consent it is admitted that this system is preferable to one of private licensing such as we have in this country.
Since this method has come to occupy a recognised place in the policy of temperance reform I hold that it is desirable that it should be introduced as one of the options given in this Bill. It is a recognised system in the policy of temperance reform. This Bill is a Local Option Bill; it professes to give to the locality the right of settling for itself by the voles of the majority in what way the liquor trade in that locality shall be controlled; and I say, when speaking of local option and giving to the locality the right of controlling the liquor traffic themselves, to refuse the right of trying this experiment which has been carried out with success in other parts of the world and which has been carried out in a less degree in this country—to talk of local option and to deny that particular form of local option is simply to misuse language. Whatever our opinions may be as to whether this is a good or bad system we ought, I think, to be agreed that if you are to have local option at all the locality ought to have the right of voting for this particular form of management of the liquor trade.
Now I come to the machinery whereby, if we agree to the principle, it can be incorporated in this Bill. There are two proposals—those of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh and my noble friend Lord Salisbury. They differ in two respects. They differ partly in the form of ballot paper by which the electors are to introduce the principle. I pass by that for a moment, because, after all, it is a matter of machinery, and I do not think that the change in the ballot paper made

1035
by Lord Balfour's Amendment is at all an essential part of his Amendment. The other difference is this, that by Lord Balfour's Amendment the principle of disinterested management will be made a real option—that is to say, the locality shall have the right of voting for or against this particular principle, but if they vote in favour of it then it shall be applied to the licences in the district just as a no-licence resolution will be applied to all the licences in the district covered by the machinery of the Bill. But my noble friend Lord Salisbury's Amendment provides that if a locality votes in favour of the principle of disinterested management then it shall be left to the Licensing Court to put that resolution into operation according to its own discretion and to the extent which it thinks desirable. In other words, if a disinterested management resolution were carried at a poll the only result which might happen would be that the Licensing Court would apply the principle of disinterested management to one public-house in the district.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It might apply it to all.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: Quite so; it might, of course, apply it to all. My noble friend says that our objection to his form of Amendment is due to the fact that we do not trust the Licensing Court to exercise its discretion as to the extent to which this principle should be put into operation. My objection goes very much further than that. I object to it in the first instance because it is wholly inconsistent with the principle of local option. Local option may be a good thing or a bad thing, but it is the principle of this Bill, and I think it is wholly inconsistent with the principle of the Bill to give the locality a vote unless that vote is thereby going to be carried into operation if cast in a certain direction. My further objection to it is that it is impossible, as I said just now, to carry out the principle of disinterested management effectively unless it is carried out with a monopoly in a certain limited area. I say it is impossible to do that because at the present moment the experience of the Trust companies in England shows that many changes and alterations in the management of a particular public-house might be very desirable in the public interests or in the interests of temperance but impossible to be carried
1036
out so long as that house is conducted in competition with a number of trade houses in the immediate neighbourhood. I have in my mind at this moment a particular Trust public-house in a slum street in a small country town, and in that same street there are ten or twelve ordinary public-houses belonging to the trade. It is impossible for the Trust public-house, the disinterested management public-house, to really create any impression whatever upon the public opinion of that street or to give an adequate example of the principle of disinterested management in operation when it has to compete with these totally differing conditions, over which it has no control, in the houses immediately surrounding it. I say, therefore, it is not merely a question of the extent to which this principle should be applied.
The root objection to Lord Salisbury's Amendment is that you cannot apply disinterested management satisfactorily at all unless it is applied with a monopoly in a limited area. Then I am told, "Oh, but that is a very large order, and more than this House will be prepared to grant." I could understand that objection if we were asking at one fell swoop to place all licences in Scotland under disinterested management. But that is not what we are asking. We are merely saying that in certain country districts or in a certain burgh, after the inhabitants by a very large majority have decided in favour of this principle, it should be applied to all the licences in that district or in that burgh, and if we are to be told that that is such a large order that it cannot possibly be passed by Parliament., then I confess I despair of ever carrying any temperance reform at all which will affect the existing licensing system. To say that you cannot apply a change of this sort even in a small locality after the votes of the population have been recorded in favour of it is simply to saddle us for all time with the existing licensing system with all its evils. I contend that it is really making a very small demand upon Parliament and asking for a very small concession to say that this principle, if it is an experiment which ought to be tried, should be tried under favourable circumstances and that it should be tried in these small districts.
There are two other aspects in which I distinctly prefer the proposal of my noble friend Lord Balfour. As regards the

1037
arrangement of the ballot paper I confess that I like his arrangement for this reason, that it seems to me quite unnecessary and contrary to precedent to give people a vote in favour of maintaining the status quo. That is in effect exactly the same as if a noble Lord in this House were to move as an Amendment to any Motion the direct negative. When any Amendment which is in fact a direct negative is moved we are always told, either in this House or in the other House of Parliament, that the proper way is to vote against the Motion. That is, I maintain, in a poll of this sort the proper way of declaring yourself in favour of a no-change resolution—namely, that you should vote directly against the proposed change, and I see no reason whatever for introducing the no-change option. However, that is simply a matter of machinery, and I am sure my noble friend will agree with me that it is not an essential part of his Amendment. The machinery could be carried even if that were altered awl disinterested management were introduced as a fourth option instead of as a third.
I object to the limiting proposal contained in my noble friend Lord Salisbury's Amendment because in my opinion it does not really give us anything more than we have to-day. It is quite open to any Licensing Court at the present time, if a Trust company were to come forward and offer compensation to the dispossessed publican, to take away an existing licence and give it to the disinterested management company. So far as new licences are concerned, of course both Amendments are of precisely the same character; but in so far as concerns existing licences and the machinery for transferring the existing licensing system to one under disinterested management, I see in the Amendment of my noble friend very little advantage that would be gained over the existing powers possessed by the Licensing Court. Lastly, there is a matter of detail which I think has not yet been touched upon and which constitutes a difference between the two Amendments. It is that under Lord Balfour's proposals the surplus profits of the disinterested management company are to be devoted to a national fund, whereas under Lord Salisbury's proposals they are to be spent for the benefit of the locality in accordance with a scheme approved by the county council or the town council. In the evolution of this
1038
question of disinterested management it has come to be an accepted fact that the surplus profits of the disinterested management company ought to be devoted to a national fund and spent upon public interests generally, and should not be spent in promoting the interests of the locality from which the funds are derived. When the Gothenburg system, which, after all, is the basis of what we are discussing to-night, was first introduced into Sweden the principle of Lord Salisbury's Amendment was first accepted, but when the neighbouring country of Norway adopted the system some years later they, profiting by the experience in Sweden, were careful not to devote the surplus profits to be expended in the locality, and at the present moment Sweden is trying to alter her laws, so that the surplus profits from the disinterested management companies should go to a central fund and not be spent upon the locality in which they are earned. Though I welcome most heartily the principle of disinterested management and should be glad to see it placed on the Statute-book in some form or another, I do think it would be very unfortunate if, when we are introducing this principle for the first time, we should ignore all the experience of those who have preceded us and should deliberately make the mistakes which, if we had regarded that experience, we should have been able to avoid. For these reasons I shall certainly support the proposals made by my noble friend Lord Balfour, and I hope that they will be accepted by your Lordships' House.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: In view of the invitation which was addressed to me earlier in the evening by the noble Marquess opposite I feel that I should not delay any longer in explaining to your Lordships what the views of His Majesty's Government on this question are. I am quite sure that all noble Lords on both sides of the House are perfectly prepared to do homage to the idea of disinterested management. Where the difficulty comes in is with regard to putting a particular scheme into the Bill, for that is now the question before this House—as to whether or no a particular scheme should be put into this Bill. The point of difference was well expressed at the beginning of his speech by the noble Earl who has just sat down when he said that in his opinion, in view of the fact that this was a Local Option Bill, it was the duty of the Government

1039
to give the option to have a disinterested management system whether it was a good system or whether it was a bad one. That is the point where we join issue. We would be ready to say that if any disinterested management scheme met the objections which we feel to the schemes which so far have been brought forward we would be very willing to consider it, but we believe that when you come down to the practical working of the schemes there are so many objections to those which are put forward that it is not practical to put any particular scheme into a Bill of this kind. That is illustrated by what has taken place in the course of the debate to-night. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, spoke in favour of his system. Then the noble Marquess opposite, having criticised the system of the noble Lord who had preceded him, propounded a scheme of his own. The noble Earl who has just sat down criticised severely the scheme of the noble Marquess, and I have no doubt that to-morrow we shall hear from the noble Earl who sits on the Cross Benches (Earl Grey) a criticism as severe of the scheme of the noble Marquess.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I may say I supported the scheme of Lord Balfour.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I quite agree. I do not think that I said the noble Earl did not. But, on the other hand, what we shall get probably to-morrow will be further speeches which will support the scheme of the noble Marquess while criticising the scheme of the noble Lord. The fact is, there are to both of the systems which have been proposed objections so strong that we do not see our way to agree to put either one or the other in this Bill. Really I think it narrows itself down almost to the question of the monopoly. The noble Earl spoke strongly, as other gentlemen who support the scheme of disinterested management speak strongly, upon the immense importance of having a monopoly. Without the monopoly they do not think that the scheme will be a success. It is against the monopoly scheme that the noble Marquess opposite brings most of his objections, and in view of that great difficulty, which meets one almost at the outset of this question, I think your Lordships will find it very difficult to agree upon either the one scheme or the other.
1040
But first of all let me say something upon the question of voting, because at the present moment we are discussing a great deal more than the actual question of disinterested management. With regard to the method of voting suggested by the noble Lord, although I do not suppose he would consider that to be the really vital point in his Amendment, there is one curious fact that I do not think lie himself can have noticed—that is, that under his Amendment it is possible for a minority of votes to carry a resolution, in a way which I will presently explain to him and I will give the figures which will illustrate that point. I think we all agree that it is very difficult to tell, as the noble Marquess opposite said, what would be the exact result of the system of voting which the noble Lord proposes. Let me illustrate what might happen. It might happen in multiples of 100, but for the sake of convenience I will take 100 votes. There will be the three alternatives put before the voters. They will be able, if they so wish, to vote for disinterested management, or for a limiting resolution, or for no licence at all. It is conceivable that the majority of those 100 people would be against any alteration at all; they would be what we may, for the sake of a label, call in favour of the trade, but they would not necessarily vote in the same numbers against each resolution. Some would vote for one and some against the other, but we might have this result that 55 would vote against disinterested management, 60 would vote against a limiting resolution, and 58 would vote against the prohibition resolution. But, on the other hand, you might have 45 people voting for disinterested management, 40 for the limiting resolution, and 42 for total prohibition. Now your Lord ships will see that in a subsequent Amendment Lord Balfour of Burleigh proposes to enact that "The resolution which has the highest number of votes cast in its favour shall be deemed to be carried, provided as follows," and so on. But your Lordships will see that in these circumstances the disinterested management resolution would be carried although only 45 people had voted in favour of it and 55 people voted against it. That hardly, I think, can be considered a very satisfactory method of voting; but I quite agree that the noble Lord would, if he were pressed, probably find some other way of securing the opinion of the people upon his resolution.

1041
This is not really the important point, or the point upon which your Lordships will divide. The real point will be how far a practical scheme of disinterested management can really be put into the Bill. We have already had, on the Second Reading of the Bill, some mention of the disinterested management scheme, and two objections were pointed out even at that early stage to anything of the kind. One was the point of the monopoly and the other was the question of finance. Let us take first of all the scheme of the noble Lord, the scheme for which a large number of resolutions have been passed in various places in Scotland. If the noble Lord will allow me to say so, I think they generally have been passed in favour of the principle rather than in favour of any one particular scheme. There is, indeed, a violent expression of opinion, which has probably reached all your Lordships, with regard to the Amendment of Lord Balfour of Burleigh. It was an expression of opinion which appeared in the Morning Advertiser on November 14 last. That journal said—
"There is one set of Amendments standing in the name of Lord Balfour of Burleigh which not only sins by accepting the principle of local veto, but proposes to extend it in a manner which for cynical impudence and cold-blooded robbery exceeds anything which even the United kingdom Alliance has ever imagined, We refer to the proposals made in respect of what is called 'disinterested management. We have for our own part no sort of faith in this disinterested management. The advocacy of it proceeds on the assumption that a public-house will be better managed by a man who has no interest in the prosperity of the business than by a man whose living depends upon it. We do not believe it; and although the experiences of Public House Trust Associations may be alleged in support of the claim that disinterested management is the best, we must confess that so far as we have been able to verify them they seem to us to point to the opposite conclusion."
And towards the end there comes another sentence, the last I shall venture to quote to your Lordships, which says—
"This is rank robbery and (subject to a four per cent. investment for a favoured few) confiscation."
Then we come to the points of compensation. I confess I do not even now quite understand the position of the noble Lord, whether he thinks that compensation should be paid or should not be paid. I suspect that amongst those who support the noble Lord there are some who think that it should be, and some who think that it should not be paid.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: That is perfectly clear, I think. Compensation should not be paid if the disinterested management resolution comes into force at the end of the period—the time limit, whatever that period is. If it were to be brought into force during the time limit when you are taking away one licence and putting it into the hands of a disinterested management company, then I think compensation should be paid.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am much obliged to the noble Lord, because I did not think from the terms of the Amendment that it was perfectly clear. The point I should venture to put to the noble Lord is this. I am not sure that that would he accepted by a large number of those who are interested in the question at the present time. We can all of us understand the position of those who say that if drink is a bad thing in itself and should be reduced as much as possible, compensation is unnecessary, but it drink is to be allowed and even encouraged in another form then it is not fair to those who hitherto have been engaged in the trade not to give them compensation when you merely substitute one form of administration for another.
There are two further criticisms of the noble Lord's Amendment to which I should like to direct his attention. One is that—although I do not suppose he meant it—the form of the Amendment would, I think, sweep away hotels. The other is this. What would happen supposing there was no disinterested management company formed to carry on the scheme? The area would then become a no-licence area altogether, as I understand the noble Lord's Amendment, and there would be no liquor obtainable of any sort or kind, although the disinterested management resolution had been carried. The only way in which it would be rescued from being a no-licence area would be that a number of people interested in the drink trade would come forward in order to secure what profit they could. But that really brings one to the other criticism to which I have already referred—that is, the insecurity of the finance, which I think is one of the chief criticisms to be made of the scheme of the noble Marquess opposite. He has already heard, in a way which I am afraid must be somewhat disconcerting to him, that it is

1043
not welcome to those who are interested in disinterested management in this country, and the result of it will probably be very small indeed. It is doubtful whether under the Amendment as proposed by the noble Marquess we should have a very much larger or much more extended system of disinterested management than we have to-day. Indeed, I have seen criticism of the noble Marquess's Amendment go so far as to say that he even puts difficulties in the way of disinterested management, for this reason—that whereas it is comparatively easy for a disinterested management company to get a licence now from a Court, because there is a natural sympathy in everybody's mind with the idea of disinterested management, the noble Marquess in future wishes the system of having a poll, and a successful poll, to be gone through before there is any large extension of this disinterested management scheme.
There is, perhaps, one other point in the Amendment of the noble Marquess upon which I am not quite sure that I clearly understand his intentions. That is the point of how far it is to be compulsory. The noble Marquess, as I understand, is prepared to throw very great responsibility and power in this matter into the hands of the Court. He proposes that if a disinterested management resolution is carried the Court may, if it thinks fit, go so far as to grant a monopoly of disinterested management. I gather that that is so, although I am not quite sure; but it would also be possible for the Court to satisfy the requirement by granting disinterested management in one single case and no more. That seems to me to be directly opposite to the intention of the Bill. The Bill is to give power in this matter rather to the voters themselves, and to transfer to them the powers which are now exercised by the Licensing Court. The noble Marquess wishes, on the other hand, to go in the direction of giving the Licensing Court the power of saying that all or none, with the exception of a single licence in their area, shall be given to the people who are interested in disinterested management. That gives them very large and very great powers, and it also puts upon the Court a further and very great responsibility, because the noble Marquess asks the Court to say what they think is a reasonable compensation which should be paid.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Not what reasonable compensation should be paid, but what the disinterested management company can afford. We shall have an opportunity later of discussing the question of compensation. I did not complicate my speech by going into that, because it would hardly have been in order. We shall have an opportunity later of discussing the whole question of insurance, and on that I shall have something to say, but I should be sorry that the noble Earl should think that I am of opinion that the disinterested company will, as a matter of absolute equity and justice, be able to provide all that is due for the relief of the dispossessed publican. They can only be asked to give as much as they can afford.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: But does not that lead us to the very difficult position in which we are in England to-day with regard to licensing, that the reduction of licences is limited by the amount of money which there is at the disposal of the Court for compensation? That is the position in which t he noble Marquess, as I understand, proposes to put the Licensing Court?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I can assure the noble Earl that is not so.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The Licensing Court, as I understand from the noble Marquess, is to say what amount of compensation can be paid by the disinterested management company, and of course the amount which can be paid depends upon the amount of money which the company have got. That is exactly the position which has crippled and hindered and prevented the reduction of licences in England. It is limited by exactly the same point—that is, tire amount of the compensation fund.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should not admit for a moment that the English Act has been hampered. It has worked extremely well. The noble Earl is quite wrong in thinking that anything I have proposed or suggested would be a parallel to the English Act. I wish it were. I think that the English Act is on a much sounder basis. What we propose is that the electors and the licensing authority between them should have complete freedom of action, but in so far as the disinterested management companies can afford to pay something let them pay it.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: What the noble 3arquess has said does not shake my conviction that he is closely approaching the position in England in which the amount of compensation is limited by the amount of money available for compensation. That has affected temperance reformers in this country because they have not been able to reduce as many licences as they would like to have done, owing to there not being enough money in the compensation fund, and that is the principle which it seems to me the noble Marquess does introduce by saying in his Amendment that the compensation which is to be paid, and which, of course, is quite separate from the point of compulsory insurance, must depend on the amount of money at the disposal and in the possession of the disinterested management company.
Now let me refer to the question of how far, under the scheme of the noble Marquess, he is likely to secure that capital which is necessary for the successful working of the scheme. It was only this morning, curiously enough, that I received a letter from the liquidator of one of the noble Earl's Public-house Trust companies which had been started in Worcestershire, and which, unfortunately, had not succeeded. The consequence was a recourse to voluntary liquidation. That shows that disinterested management is not always or not necessarily successful, and if the Bill passes even with the Amendment suggested by the noble Marquess I want to point out how unlikely it is that people will come forward with money. They will have no such monopoly as that which those who are experts in disinterested management declare to be necessary. But supposing they raise a sum of £12,000—of course, these figures are purely hypothetical but it makes the position easier—and spend something like £10,000 in buying up licences and in paying compensation, while reserving £2,000 for working expenses and rent and so on. On that £12,000 they are entitled under both schemes to take 4 per cent—£480 a year. They then have to raise a reserve fund if they can, which is ultimately not to exceed the amount of their capital. But quite apart from the schemes of the noble Earl, Lord Camper-down, which we shall discuss later, and which throw very heavy burdens indeed on them, surely the position of these companies is very unsound. It is quite possible that at the end of three years a no-licence resolution may be carried.
1046
During three years these disinterested management companies will have had to raise £480 a year, and also attempt to get something like a reserve fund equal to the amount of their capital. If they do not get that within the three years there is always the possibility of a no-licence resolution being carried, which would sweep away altogether the funds of the company and leave them with no more than their £2,000 or £3,000 which they had managed to accumulate as a reserve fund with which to meet their debentures or their share capital of £12,000. It is only when you come to the practical working of a scheme of this kind that your Lordships will see how difficult it is really to get a satisfactory measure. The point of the area to which the funds are to be devoted has already been touched upon by the noble Earl below the Gangway. I think all experts in disinterested management agree with the noble Earl that the system by which the drunkard is a public benefactor of a limited area, the local area, is thoroughly unsound. That is the scheme of the noble Marquess—that the man who drinks most contributes most to the benefit of his immediate locality.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That may be the best thing he has done in his life.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I agree it may be the best thing he has ever done, but it does not seem to me the best principle on which to go. I have purposely abstained from referring to the further burdens which will be put upon the disinterested management companies by Lord Camperdown's later Amendment, although it seemed to me to be of a very serious kind and to go far towards making the scheme of the noble Marquess opposite one which is unlikely to meet with success. I can only end by repeating that there is really little except the practical difficulty of a good scheme being formed which prevents His Majesty's Government from agreeing to an Amendment being put into the Bill dealing with this subject. Meanwhile we must confine ourselves to the point of hoping that the disinterested management companies may, under a voluntary system and without being brought into a State system, meet with more success in the future than has been the case in the past or is likely to be the case if either of the schemes suggested by the noble Lords opposite is put into this Bill.
LORD LAMINGTON: The criticism of the noble Earl opposite has been directed rather against the Amendment of the noble Marquess on the Front Bench than against the Amendment of Lord Balfour of Burleigh. As I understood, at the commencement of his criticism he based his opposition to disinterested management chiefly on the ground of the difficulty about the monopolistic basis. On that point I think the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who laid it down as almost a necessity that disinterested management should have a monopoly in any given district, was unduly pessimistic in this respect. Public-house Trusts have been carried on successfully, and I cannot see why it should not be possible under the terms of this Bill for disinterested management to be likewise successful. There are several Public-house Trust companies established in Scotland, with one of which I am connected. The noble Marquess was rather dubious as to the success that had attended their operations so far. I can say, in the case of every Trust, that they have either accumulated reserves or else given very fair sums to specific objects in their respective districts. Again, the object of the Trusts—the promoting of the sale of food rather than that of liquor—has been eminently successful, because whereas, to start with, they obtained very little revenue from the sale of food, the revenue from the sale of food now amounts to about 33 per cent. of their total sales. Lord Lytton criticised the suggestion of having a limited number of disinterested management houses. He said that it would prove a failure if you went on that system. But it is not only the Trust
1048
house itself that does a great deal for the promotion of temperance; it has such an influence on the other houses in the neighbourhood that they have to conform as much as they can to the system of management which has been adopted by the. Trust public-house. I mean they have to enlarge their premises and give facilities for eating so as to be able to compete with the Trust houses. Lord Lytton denied that there was any successful competition on the part of these Trust public-houses. I can only say that Scottish experience is distinctly the opposite. I agree with Lord Lytton in saying that any fund to be given to public purposes should be applied to national objects, and not for the benefit of the immediate locality in which the profits arise; otherwise it is likely that what has been found to be the case in Sweden would happen in this country, that people who were inclined to drink would think they were benefiting their immediate locality by the consumption of liquor. I therefore heartily support the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Balfour, on the distinct understanding that any surplus funds that are accumulated shall be given for national and not for local purposes.
House resumed, and to be again in Committee To-morrow.

LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 172.)
House adjourned at five minutes before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.