Sitting of 27 November 1912

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

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
Petitions were presented praying the House not to pass into law the Established Church (Wales) Bill by
Lord Claud Hamilton, (petitions) from South Kensington containing 4,700 signatures.
Mr. Gervase Beckett, (79 petitions) from the Whitby Division, Scarborough, Middlesbrough, Stockton and the Cleveland Division containing 21,870 signatures.
Mr. Mills, (23 petitions) from the Uxbridge Division of Middlesex containing 7,729 signatures.
Sir Charles Hunter, (62 petitions) (3) from the City of Bath and (59) from Somersetshire Division containing 11,352 signatures.
Mr. Neville, (23 petitions) from the Borough of Wigan and the Prestwich Division of Lancashire containing 7.920 signatures.
Mr. Middlemore, (petitions) from North Birmingham containing 1,236 signatures.
Mr. Pretyman, (44 petitions) from Mid-Essex and from the Borough of Chelmsford containing 9,439 signatures.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the county borough of Preston, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending the provisions of Section 4 of The Shops Act, 1912, to certain classes of Shops [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the city of Bradford, 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.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations, dated 27th November 1912, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, entitled the National Health Insurance (Time for joining an Approved Society) Regulations (No. 2), 1912 [by-Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 377.]
POST OFFICE TELEGRAPHS AND TELEPHONES.
Account presented showing the gross amount received and expended on account of the Telegraph Service during the year ended 31st March 1912, etc. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 378.]
PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
Fourth Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to Amendments to Great Central Railway (Grimsby Fish Dock) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ROYAL NAVY.

    COLONIAL BATTLESHIPS.
    Mr. FELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, if he will state what men-of-war for the defence of the Empire have been built, or are building, or have been promised, during the last four years by New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Canada, and the Malay Slates; and if all these ships are and will be in addition to those voted by Parliament and in addition to the shipbuilding programme deemed sufficient by the Admiralty?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): The particulars asked for are as follows:—
    New Zealand.
    One battle cruiser nearing completion for the Royal Navy.
    Australia.
    One battle cruiser and two second class protected cruisers nearing completion, one second class protected cruiser building, three destroyers in commission, and two submarines building—all for the Royal Australian Navy.
    South Africa and Canada.
    Nil: but the "Niobe" and "Rainbow" have been purchased by Canada.
    Malay States.
    One armoured ship for the Royal Navy, recently offered and accepted.
    None of these vessels affect the forecasts of new construction given by me to the House in March last.
    Mr. FELL: May I ask if, whatever the power standard now is, this is to be clearly in addition to that power standard?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have dealt with that in the last part of my answer.
    Mr. LEE: This is a matter on which we might be clear. Is it the intention with regard to the Malay armoured ship that it is to be in addition to the programme announced in July last year?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: In March last I gave a forecast of the figures of construction which we thought necessary, and I see no reason to modify that at the present time. The Malay ship is in addition to that forecast.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the "New Zealand" being completed as quickly as was expected?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir, and considerably faster. She will be completed and on her voyage to New Zealand long before the time she was expected to be ready. She is practically ready to be placed in commission at the present time.

    NAVAL CONTRIBUTION (INDIA).
    Mr. FELLasked if the £203,000contributed by India towards the cost of the squadron of ships maintained in the Indian seas by the Government represents the anything towards the interest on the cost of the ships and the cost of their yearly depreciation?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: His Majesty's East Indies Squadron includes two ships specially detailed in connection with the suppression of the arms traffic in the Persian
    1242
    Gulf. The cost of maintaining the whole squadron, allowing a charge for depreciation, is approximately £393,000, towards which amount the repayment from the Government of India is estimated at £167,500 for the year 1912–13. A balance of about £225,000 thus remains chargeable to Navy Votes for special, apart from general, Naval services rendered to India. The amount of £208,000 referred to by the hon. Member relates to the repayment for the year 1911–12.
    Mr. FELL: Is this sum contributed by India to be considered an equivalent to the annual contribution made by various parts of the Empire towards the general upkeep of the Navy?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not look at it in that way. I look on it in the light of payment for services rendered.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is India's contribution towards the Army not so large as to more than counterbalance—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The First Lord of the Admiralty cannot answer for the Army.

    TRIPLE ALLIANCE "DREADNOUGHTS."
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether, if the additional German ship is laid down in 1913, the Triple Alliance will in 1914 possess forty-five "Dreadnoughts" against Great Britain's forty-eight?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Member appears to have included in his figures all ships, built, building, or projected, during 1914–15. As no official programmes have been issued by Italy or Austria-Hungary, there are no trustworthy figures available for these countries, and it is therefore impossible to check the accuracy of the forecast.
    Sir J. D. REES: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to believe it is approximately correct?

    AIRSHIPS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether we have any airship equivalent in size and power to a Zeppelin or any airship capable of travelling at the rate of sixty miles an hour?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Arising out of that effective "No, Sir," will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how fast our airships can go?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked how many aeroplanes belonging to the Navy are capable of a speed of seventy miles per hour; and how many naval pilots can fly over the sea or across country at the speed?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not in the public interest to give the information asked for in the first part of the question. With regard to the second part, I am happy to say that we have many naval flyers who can fly over the sea or across country at speeds approaching seventy miles per hour and upwards.
    Mr. EYRES-MONSELLasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he has received any report, official or unofficial, of an unidentified airship passing over the Island of Sheppey during the hours of darkness within the last month?
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether the airship that passed over Sheerness on the 14th October was an English one?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I caused inquiries to be made and have ascertained that an unknown aircraft was heard over Sheerness about 7 p.m. on the evening of 14th October. Flares were lighted at Eastchurch, but the aircraft did not make a landing. There is nothing in the evidence to indicate the nationality of the aircraft.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman know where our own airships were on that night?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I know that it was not one of our own airships.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Were the flares lighted in order that our own airship should know where to alight?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: They were lighted in case they might give assistance to aerial travellers in difficulties.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: To foreign ones?
    Mr. KING: Was this an airship or an aeroplane? Has that been decided?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I cannot say which it was. I do not know.
    Mr. KING: Which do you think it was?
    Mr. CROOKS: Was it anything?
    Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: Was not the sound of a motor distinctly heard at the
    1244
    time, and lights seen, which are not carried by aeroplanes?
    Mr. EYRES-MONSELLasked the right hon. Gentleman (1) whether he proposes to use aeroplanes with the view of preventing an airship from proceeding to London or elsewhere; (2) what will be the relative position of Great Britain and Germany with regard to fighting airships (rigid) at the end of 1912, 1914, and 1915; and (3) whether it is the policy of the Admiralty to employ non-rigid airships for engaging rigid airships?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that Germany has the following rigid airships:

    1 naval.

    1 military.

    2 passenger.

    1 experimental.

    There is no doubt that in this branch of aeronautics Germany has won a great preeminence. As to the lighting value of such vessels when compared to aeroplanes, opinions differ and experience is lacking. This also applies to the question of engaging rigid with non-rigid airships. I do not wish to make any statement at present on Admiralty policy, but the whole subject is receiving the attention which its undoubted importance demands.
    Mr. EYRES-MONSELLasked what is the comparative size, tons, speed, endurance, armament, and wireless equipment of the latest British naval airship and the latest German naval airship; and what time would be required to complete four rigid airships for the British Navy?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not desirable to publish the details asked for of the latest British airships. It is sufficient to say that they are at present mainly in the experimental stage. The Admiralty has no official information about the dimensions of the latest German naval airship. A rigid airship takes about eighteen months to construct.
    Colonel WARDEasked whether our dockyards and repairing docks are provided with searchlights and howitzers capable of repelling aerial night attacks?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I see no advantage in discussing such a subject, the importance of which is naturally recognised by the Admiralty.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether the Defence Committee has considered the effect upon the defences the

    1245
    country of the development of aeroplanes and airships; and, if so, whether, in their opinion, we have a sufficient number of aircraft of both descriptions?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the policy recommended by the Committee of Imperial Defence was explained by the Secretary of State for War on the introduction of the Army Estimates. That policy is being carried into effect. The Air Committee, which is a permanent Subcommittee of the Committee of Imperial Defence, of which the Secretary of State for War is Chairman, keeps the question of aerial navigation constantly under review.

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can say how many petitions have been presented from the Royal dockyards to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty during the last three years; how many of these have been granted and how many have not been acceded to; whether he is aware that this method of petitioning the Lords Commissioners is regarded by many workers in the Royal dockyards as a way of postponement rather than consideration; and whether he can devise some other method by which men employed in the Royal dockyards can bring their grievances to the notice of the Admiralty, with a view of their requests being more promptly dealt with than in existing circumstances appears possible?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): To give the particulars asked for by the hon. Member would involve a great deal of labour. Further, such particulars would have but little practical value, inasmuch as many of the petitions contain a number of separate requests, many are repetitions year by year of the same requests, and many repeat the same requests on behalf of different classes of workmen. The number of separate requests and complaints, including repetitions, dealt with in the printed replies to the 1909, 1910, and 1911 petitions, mainly relating to Vote 8 men, was 1,319. In the great majority of these cases the replies were not favourable to the petitioners. In many cases, however, the replies were favourable, and a number of concessions were granted. The total cost of the concessions
    1246
    granted during the last three years is estimated at, approximately, £55,000 per-annum on the basis of the numbers at present employed. The whole question of the present method of hearing the workmen's petitions has been raised at recent interviews with the men, and is receiving careful consideration.
    Sir C.KINLOCH-COOKE: Are we to understand that all the petitions sent in in 1911 have been replied to?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, certainly.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: And none of them are now under the consideration of the Government?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Certain points in regard to Portsmouth, Devonport, and Chatham are under consideration.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are there no petitions of 1911 under the consideration of the Government?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Some of the 1911 petitioners have been informed that the subject of their petitions are under consideration.
    LORD CHARLES BERESFORDasked whether shortly after the National Insurance Act came into operation, men were discharged from various departments of His Majesty's dockyards; and, if so, whether these discharges were carried out in order to cover the cost of the extra expenditure involved by the Act?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The only discharges since the Insurance Act came into operation have been of a purely normal character. In point of fact, between the week ended 20th July and the week ended 16th November, the entries in the shipbuilding departments of His Majesty's dockyards have exceeded the discharges by 2,996. The result is that whilst during the first week the Insurance Act was in operation there were 38,118 men so employed, during the nineteenth week of the operation of the Act there were 41,114. I may add that under the Works Department there were 4,225 men employed at the end of June, and 4,370 at the end of September. There still remain the men employed in the Naval Ordnance Departments, and in regard to these I may state that there has been a slight increase in the numbers employed since 15th July last, and the numbers at present employed amount to approximately 3,700. The suggestion conveyed in the latter part of the

    1247
    question as absolutely unwarranted. I should scarcely have thought it worth while to put it forward even for purposes of denial.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not a fact that there is now a considerable number of men who have received their discharges, on reduction at Devonport dockyard, to come into force next Saturday?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That may be the case if they were taken on for a particular job. It has nothing to do with the Insurance Act. That is perfectly clear.

    PAY OF OFFICERS AND MEN.
    Mr. HUNTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when he will bring forward the proposal for increasing the pay of the officers and men in the Navy; and whether any of the money intended for that purpose has been taken to provide extra remuneration for the doctors under the Insurance Act?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope to make an announcement next week.

    DESTROYER PROGRAMME (1911–12).
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked whether the German destroyers of the 1911–12 programme are now all in commission; and what is the expected date for the completion of the corresponding British vessels?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Two of the destroyers originally forming part of the German 1911–12 programme were sold to Greece before being taken over by the German Government. The two laid down to replace these are still under construction. Of the remaining ten destroyers, eight are in commission, one has been in dockyard hands since grounding during her trials, and the last has just completed trials. Three of the British destroyers of the 1911–12 programme are completed. Of the remainder, six are due for completion before the end of the financial year, seven by July, 1913, three more in August, 1913, and one in October, 1913.

    BATTLESHIPS IN COMMISSION.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked how many battleships, armoured cruisers, and protected cruisers, respectively, were in full commission with the British Fleet in September, 1904, and what are the corresponding numbers at the present time?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The information asked for is as follows:—

    In September, 1904—

    Battleships

    33

    Armoured cruisers

    15

    Protected cruisers

    57

    Present time—

    Battleships and battle cruisers

    35

    Armoured cruisers

    20

    Protected cruisers

    37

    H.M.S. "WARRIOR."
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked whether the order for the armoured cruiser "Warrior" to proceed to the Mediterranean has been cancelled or postponed; and, if so, for what reason?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The order for the "Warrior" to proceed to the Mediterranean was postponed owing to another armoured cruiser, which would otherwise have been now in home waters, being unexpectedly ordered from Gibraltar into the Mediterranean. I cannot as a general practice undertake to give reasons for the dispositions of particular ships in the fleet.

    LIEUTENANTS.
    LORD CHARLES BERESFORDasked the right hon. Gentleman whether one lieutenant (Royal Navy) has been reduced from the complements of His Majesty's ships "Bellerophon," "Superb," and "Temeraire," and that three captains (Royal Marine Light Infantry) have been embarked to make up the complements of these ships; whether approval has been given for a new supplementary list of lieutenants (Royal Navy) to be formed from officers of the mercantile marine; whether the conditions of these officers joining the Royal Navy are on the same lines as the entry of supplementary lieutenants in 1895; if not, what are the conditions under which these new officers are to join the Royal Navy; whether special inducements have been offered lately for lieutenants (Royal Navy) to retire; if so, what these inducements were and the reasons for offering them; and whether the number of lieutenants (Royal Navy) is short for present and future requirements?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The reply to the first part of the question is that in the three ships referred to, an additional lieutenant (Royal Navy) was borne, as they had only one marine officer instead of two as in other ships of the "Dreadnought" class. When the complement of marine officers

    1249
    was brought into line with the other ships of the "Dreadnought" class, the additional lieutenant (Royal Navy) was reduced. As subalterns of Royal Marines were not available, junior captains were appointed for duty with the detachment in lieu of subalterns. The question of entering officers from the mercantile marine is under consideration, but the details of the scheme have not yet been settled. Special inducements to retire were offered to commanders and lieutenants from the 27th October, 1909, to the 30th June, 1912. These inducements consisted in an increase in the normal scale of retired pay. The reason for offering them was to relieve the block in promotion and to mitigate in some measure the anticipated congestion on the lists. The number of lieutenants (Royal Navy) now on the list is sufficient to meet immediate requirements, but an increase will be necessary in the near future.

    NAVY MANŒUVRES (DAMAGE TO FISHING NETS).
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked whether the fishermen whose nets were damaged during the manœuvres of the Red and Blue Fleets last July have received the compensation which has been found due to them in respect of such damage; and, if not, what reason is there for delay when claims have been admitted as just?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Compensation has not yet been paid in these cases, as the reports from His Majesty's ships to which the damage is attributed are still being investigated, but it is hoped that a decision will be arrived at immediately.

    GROG ALLOWANCE.
    Sir H. CARLILEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the fact that when a man-of-war is engaged in battle practice or in a gunlayers test most captains withhold the grog issue until the evening, and that in the Russian Navy 7s. 2d. each month is allowed to seamen in lieu of the vodka ration, has will consider the advisability of instituting a money alternative for the grog in the British Navy for those men who may prefer it?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The suggestion made in the question is already in force, and men who prefer not to take up the spirit ration receive a money allowance in lieu.
    Sir H. CARLILE: What is the nature of the money allowance?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Nine-sixteenths of a penny.
    Sir H. CARLILE: Per diem.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, per diem, in lieu of the grog allowance. That is much more expensive to the Admiralty than the grog allowance, so far as mere pounds, shillings, and pence are concerned.
    Mr. FRED HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Russian Navy an allowance of 7s. 2d. a month is made in lieu of grog allowance, which is considerably more than the amount allowed here?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member ought to give notice of that question.

  Consular Service.
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the cost of the Consular service in the years 1891–2 and 1911–12, respectively, and what was the approximate total value of the trade of the British Empire with foreign countries in the years 1891 and 1911 respectively?
  The UNDER - SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): The total expenditure on the Consular service in 1891–92 was £284,607; in 1911–12 it was £415,079. As regards the second part of the question, the total value of the exports of the British Empire to foreign countries amounted approximately to £323,000,000 in 1891 and to £623,000,000 in 1911. The imports from foreign countries into the British Empire may be stated to have been approximately worth £418,000,000 in 1891. and £733,000,000 in 1911.
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can lay upon the Table the Report of the Departmental Committee which recently sat to investigate questions relating to the Consular service?
  Mr. ACLAND: The Report will form the subject of communications between the Foreign Office and Treasury, and it is not proposed to lay anything at present.

  Dominions Trade Commission.
  Sir H. CARLILEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the intention of the Government that

  1251
  the Dominions Trade Commission shall issue written Reports dealing with each branch of the subject investigated and as this investigation is concluded; and when, in that case, the Report dealing with emigration may be expected?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): It is anticipated that the Commission will issue an interim Report very shortly, covering the evidence so far taken by them. It is rather for the Commission to consider in connection with the question of the form of their final Report whether they will deal with each branch of their subject in a separate document. In any case, their Report on Emigration cannot be expected for some time, as they have still to visit the Dominions.

  Army Aeroplanes.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for War how many aeroplanes belonging to the Army Air Corps are effective in the sense of having a speed of seventy miles per hour; and how many Army pilots can fly that speed across country?
  Colonel SEELY: There are five aeroplanes which can fly at seventy miles per hour, and fifteen more are on order which will be capable of similar speeds: several of these are overdue from the contractors. There are twenty-six trained military pilots capable of flying these very fast machines.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Are the machines English or foreign?
  Colonel SEELY: I could not give details without notice.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Departmental Committee recently appointed by him to consider the question of monoplanes has yet reported; and, if not, whether he can expedite their Report to prevent, us lagging any further behind other nations in the use of these essential weapons?
  Colonel SEELY: This Committee has not yet reported, but will probably do so very shortly.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether we have any guns capable of hitting an aircraft 6,000 feet high?
  Colonel SEELY: It is not considered advisable in the public interest to give any information on this subject.

  Petrol (War Office Contracts).
  Mr. NEWMANasked whether, in the event of sudden emergency, the War Office have concluded a contract or contracts with any firm or firms for the supply of petrol at a specified price per gallon?
  Colonel SEELY: It would be contrary to the public interest to disclose the arrangements made to meet the contingency referred to.

  Cavalry Cloaks and Coats.
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the lack of weather-resisting quality in the Cavalry cloaks and Infantry greatcoats as exemplified in the recent autumn manœuvres; whether a regiment of Cavalry were compelled, owing to the state of their cloaks, to manœuvre in their blankets; whether he has read the reports of attaches to their respective Governments mentioning the defective weather-resisting qualities of cloaks and coats of our troops; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  Colonel SEELY: The question of the permeability of the greatcoat at present in use was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for the Torquay Division of Devonshire on 9th October. I have nothing at present to add to the information which I gave in reply to the various questions put on that occasion.

  Woolwich Arsenal (Typewriting Staff).
  Mr. FRED HALLasked if the name of Miss Willetl, the superintendent of the female staff at Woolwich Arsenal, was considered in connection with the filling recently of the position of controller of the typewriting staff at the War Office; by whom this lady's name was submitted; by whom she was interviewed; and who decided that her qualifications and experience were inferior to those of Miss Roads, formerly private secretary to the Secretary of State for War?
  Colonel SEELY: The name of Miss Willett was considered with others in connection with filling the post of controller of typists, her name having been submitted by herself with a recommendation from a former head of her office at Woolwich. She was interviewed by the

  1253
  Assistant Secretary, by whom, in the normal discharge of his duties, the selection was made.
  Mr. HALL: Is the appointment of Miss roads probationary, and before making the appointment permanent will the right hen. Gentleman consider applications from some of the candidates who at present are giving instruction to Miss Roads?
  Colonel SEELY: I cannot accept that statement without further inquiry. I have had nothing to do with it personally, naturally enough, but the appointment is probationary and no doubt proper authorities will carefully consider whether it should be confirmed or not at the proper time.

  Army Horses.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether any effective Census of horses in the United Kingdom of an age and description suited to military requirements has been made during the last twelve months or is now in contemplation; and, if so, by whom is such Census conducted?
  Colonel SEELY: A partial Census was carried out last winter by military officers, as authorised under Section 114 of the Army Act. Endeavours are being made to carry out a complete Census of horses suitable for military purposes this winter, and a large number of military officers are now engaged on this work.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: May I assume that under the existing practice all foals, all mares in foal, and all heavy farm horses are excluded from this Census?
  Colonel SEELY: The Census we are now taking is what I term a complete Census showing exactly what type of horses will be required for every branch of the service. We hope to get that completed very shortly. Of course, we shall exclude all unsuitable animals from it.
  Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: Is it intended to give notice to owners of horses that such a Census is about to be taken and the probable date of the visit to the owner's place?
  Colonel SEELY: Notice should always be given to an owner if it can possibly be done, but it is a little difficult to carry out the Census completely and at the same time give notice to the different owners. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that every effort is made to avoid inconvenience to owners, but we must carry out the
  1254
  Census and I hope owners of horses will not mind visits without notice.
  Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: I must press the question—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put any further question on the Paper.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there has been a reduction in the total number of horses upon farms in the United Kingdom during the last three years of over 100,000, and during the same period a steady increase in the number of horses exported abroad, which amounted last year to 65,700, valued at £1,580,000; and whether any, and, if any, what, steps are being taken to prevent this continuous drain upon the nation's horse supply, operating to its military disadvantage?
  Colonel SEELY: I am informed that the figures in the question are accurately stated. As regards exported horses fully 50 per cent, of the numbers represent horses sent for slaughter. The number of horses required for military purposes annually is very small, and exportation undoubtedly maintains a market for breeders for animals which the War Office is not in a position to buy.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Could these annual Returns that we now receive through the Board of Agriculture be made to include light horses suitable for military requirements?
  Colonel SEELY: I will certainly consider that. I will communicate with my right hon. Friend.

  House of Lords
  Viscount WOLMERasked the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to introduce proposals for altering the constitution of the House of Lords next Session?
  Mr. FRED HALLasked whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce during the lifetime of this Parliament the promised legislation with regard to the reform of the Second Chamber?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As I stated yesterday, I am not prepared at present to make any statement as to the business of next Session. The answer to No. 55 is in the affirmative.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman still regard it as a I debt of honour which brooks no delay?

  Asylum Workers.
  Viscount WOLMERasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department recently received a deputation from the National Asylum Workers' Union in favour of the Asylum Workers (Employment, Pensions, and Superannuation) Bill, and that he indicated that the Bill, if somewhat modified, would have the support of the Government; and whether, in view of these circumstances, he can see his way to give facilities for the passage of this Bill this Session?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I understand from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the Home Department that he intimated in March last that if certain Amendments were accepted the Government would be prepared to give the Bill official support in its later stages. As regards the second part of the question, I fear that facilities cannot be given this Session.
  Mr. MOORE: Did not the Government make the same pledge about the Mental Deficiency Bill?

  Finance (India).
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, as representing the Secretary of State for India, what percentage of the gold standard reserve was represented by silver when the sterling portion reached the lowest amount during the strain in 1908?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): About 68 per cent.
  Mr. TOUCHE: Can the hon. Gentleman give me the amount?
  Mr. BAKER: If the hon. Gentleman gives me notice I will.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked whether the Government are fully satisfied that they have a sufficiency of coined rupees to meet the demand, which will most certainly be made upon them between December and February, to provide funds for the movement of the bountiful crops in India this year?
  Mr. BAKER: The Government of India are satisfied that they will have a sufficient supply, but they will continue to watch the situation carefully.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked what securities were held to represent the former limit of 200 lakhs (£1,333,000), beyond which the
  1256
  paper currency reserve was not to be invested in British Government securities, and what invesmtents were made in similar securities to represent the addition of £1,333,000 when the amount which might be invested in British Government securities was recently doubled; for how long have these new investments been held; and whether there is an appreciation or depreciation on them since they were placed in the paper currency reserve, and of how much?
  Mr. BAKER: The 200 lakhs held under the former limit were at first (August, 1905) invested partly in Consols and partly in Exchequer Bonds; since August, 1908, the whole has been held in Consols. When the amount that might be held in British securities was doubled (in 1911) a further investment of the equivalent of 200 lakhs was made in Consols. The depreciation of the Consols representing the first 200 lakhs has been £212,119, and of those representing the second 200 lakhs, £108,219.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked whether the fact that the Secretary of State's drawings will not be limited to the amount required for home payments, as it is intended to sell additional bills in London so far as resources will permit, means that the commercial public may, for the third time since the introduction of the Gold Note Act, be refused rupees in India against tender of gold in London at 1s. 4 5–32d. should resources not permit of further selling?
  Mr. BAKER: The Secretary of State has no reason to apprehend that the contingency referred to will arise.
  Mr. TOUCHE: Has the hon. Gentleman placed any limit on undertaking the sale of rupees in India against gold in London at 1s. 4 5–32d?
  Mr. BAKER: I answered that same question specifically yesterday, and I stated what the limits were.

  Purchase of Silver (India).
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked if it is to be understood from Messrs. Montagu and Company's letter to the India Office of 5th March, 1912, in which they propose to abstain from buying silver for a day, as the appearance of having no silver for sale is likely to provoke comment, that Messrs. Montagu and Company were selling as well as buying for the

  1257
  Government, or does the suggested sale refer to transactions in which the Government had no concern?
  Mr. BAKER: The latter interpretation is the correct one.
  Mr. GWYNNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he will explain what the loss of interest was in respect of which Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company charged one-thirty-second of a penny above the cash price of silver to compensate themselves, as stated in their letter of 21st May, 1912; and, as the letter conveys no information as to this loss, will he say whether the letter is published in full or is only an extract, or is the information as to the loss of interest contained in other correspondence not published; and, if so, will he publish it?
  Mr. BAKER: The interest was on the cost of certain silver which the firm bought for cash and paid for under instructions, but for which payment by the Secretary of State was postponed for some days. The letter is published in full; there is no other correspondence on the subject.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Which letter contains that statement?
  Mr. BAKER: I cannot give the hon. Member the number. It is in the correspondence which was published.
  Mr. GWYNNE: The correspondence which was published first or the second lot?
  Mr. BAKER: I am afraid I have not the correspondence here, and I cannot tell in which section it came.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    FINANCIAL RELATIONS.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether he can state, on the basis laid down by the Act of Union and by the Financial Relations Commission, respectively, what is the present taxable capacity of Ireland in relation to Great Britain?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Act of Union furnishes no basis on which profitable comparison can now be made. As regards the Financial Relations Commission, the general Report (signed by eleven of the thirteen members) states that whilst the actual tax revenue of Ireland is about one-eleventh of that of Great Britain, the relative taxable capacity of Ireland is very much smaller, and is not
    1258
    estimated by any of us as exceeding one-twentieth. "The separate Reports of different groups of members show, however, that there was no general consensus of opinion how relative taxable capacity should be ascertained, and I am not able to give any satisfactory estimate under existing circumstances.
    Captain CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the Union Ireland was solvent, and that before the Union Ireland was bankrupt?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is rather a matter of opinion perhaps than of fact.
    Captain CRAIG: It is a fact.

    COST OF IRISH SERVICES.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce an Amendment to the Government of Ireland Bill to secure that any sums paid on behalf of Irish services in excess of the true revenue from Ireland shall be voted annually by Parliament; and, if not, what opportunities will exist for discussing this payment of more than two millions per annum?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The Transferred Sum will be charged on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, and will not therefore require to be voted annually by Parliament. The cost of the reserved services, which is at present almost entirely defrayed out of moneys voted by Parliament, will continue to be so defrayed, and the same opportunities for discussion will be available as now.
    Mr. FRED HALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in consequence of the difficulty of understanding the Bill, it is the intention of the Government to appoint lecturers to explain it throughout the country?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the answer.

    IRISH OFFICE IN LONDON.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether it is proposed to have an Irish Office, or an Agent-General for Ireland, in London, if the Government of Ireland Bill passes into law?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There will, no doubt, be special officers in London acting under the Minister who will be answerable

    1259
    to the Imperial Parliament for Irish affairs, but whether they will constitute a separate office or not is a matter for future consideration.

  Subterranean Water.
  Mr. JOWETTasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the financial value of subterranean water and the importance of its being controlled for the welfare of the community, he will take steps by legislative action to deal with the question?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot at present hold out any prospect of legislation on this subject. The question of the establishment of rivers boards recommended by the Committee of 1910 is receiving the consideration of my right hon. Friend, who, I understand, has a Bill in preparation on the subject.

  Agricultural Organisation Society (Ireland).
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked whether any decision has yet been arrived at by the Government upon the question whether a Grant shall be made by the Development Commissioners to the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The matter is still under consideration.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Have the Government had before them the fact that this Grant for the benefit of Irish farmers is being opposed by the Nationalist party, and is it intended to allow this question to be decided on political grounds?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, that is certainly not the intention. It will be decided on general grounds of policy.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that over £100,000 has been voluntarily contributed for the purpose of organising agricultural co-operation in Ireland, and for the furtherment of the—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot ask a supplementary question containing figures and expect the Minister to reply offhand. That is a question of which notice should be given.

  House of Commons (Christmas Recess).
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to
  1260
  make a statement as to the date of the commencement and duration of the Christmas recess?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As I stated yesterday, I hope to do so early next week.

  Naval Defence.
  Mr. MARTINasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been drawn to the statement made in the speech from the Throne at the opening of the Canadian House of Commons on the 21st instant, to the effect that during the past summer four members of the Canadian Government had conferred in London with His Majesty's Government on the question of naval defence, that an important discussion took place and conditions had been disclosed which, in the opinion of the Governor-General's advisers, rendered it imperative that the effective naval forces of the Empire should be strengthened without delay; and, if so, is the Canadian Government warranted in coming to such a conclusion from information conveyed to them by His Majesty's Government; and, if so, does His Majesty's Government intend to wait for contributions from Canada and other Dominions before strengthening the Navy?
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to a speech from the Throne in Ottawa, in which the Duke of Connaught referred to conditions disclosed by His Majesty's Government to four members of the Canadian Government which, in their opinion, rendered it imperative that the effective naval forces of the Empire should be strengthened without delay; whether this is also the view of His Majesty's Government; whether, in view of this statement, it is still true that our relations with foreign countries are friendly: and ' whether he will state why such an announcement of our naval weakness was made to the Canadian and not to the British people?
  The PRIME MINISTER: A Memorandum has, at the request of the Canadian Government, been prepared by the Admiralty for presentation to the Dominion Parliament. It will, in due course, be laid before the House of Commons, and my hon. Friend will find that it defines with fullness and precision the position adopted by His Majesty's Government. Meanwhile I think it would be better not to enter upon the various argumentative aspects of these two questions.
  Mr. LEE: Will the memorandum be laid before this House of Commons?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly. It is obvious that is must be laid before the Canadian Parliament first.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is it the view of His Majesty's Government that the effective naval forces of the Empire have been weakened?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I would rather not enter into these argumentative matters until the memorandum has been produced.
  Mr. MARTIN: Will the right lion. Gentleman say when the memorandum will be laid before the House?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say at present. It must first go before the Canadian Parliament. As soon as it has been presented there it will be presented here.

  NATIONALINSURANCE ACT.

    AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS.
    Mr. LANE-FOXasked whether, in view of the dissatisfaction shown in agricultural districts at the provisions of the National Insurance Act, by which less well-paid men in more healthy occupations are paying the same rate of contribution as better-paid men employed in less healthy trades, the Government are about to introduce an Amendment of the Act in the direction of the abolition of the flat rate of contribution?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): No, Sir. If as implied in the question persons in agricultural districts enjoy superior health to those in other parts of the country, agricultural societies should, on valuation, show a substantial surplus, which will be available, either for increasing the benefits, or for paying a part of the contributions, of their members.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that suggestions are being made by Liberal candidates in the country to the effect that the Government are considering this matter?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It has not been brought to my notice before that suggestions are being made as to such a change.

    PAYMENT OF DOCTORS.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether in the negotiations now proceeding between
    1262
    the Treasury and the medical profession, it is to be understood that he is prepared to guarantee 7s. to the doctors, in consideration of their submitting themselves in their professional life and conversation to the judgment of local medical committees on which they will have little representation?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer is in the negative. No doctors are required to submit their "professional life and conversation" to local medical committees; and so far from local doctors having little representation on local medical committees, these committees are entirely composed of and appointed by the local doctors.

    HOSPITALS.
    Mr. COOPERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what arrangements he has made for insured persons requiring surgical and other treatment which can only be adequately given in hospitals and similar institutions, seeing that insured persons are no longer eligible for hospital treatment as necessitous persons?
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that it is estimated that of the insured persons who will claim medical benefit after the 15th January next at least 30,000 a week will need for their adequate medical treatment hospital provision; and if he will state what provision will be made for these persons in the event of their being unable or unwilling to secure treatment in the existing charitable institutions?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: These questions would appear to be based on a misapprehension. Surgical and other cases which cannot, consistently with the interests of the patient, be properly undertaken by a practitioner on the panel set up under Section 15, are not affected by the Act, and there would appear to be no reason why such cases should be less eligible in the future than in the past for treatment in hospitals and similar institutions. I may state that the average number of inpatients present in the hospitals at any one time would appear to be only a small fraction of the number suggested in the question.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the income of the voluntary hospitals has suffered severely in consequence of the withdrawal of subscriptions, and

    1263
    whether he does not think it necessary to enter into business arrangements with hospitals for the treatment of insured persons?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Business arrangements can be entered into between hospitals and approved societies in the interest of insured persons under the Act I have no information as to any decrease of voluntary subscriptions in consequence of the Act.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Would not the funds of the approved societies go down in that case?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The societies would arrange, as some do at present, to eon-tribute a certain amount to a hospital in return for a certain number of beds being available for their members.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Mr. COOPERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the fact that Section 15 (2) of the National Insurance Act establishes a right on the part of any insured person of selecting the practitioner by whom he desires to be attended, he will say how this can be carried out in the event of a State medical service being set up?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The right of an insured person to select a practitioner on the panel is conditional upon a panel being set up. If in any area the practitioners on the panel are not such as to secure an adequate medical service, the Commissioners may, under Section 15 (2) of the Act, make such arrangements as they think fit for the treatment of insured persons. A State medical service is among the alternatives so open to them, but such a service including many doctors might still offer opportunities of choice by the insured person.
    Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advisability of now deciding to place the sum intended for medical benefit under the National Insurance Act, together with the proposed additional Grant of £1,600,000 under the National Insurance Act, to the credit of the insured members, so that they may make their own arrangements with the medical profession for medical benefits, either through the local insurance committee or their approved society?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It is open to insured persons to apply to their local insurance committee to be allowed to make their own arrangements for receiving medical attendance, under Section 15 (3) of the Act.

    COURT OF REFEREES.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked the President of the Board of Trade for what reason the nomination by members of the Ironfounders' Society of Mr. Jonas Pearson for election as a representative on the Court of Referees, under the National Insurance Act, Part II., for the Bradford district, was declared invalid: what officer declared the nomination invalid, and on what grounds and on what date; and whether any notice was given, either to Jonas Pearson or the twenty-five people who nominated him, in time for them to make good any technical flaw in the nomination paper?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): Mr. Pearson's nomination paper was declared invalid because the names of the nominators had been written in the same handwriting and the paper therefore did not comply with the requirement that it should be signed by the prescribed number of persons. As to the last part of the question, I am making inquiries and will let the hon. Member know the result.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether all the other nomination papers for the same election were not signed in exactly the same way?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: That I cannot say without inquiry.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the hon. Gentleman inquire?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: If the hon. Gentleman will give me notice.
    Mr. FRED HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he was aware that the iron founders at Falkirk were recently informed that they were entitled to vote for representatives on the Court of Referees under the National Insurance Act, and furnished with ballot papers; that later they were told that such papers were furnished under a misapprehension and asked to return them; that on the morning of the poll the papers were sent back again to the men with an intimation that they were qualified to vote, with the result that a number of

    1265
    men had not time to register their votes; and if, in the circumstances, the Board of Trade proposes to arrange for a further poll to be held?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Inquiry is being made into the matter and I will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

    APPOINTMENTS OF OFFICERS.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked how the posts of assistant insurance officer, appeals officer, and inspector under the National Insurance Act (unemployment section) are being filled; how many of these posts have been filled by Labour Exchange men of short service; and whether any effort was made to fill these posts by men already serving in other branches of the established public service?
    Mr. BUXTON: Thirty-seven appointments have already been made to posts in these grades. Twenty of the officers so appointed were previously in the established Civil Service, fourteen were in the service of the Labour Exchanges, and three were unestablished Civil servants in other branches of the service. It will be seen from these figures that in making these appointments due consideration has been given to the claims of other branches of the public service.

    REGISTRARS AND HIGH BAILIFFS EMPLOYÉS.
    Mr. COOPERasked if the right hon. Gentleman has offered to reimburse registrars and high bailiffs their contributions under the National Insurance Act as employers, in respect of the staff in their employ in County Courts; and whether this constitutes the State to be the actual employer of this staff; and, if so, will he state if such staff are Civil servants of the State?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Treasury has agreed to admit in the accounts of registrars and high bailiffs of County Courts the sums paid by them for employer's contribution under the Insurance Act in respect of such of their employés as give their whole time to their duties. This undertaking was given by the Treasury, as it was considered inequitable that a substantial amount of additional expenditure, of which account could not have been taken, when the salaries of the officers or their allowances for clerk hire or process were originally fixed, should fall upon the County Court officers. The position of the employés is in no way affected, for, as heretofore, they will be engaged, paid,
    1266
    and dismissable at the discretion of the registrars and high bailiffs, and they can in no sense be described as Civil servants.
    Mr. COOPER: Arising out of that reply, will the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of the question, whether this constitutes the State the actual employer?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Oh, no; certainly not.
    Mr. COOPER: Why then is the State to-pay for persons of whom they are not the employers?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That: is what I tried to explain in the answer.

  Food Supply in War Time.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Prime Minister whether, as the result of the deliberations during the last two years of the Defence Committee on the question of food supply in time of war, the Government propose to take any steps to secure the storage of wheat for national requirements before the recurrence in the spring of 1913 of the deficiency of reserve supply, always prevalent at that season?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing at present to the answer which T gave on the 21st October.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the next three months elapse without anything being done, it will be impossible to store wheat for another twelve months?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am well aware of the urgency of the matter.

  Income Tax (British Traders Abroad).
  Mr. JOWETTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, under Section 71 (1) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, a partner in, or a traveller employed by, a British firm, who spends the whole of his time selling British goods abroad, save and except at short intervals of, say, a few weeks between seasons, is charged Income Tax at the full rate without any deduction on account of the income being earned income; and if he will, in fairness to persons engaged or employed in extending the foreign trade of Great Britain, arrange, when he is preparing his next Finance Bill, to give such persons the same advantages as others who sell British goods in the home; markets?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: A partner in a British firm who is resident outside of the United Kingdom is not entitled to the relief allowed in respect of earned income. Income Tax is only chargeable on his income from British sources, and there are no means of ascertaining with certainty whether the amount of his income from all sources is such as to bring him within the scope of the relief granted on earned income to persons resident in this country. My right hon. Friend is therefore not prepared to extend the earned income relief in the direction suggested.

  Sea Training.
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the £150,000 intended to be provided this year for the administration of the Mental Deficiency Bill, which is to be dropped, not being wanted this year, he will devote that sum for the purpose of the capitation Grant for sea-training under Board of Education Regulations in performance of his promise made last July and repeated to Lord Davenport on the 24th October last?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: My right hon. Friend has already agreed with the President of the Board of Education to include in the Estimates provision for increased capitation Grants for sea-training. It would not in any circumstances have been necessary to vote £150,000 in this financial year for the purposes of the Mental Deficiency Bill.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information as to what the sum is to be devoted to in view of the fact that county councils are now framing their budgets, and it is with the co-operation of the county councils that the schemes will hare to be carried out?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot do anything in the matter at present. If the right hon. Gentleman will put down a question I will see if I cannot give an answer.

  Irish Hay (Importation).
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture when he will be in a position to relax or remove the restrictions upon the importation of Irish hay into Great Britain?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): I have received from the Irish Department some proposals with regard to the admission of Irish hay and straw into Great Britain, and vice versÂ, which are now under consideration, but I do not see my way as yet to sanction any modification of the existing restrictions.

  Loans to Fishermen.
  Sir H. CARLILEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is yet able to make any detailed statement regarding the Board's policy of loans to fishermen?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Applications for advances from the Development Fund for the purpose of making loans to fishermen have been made by the sea fisheries committees of Devon and Cornwall, and a detailed inquiry is now being made into the circumstances existing at each of the fishing stations in those counties. I should prefer not to make any statement beyond that included in a speech delivered by me in the House on 26th June last as to the policy of the Board until the results of that inquiry are available.
  Sir H. CARLILE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, although he had no definite applications, he has communications from other fishermen since besides those to which he has referred?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: As far as I know, the only formal requests that have been made were for loans under the Development Fund.

  Westminster Hall (Roof).
  Mr. HAY MORGANasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the roofing of Westminster Hall is in need of repair; and, if so, whether the First Commissioner proposes to give attention to this matter at an early date?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): A thorough inspection of the roof of Westminster Hall is urgently needed, and the First Commissioner proposes at once to erect scaffolding in order to see what repairs may be necessary.

  Regent's Park (Tuberculous Children).
  Mr. KINGasked whether the bandstand in Regent's Park has been used during the past summer as an open-air

  1269
  school for children in the pre-tuberculous state, and whether it is intended to continue the use of this and similar erections for this purpose?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: A class of tuberculous children has been held in Regent's Park for over a year, and the use of the bandstand has been granted to them. No change is proposed. No other applications of a similar nature have been received.

  Sheriffs-Substitute (Scotland).
  Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate whether his Department has any statistics of the number of appeals made during the last five years from judgments of sheriffs-substitute in Scotland who have been members of the solicitor branch of the legal profession and from those of sheriffs-substitute who have been members of the advocate branch of the profession, and also of the percentage of those judgments overturned in each case; and, if not, will his Department take note of these matters in future?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): I refer my lion. Friend to the Judicial Statistics for Scotland, where the information for which he seeks, so far as it is available, will be found.

  Loss of Steamship "Titanic."
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH COOKEasked what payments have been made to the nautical assessors who assisted Lord Mersey in the "Titanic" Inquiry; and whether these payments represent the total fees to be paid to them in respect of the inquiry?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: In the case of four of the assessors the remuneration fell to be determined according to the usual scale applicable to assessors on the regular list; the sums paid in these cases were—

  £

  s.

  d.

  139

  2

  0

  156

  17

  8

  80

  19

  6

  73

  13

  0

  of which £71 8s.,£77 14s., £71 8s.,and £70 7s., respectively, represented fee, and the remainder expenses of travelling subsistence, etc. The fifth assessor, whose case stands upon a different footing, has been paid a fee of £500, to include all expenses. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.
  Sir E. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right lion. Gentleman say what fees were paid to the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot carry in my memory the analyses of these figures.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member desires any additional information he can put down another question.

  Stow-Boat Fishing (Thames).
  Sir GILBERT PARKERasked whether the Port of London Authority have issued an order prohibiting stow-boat fishing in the Thames for three months; and, if so, the reason for this prohibition, seeing that it will take away the means of subsistence of a considerable number of men during the winter months when their opportunities for earning a living are limited?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: A by-law was made by the Thames Conservancy, and confirmed by the Privy Council in 1893, which prevented the use of stow-boat nets in the Thames estuary below London Bridge from the 1st July, 1895. The by-law has not been repealed, and, under the terms of the Port of London Act, 1908, remains in force. No new by-laws have as yet been made by the Port of London Authority, but the Board understand that the subject has recently been under consideration, and that it is proposed to continue the existing prohibition.
  Sir G. PARKER: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into consideration the extreme hardship which is thrown upon these men, who have to depend upon this kind of fishing for a livelihood, and the fact that the prohibition was only made at the beginning of the season after they had replenished their gear and made every preparation, and that due notice was not given, as it ought to have been, at the end of the last season?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I should like to have notice of the question as to the notice given by the authorities. If the hon. Gentleman cares to ask me a further question I will get a report of what was actually done.

  Labour Exchanges (Staff Posts).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked how staff posts in the Labour Exchanges and unemployment insurance branch are filled; if such posts are reserved for second division clerks; and, of the staff posts now filled,

  1271
  how many are held by ex-second division clerks and how many by clerks who entered the service otherwise than by open competition?
  The. PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I assume my hon. Friend to refer to the staff posts, with a salary of £300–£400 a year, in the Central Office for Labour Exchanges and Unemployment Insurance and the minor staff posts of £200–£300 a year in the same office. The total number of appointments already made to these grades is twenty-three, fifteen of which have been filled by the appointment of second division clerks, one by transfer from another Department of the Board of Trade, three by the promotion of Labour Exchange officers, and four by appointment from the outside. Although, as I have already informed my hon. Friend, these posts are not reserved for second division clerks, it will be seen from the figures given above that full consideration has been given to (heir claims.

  London Tramways and 'Buses.
  Mr. FRED HALLasked the number of passengers carried by the London County Council Tramways and the London General Omnibus Company, respectively, during 1912 between the hours of 1 a.m. and 9 a.m., and the average fare charged per passenger; and the same information as regards the hours of 9 a.m. and 1 a.m.?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have no information which would enable me to give the hon. Member the particulars he desires.

  Commercial Museums.
  Mr. FRED HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider the advisability of establishing commercial museums in suitable trading centres for the exhibition of specimens of the goods which are in demand at different places abroad where this country has commercial representatives, and for affording information to British traders which would assist them in gaining a knowledge of the conditions obtaining in foreign markets?
  Mr. BUXTON: The practice of the Board of Trade in this matter is to exhibit at the Commercial Intelligence Branch of the Board in the City, and also from time to time at suitable trade centres in the United Kingdom, samples sent home by His Majesty s Consuls and Trade Commissioners in foreign countries
  1272
  and His Majesty's Dominions of foreign articles which appear to be displacing British manufactured goods in those markets. For example, at present a series of exhibitions of samples of foreign hardware which is competing with British goods in the markets of the self-governing Dominions are being held in London, Birmingham, Sheffield, and other important centres. These temporary exhibitions, which have met with great success, are I think a more effective method of furnishing information to manufacturers or traders desirous of finding markets abroad for their wares than the establishment of permanent museums, which it is practically impossible to keep up to date in regard either to samples of goods in current use or to current prices and conditions. I may add that manufacturers and traders requiring information as to conditions obtaining in particular foreign or Colonial markets in regard to their particular goods should apply to the Commercial Intelligence Branch of the Board of Trade in Basinghall Street, which branch has been established for the special purpose of supplying such information.

  Income Tax (Bowles v. Treasury).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the total costs incurred by all sides in the recent Income Tax case of Mr. Gibson Bowles; the total annual remuneration and expenses of the law officer or officers on whose advice Mr. Bowles's contention was resisted; whether the officer or officers will be retained in the service; and whether the payments to them will suffer any diminution in consequence of their wrong advice?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: So far as at present ascertained the total costs incurred were £838 9s. 5d. With regard to the second part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for the Tavistock Division on the 24th ultimo. The answer to the third part, of the question is in the affirmative, and to the last in the negative.

  Ardglass Harbour (Improvement).
  Captain CRAIGasked if the Secretary to the Treasury is now in a position to give the House the result of the joint appeal by his Department and the Office of Works to the Development Commissioners for sufficient funds to carry out the improvements to the Royal Harbour of Ardglass, county Down, necessary to enable the local fishermen to cope with the steadily increasing fishing industry;

  1273
  and, if so, will work be begun immediately, in order that the berthing accommodation and dredging may be completed in time to be of use when the next season sets in?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: No, Sir; the matter has not yet come before the Development Oommission. About half the necessary surveys have been made, and the Board of Works hope to be able to submit their application for a Grant from the Development Fund to the Treasury early next month.

  Postage and Postage-Paid Stamps.
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked (1) if the Secretary to the Treasury will state what reasons led to the notice dated 1st June, 1906, issued by the Board of Inland Revenue, in regard to illustrations of postage and postage-paid stamps being superseded by the notice dated the 16th October, 1912; why the Regulations have been made so much more severe; whether he is aware that the new Regulations are calculated seriously to hamper in their business a large body of persons engaged as printers, process-block makers, proprietors of philatelic journals, and in kindred industries; (2) whether any danger to the revenue is to be apprehended from the illustrations for commercial purposes of obsolete stamps, whether British or foreign; whether an obsolete stamp can be said to denote a rate of postage; (3) whether he is aware that the reproduction of obsolete postage stamps in colour for the purposes of illustration is sanctioned in most foreign countries; whether any, and what, provision exists in the law of this country against the admission into this country of illustrations printed abroad, which if produced in this country would be illegal; if so, whether such provision is enforced; (4) whether he is aware that the use of reproductions of postage stamps in stamp dealers' advertisements, prohibited in this country, is freely sanctioned in most foreign countries; that there are constantly posted to and delivered in this country philatelic periodicals and stamp dealers' circulars which if produced here a would contravene the law; and whether any steps can be or are taken to prevent this?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It has been found by experience that the old Regulations did not give the Inland Revenue authorities
  1274
  sufficient control over the very large number of blocks created for producing imitations of postage stamps. The Regulations have accordingly been strengthened by the additional requirements which appear in the notice of the 16th October. With the small exception of "Postage Paid" stamps, the new Regulations do not extend to any class of stamps which were not covered by the old Regulations, and it is not apprehended that they will hamper the business of the persons interested. Under Section 65 of the Post Office Act, 1908 (which continues in this respect the former Act of 1884) foreign and British stamps have to be similarly treated. Whether an obsolete stamp can be said to denote a rate of postage is a question of law, but it is not considered desirable in the interests of the revenue to draw a distinction for the purposes of the Regulations between obsolete and current stamps, nor is it certain that it would be for the convenience of the trade. I have no information as to whether the reproduction of postage stamps for the purposes of advertisement, or of obsolete stamps in colour, is sanctioned in most foreign countries. The importation of fictitious postage stamps is prohibited by Section 1 of the Revenue Act, 1898, under penalty of £100. If the hon. Member is aware of any evidence that the Regulations are unduly onerous I shall be glad to consider it.

  Customs Officers (Overtime).
  Mr. TOUCHEasked whether, since in paragraph 255 of the Customs and Excise Amalgamation Committee's Report it was declared to be inequitable to reduce the amount of leave to which any officer is at present actually entitled, he will state that this principle will not be departed from in regard to overtime, and that there will be no reduction of the rates to which any officer is at present actually entitled?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I see no reason to make any exception in applying the new-scale of overtime pay to the officer grade.

  Estate Duty Office (Supervising Assistant Clerk).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked whether Mr. Hoste, an assistant clerk in the Estate Duty Office, has recently been appointed a supervising assistant clerk; what length of service he has had as an assistant clerk; what was his salary previous to promotion; what im-

  1275
  mediate advance did he get on promotion; how many other assistant clerks of longer service were passed over; and what relationship does Mr. Hoste bear to the legal adviser of the Estate Duty Office?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Mr. Hoste, an assistant clerk in the Estate Duty Office, has recently been promoted, on the ground of superior ability, to be supervising assistant clerk; his service as assistant clerk was six and a-half years, his salary previous to promotion was 684 12s. a year; he received on promotion an immediate advance of £75 8s. a year; and he passed over thirteen assistant clerks of longer service, of whom, however, nine had already been passed over (some of them many times), and two others were of shorter service than himself in the Estate Duty Office. It has been ascertained, for the purpose of this answer, that Mr. Hoste is a first cousin once removed of the legal adviser to the Estate Duty Office, but the fact was not known at the time of his promotion.

  Labour Colonies.
  Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state what legislation is necessary for the establishment of labour colonies asked for by so many boards of guardians, for dealing with habitual vagrants?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The Inter-Departmental Committee on Vagrancy, which reported in 1906, made recommendations on this subject. If the hon. and gallant Member will refer to their Report, especially to the summary of their recommendations on pages 118 to 121, he will see what legislation would be necessary for establishing labour colonies on the lines they recommend.

  London County Sessions House.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the Home Secretary if he will say on what date he intimated that if the London County Council built a new Sessions House for the whole of London at Newington, he would approve a scheme authorising the holding of courts of sessions there?
  Mr. McKENNA: In a letter of the 23rd July last, in reply to a definite question, I intimated to the London County Council that I would be prepared to approve a
  1276
  scheme for this purpose, but the previous correspondence was based on the view that the choice of a site for a Sessions House to take the place of the inadequate buildings at Newington and Clerkenwell was a matter for the local authorities.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. STANIERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can give any details as to the amount of foot-and-mouth disease in the Argentine during 1912; and if there was an outbreak in the Palermo Show, which is one of the great stud stock shows of that country?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No particulars are available as to the number of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease which have occurred in Argentina during the present, year, but we were informed quite recently that it was widely prevalent throughout the northern and central portions of the country, and that it has now reached the territory of the Rio Negro. We have no information as to the occurrence of an outbreak at the Palermo Show.
  Mr. STANIERasked when the Argentine will open their ports to livestock from this country if we have no further outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease?
  Mr.RUNCIMAN: The Board are in communication with the Argentine Government on this subject, but I am not yet in a position to make any definite statement respecting it.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I wish to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture a question of which I have given him private notice, very short notice I admit, to the effect that as the English Board of Agriculture has now decided that it can safely allow unrestricted movement of livestock in England owing to the fact that there has been no case of foot-and-mouth disease in England for the past is even or eight weeks, whether he cannot now permit the free movement of livestock from Munster to England as there has been no disease there for thirty years?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: As I have often explained to the House the conditions of traffic between England and Ireland are not similar to the conditions of traffic between various parts of England. Some seven weeks have elapsed since the last case in England, and some three or four weeks since the last case in Ireland; but I am hoping to modify the restrictions

  1277
  considerably in the near future, and I am taking into account the fact that the outbreak in Ireland has been in one centre during the last few weeks, and nowhere else in the country.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Lord BALCARRES: I wish to ask the Leader of the House whether he can make a statement as to what, if any, Government business will be taken to-morrow evening, and also, for the convenience of the House generally, about Friday's proceedings, as we do not yet know at what time the House will meet or at what time it will rise?
  The PRIME MINISTER: To-morrow evening we do not propose to take any Government business after Eleven o'clock. It is our intention to take the Committee stage of the Established Church (Wales) Bill on Friday, but not to treat that as an allotted day. There will be some other Order, and it will not be the first Order of the day.
  Lord BALCARRES: Do we meet at mid-day on Friday?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes; it will be treated as an ordinary Friday. The Established Church (Wales) Bill will be the second Order, and Friday will not be treated as an allotted day—it will be an extra day outside the allocation. I do not know whether the Noble Lord wishes to know about the business of next week?
  Lord BALCARRES: Yes, if the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to make a statement.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I may just as well state it now. Next week, on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, we will proceed with the Government of Ireland Bill, and on Thursday with the Established Church (Wales) Bill.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  Mr. W. A. REDMOND: I desire to draw the attention of the House to a statement which the Leader of the Opposition attributed to me as having been used by me in a speech in this House. He led up to the quotation, last night, in the following words:—
  "The whole sum and substance of what the Government are doing in this matter is that they are determined not to allow any preference for the United Kingdom, as a whole, against foreign countries, but they are doing, and they are ready to do, what Members from Ireland have claimed that, if ever they had the power, they would do, namely, to set up a system of Protection against England and Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I can read a quotation, even in the
  1308
  short time left, from a speech. It is by the hon. Member, who, I think, is the son of the Leader of the Irish party. Speaking in this House, he said—"
  and then the Leader of the Opposition proceeded to quote, I read from the OFFICIAL REPORT:—
  "What we want is Protection,"
  I have never made such a statement either inside or outside this House
  "and not against the tariffs of Germany and the United States, but against this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1912, col. 1104.]
  I did not find very great difficulty in verifying the right hon. Gentleman's quotation, because I have only had the honour of making one speech already up to this in this House. What I did say upon that occasion was in discussing the relative alternative proposals put forward by the Liberal and the Conservative parties for the solution of the Irish problem—I am quoting from the Official Report:—
  "What are the remedies offered? The Ulster Unionists say in chorus with the party with which they choose to join in this British House of Commons, 'give us Tariff Reform'; but I say that the only way in which the people of Ireland would consider Tariff Reform, if ever they did consider it, would be in connection with tariffs not against Germany, or the United States, or Australia, but against this country."
  And then I proceeded to say—
  "What is the solution of the Ulster Nationalists and of the party to which I have the honour to belong? The solution is the one accepted and endorsed by the Prime Minister himself to-night, the granting of a full measure of self-government to Ireland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1911, Vol. XXI., col. 1143.]
  I do not presume for one moment to say that my statements upon Protection or upon Tariff Reform are of very great importance to the people of this country. I am yet a young man and a young Member of this House, but what I do desire is that in common justice to a Member of this House the Leader of the Opposition should not misrepresent and misquote me.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As hon. Gentlemen who were present last night know, I had only two minutes in which to make a speech on an important subject. I happened to have in my pocket two quotations—the one which the hon. Gentleman has read, and another from another Nationalist Member, which I had intended to use the previous day—but had forgotten, and which I thought useful in that Debate. I had not time—anyone who was present knows that—to read the whole quotation, though I had it before me and have it now, and will show it to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes. What I did do was to summarise, and I am

  1309
  sure anyone who was present will recollect, in my own words what I thought was the first part of his speech. What I said was: "What they want is Protection." Then I looked at the quotation and read the exact words—I am perfectly sure of this—in the end of the quotation, which were:—
  "in connection with tariffs not against Germany or the United States, but against this country."
  That is exactly what I read. I admit that my reading of it does give a different version from what the whole question gives, because the words, which I would have read if I had had time—
  if ever they dirt consider it"
  do put a different interpretation on it, and I therefore admit the hon. Gentleman has the right to raise the question.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Reginald Blair, esquire, for the Borough of Tower Hamlets (Bow and Bromley Division).
  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
    TWENTIETH ALLOTTED DAY.— [Progress, 26th November.]
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

    CLAUSE 22.—(Joint Exchequer Board.)
    (1) For the purposes of the financial provisions of this Act there shall be established a Board to be called the Joint Exchequer Board, consisting of two members appointed by the Treasury and two members appointed by the Irish Treasury and a chairman appointed by His Majesty.
    (2) It shall be the duty of the Joint Exchequer Board to determine any matter which is to be determined by the Board under this Act, and also to determine any other matter in connection with the Transferred Sum, or Irish revenue or expenditure, or the cost of any reserved service, which may be referred to them for determination by the Treasury and the Irish Treasury jointly, and the decision of the Board on any matter which is to be determined by them shall be final and conclusive.
    (3) Any vacancy arising in the office of a member of the Board, owing to the death, resignation, or incapacity of any member of the Board, shall be filled by the authority by whom the member whose place is vacant was appointed.
    The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment I propose to take to this Clause is the one standing in the name of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Walter Guinness) [Composition of Joint Exchequer Board], which will permit of general debate on both the constitution and the powers of the proposed Joint Exchequer Board. I ought to say I can only put part of the Amendment under the Rules of the House. I am unable to put Sub-section (3), part of Sub-section (5), and Sub-section (6), as they would require a Money Resolution before they could be inserted in the Bill. The hon. Member can still discuss the question of salaries in proposing the rest of his Amendment, The next following Amendment I propose to take will be that of the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton).
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: May I ask for the guidance of the Committee whether you can conveniently indicate which Amendment you propose to select, after the fall of the guillotine at 7.30, to Clause 24? May I, in the second place, ask you with regard to your ruling that a certain portion of the Amendment now to be proposed would require a Financial Resolution? In the Bill there is no provision whatever for the payment of any salary cither for the Joint Exchequer Board or to any officer of the Joint Exchequer Board. Are we to understand from your ruling that before any provision is to be made by the Government or by private Members for the payment of any such salary or remuneration that a Money Resolution will be required from this House?
    The CHAIRMAN: Dealing with the second question first, certainly what I have said applies to the Government as much as to a private Member. Any proposal to put those or similar words in the Bill would involve a Money Resolution. Of course it may be possible to proceed by way of a Vote on the Estimates. With regard to the hon. Member's first question, I think I may conveniently state that on Clause 24 I propose to take first the two Amendments standing in the names of the hon. Member for South Birmingham (Mr. Amery) and the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Hewins), which are to be read together.
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. FELL: In reference to my Amendments which you do not propose to take, may I ask whether it is clear that the Joint Exchequer Board is to consist of five

    1311
    members unless it is explicity stated as in my Amendment?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can put that question in the general Debate.
    Mr. FELL: I am in doubt whether it can be five or more.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member should put that question to the Government, not to me.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESShad the following Amendment on the Paper: At the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the following words:—
    "(2) The term of office of a member of the Joint Exchequer Board shall be ten years, but any member may at any time resign and any member may be removed by His Majesty for incapacity or misconduct.
    "(3) There shall be paid to each member of the Joint Exchequer Board such salary as the Treasury and the Irish Treasury jointly may direct.
    "(4) The Joint Exchequer Board may act by three of their number and, subject to the approval of the Treasury and the Irish Treasury jointly, may regulate their own procedure.
    "(5) The Joint Exchequer Board may, with the consent of the Treasury and the Irish Treasury jointly, appoint and employ such officers and servants as they think necessary, and may remove any officer or servants so appointed and employed, and there shall be paid to such officers and servants such salaries or remuneration as the Joint Exchequer Board, with the consent of the Treasury and the Irish Treasury jointly, may determine.
    "(6) The salaries of the members of the Joint Exchequer Board, and the salaries or remuneration of their officers and servants, and any expenses (other than the expenses of the issue or management of any loan undertaken by the Board on behalf of the Irish Government) incurred by the Joint Exchequer Board in the execution of their duties under this Act, to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury and the Irish Treasury jointly, shall be defrayed in equal proportions out of moneys provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom and by the Irish Parliament."
    Consequent upon the ruling of the Chairman, the Amendment was moved in the following form:—
    1312
    "(2) The term of office of a member of the Joint Exchequer Board shall be ten years, but any member may at any time resign and any member may be removed by His Majesty for incapacity or misconduct.
    "(3) The Joint Exchequer Board may act by three of their number and, subject to the approval of the Treasury and the Irish Treasury jointly, may regulate their own procedure.
    "(4) The Joint Exchequer Board may with the consent of the Treasury and the Irish Treasury jointly, appoint and employ such officers and servants as they think necessary, and may remove any officer or servants so appointed and employed."
    Mr. W. GUINNESS: The object of my Amendment is to lay down definitely the status, constitution, and salaries of the Joint Exchequer Board, matters which are left absolutely undetermined as the Bill stands. I understand from your ruling that, in discussing the Amendment, we may bring in the very relevant matter of the extensive powers of the Joint Exchequer Board. It is clear that our case for laying down the status of the Board must very largely rest on the importance of its work. I do not think it is possible to exaggerate the momentous importance of the powers which the Government propose to give to this Board. The Chancellor of the English Exchequer and the Chancellor of the Irish Exchequer will both be absolutely in the hands of the Joint Exchequer Board. It will be a kind of blind fate upon which no one can reckon. However carefully the Chancellor of the Exchequer in either country may budget, the Joint Exchequer Board will be in a position to turn all their estimates into waste-paper, and by their decisions to take away a surplus and bring about a deficit. The truth of that statement can be appreciated if the Committee will consider the very extensive powers proposed to be given to this Board. They are to determine the cost of the services originally transferred. That is a duty of enormous difficulty, because the transferred services and the reserved services are so inextricably interwoven that it is not a matter of fact, but a matter of policy where the reserve services are to stop and where the transferred services are to begin. The distinctinction between what is to be handed over to Ireland and what is to be retained may have a very important financial bearing upon both Exchequers. The

    1313
    Congested Districts Board, for instance, is to be handed over. A large amount of the Congested Districts Board machinery is used for the purpose of facilitating land purchase, which is a reserved service. How are you going to distinguish between the cost of the service which is to be transferred and the cost of that which is to be kept under the responsibility of the Imperial Treasury? The Board are to determine the proceeds of Irish taxes. They are also to decide whether any Irish tax is substantially the same as an Imperial tax. They are to estimate the loss to the Imperial revenue, and therefore also to the Transferred Sum, arising from the reduction or discontinuance of an Imperial tax in Ireland. They are to decide whether the 10 per cent. limit of yield from additional Irish taxes has been exceeded, and, if so, by how much? These last two powers open up a question of enormous difficulty.
    We have had no satisfactory answer from the Government as to how the Joint Exchequer Board are to allocate the proceeds of taxes between the Imperial and the Irish Exchequers. When the Irish Exchequer imposes a duty or a tax which roaches the point of diminishing the yield, how are they to say whether the tax was going to fall in any case, and how are they to decide what proportion of the decrease in the yield is due to the additional tax? There is no doubt, that this power must be exercised merely on grounds of opinion, and that there will be no definite arithmetical system upon which to go. In addition to that, it has been made quite clear that on both sides of the House there is a great difference of opinion as to how the proceeds of a tax where there is an Irish surtax are to be allocated. It is impossible to see how the Joint Exchequer Board can have any light except their own ideas of policy in deciding this very difficult question. They have to decide the increase of the Transferred Sum which is to accompany any transferred or reserved service in the first instance. On that I should like to ask the Government a question which we have not yet been able to raise owing to the operation of the guillotine. In settling the Transferred Sum in the case of an original transferred service, the basis is to be the net cost to the Joint Exchequer at the time of the passing of the Act. In the case of a future transfer of a service originally reserved, the basis is not to be the cost to the Imperial Exchequer, but the estimated cost over a period of ten years, taking into consideration
    1314
    probable decreases. We have never had any explanation whatever as to why there should be this different basis of calculation. The Board may manage any Irish debts arising from a loan secured on the Transferred Sum. They must make estimates of the true revenue. Anyone who has listened to the Debates on this question will admit that that is a matter of enormous difficulty. The Board are to report when for three successive years Irish revenue has exceeded the expenditure on Irish services. I do not think they will have much work under that head for a considerable time to come. They are to direct the Treasury to pay cash into the Irish Treasury during the transitional period, and under the Amendments recently moved by the Government they are to protect Ireland against any possibility of protection by deciding what constitutes a reasonable difference between Customs and Excise rates so as to afford no protection to Irish industries. They have to decide whether any drawback proposed to be enacted by the Irish Parliament is excessive and confers any protection on Ireland.
    From this brief enumeration the Committee will see that the powers of the Joint Exchequer Board are enormous and important, and that we ought to look very closely into its constitution. It is one of the inherent vices of this Bill and the machinery it proposes to set up that you must have somebody of this kind to decide these questions. It is unfortunate that they will not have to exercise judicial functions; they will have to decide on matters of high financial policy, and it is an inherent difficulty that there is absolutely no means of checking their decisions or of having any information as to the grounds which have caused them to arrive at those decisions. In most cases all that the two Parliaments can expect are bare figures, and no data upon which they can found their policy or expect the decisions of the Joint Exchequer Board on like cases in future years. Owing to the importance of this body it is most necessary that their status and powers should be distinctly laid down in the Bill. Unless it is put into the Bill, who is going to settle the point? This body is to be the servant of neither Parliament, but very largely the master of both. To show how anomalous the position is, I will read one or two answers given by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to questions on this subject. In reply to the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh (Sir John Lonsdale), who

    1315
    asked whether the Joint Exchequer Board would be controlled by the Imperial Parliament, the Prime Minister answered:—
    "It will be an independent body acting independently because it performs a statutory duty."
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to the same hon. Member, stated:—
    "The Bill does not contemplate that a decision of the Joint Exchequer Board on the questions specifically referred to should be the subject of review in ordinary course by either the Parliament of the United Kingdom or the Parliament of Ireland. The provisions of Clause 1 (2) of the Bill make it clear that the Imperial Parliament, if it thought fit, would have the same power of review in these matters as it has in any other."
    Anybody who looks at Clause 1 (2) will see that that safeguard is absolutely illusory, and that to have any control over the Joint Exchequer Board it would be necessary to pass an Act of Parliament. It is therefore essential, as far as possible, to provide for this function in the Bill. It is obviously impossible, however you change the Bill, to get a satisfactory control in the hands of either Parliament, because another authority will be affected, and it will be impossible to compel the Joint Exchequer Board to carry out the views of one body and of one body alone. I confess that when I first looked into this Clause I was so shocked at the absence of Parliamentary control that I thought of asking the Government to accept an Amendment providing that a responsible Minister from each Cabinet should sit on the Exchequer Board, so that in each Parliament there should be some one to answer for its decisions in the same way that the Chief Secretary for Ireland now answers for the decisions of various Irish Boards. But I came to the conclusion that in matters so controversial the two Treasuries would be bound to fall out, and that if you had any provision of that kind it would inevitably lead to great friction. I was influenced also by the fact that really in these days one cannot trust our Treasury to interpret public Statutes. I know that it is the fashion for our Western civilisation to give itself airs over Oriental despotism for the greater legality of the way in which our government is carried on; but I do not think that any Oriental tyrant could show less regard for the principles of justice in the interpretation of the laws of the land than the Commissioners of Inland Revenue very often show, acting no doubt on the instructions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We all know that in the last two years, under the Land Clauses of the 1909 Budget, a
    1316
    certain society has brought eleven cases against the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for illegal exactions, and has been successful in every one of them. That is a strong reason for not allowing the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have too much to do with the decisions as to the justice of financial rectifications between England and Ireland. If you have to have this body under the machinery of the Bill, the less the Exchequer has to do with it the better. My Amendment really goes on the principle of the small choice in rotten apples. As you have got to have this body it is better to accept so vicious a principle as the lesser of two evils, and to see as far as possible that you provide against mistakes in details. I now-come to the machinery which I propose. Sub-section (2) of the Amendment lays down the term of office as ten years. This is copied from the recent precedent in the Development and Road Improvement Bill. I am not particularly anxious that the figure of ten years should be adopted, but I do ask that some definite term of office should be laid down. Sub-section (3) provides that a salary should be paid by the Treasury and by the Irish Treasury jointly. I think it would be a revelation to the House that owing to the ruling you, Mr. Whitley, gave this afternoon, apparently it would be impossible, without an Amendment, for any salary whatever to be paid to the Members of the Joint Exchequer Board.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs)expressed dissent.
    Mr. W. GUINNESS: The right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General apparently disagrees with that. I think we had a very definite ruling from the Chair that the Government was in the same position as a private Member in this respect: that it would be impossible to pay a special salary to the Members of the Joint Exchequer Board under the provisions of the Bill as it stands, moulded as it must be on the Financial Resolution. The inference from that is that the Government were going merely to detail Treasury officers as part of their ordinary work, perhaps temporarily, to fulfil the functions of the Joint Exchequer Board. I think that would be very objectionable. A body of this importance should be definitely constituted, and manned by financial experts, holding a definite status and not dependent upon the prejudices of either Treasury whose opinions they may disagree from on certain and definite and very important

    1317
    questions. I think to have independence in this Exchequer Board you must have a definite term of years for appointment, and you must have a definite salary, and not have mere Treasury officials seconded from their usual work. Sub-section (4) of my Amendment is to lay down a quorum. If you do not have a quorum on the Joint Exchequer Board you may find that some work is done without the other partner to the bargain being considered. You may, for instance, have a meeting deciding a very important Irish question on which perhaps the opinions of two Irish representatives only will be heard, owing to absence through illness or some other unforeseen circumstances of the other representatives. It is not unreasonable to ask that there should be a quorum of at least three in view of the fact that in the case of the Development Board, in spite of the fact that it is a homogeneous body which does not represent widely divergent interests, as in the case of the Joint Exchequer Board, you have there a quorum of three. Sub-sections (5) and (6) explain themselves. Mutatis mutandis they are practically taken from the Development and the Road Improvement Act of 1909.
    From the precedents which I have quoted I have shown, although there are no precedents for the powers which you propose to give to this Board, which is to be the arbiter of our Budgets in future, that owing to the mania of the present Government for creating Boards and Commissions of every kind, there are a good many precedents for the status and constitution of these semi-independent bodies. It is rather interesting to notice in connection with the National Insurance Act of last year that that very important body, the Insurance Commissioners, was set up without, owing to the action of the guillotine, their constitution being discussed either in this Committee or on Report. In these days, when we have got cause to be thankful for very small mercies, I suppose we ought to be rather glad of an opportunity for discussing this matter at all. I sincerely hope that the Government will accept my Amendment, or at least take some steps to lay down on definite lines the constitution and functions of this Board; that on this Amendment they may take the opportunity to clear up some ob-securities which are left as to the general powers of this very important body, and that they may also take an opportunity to explain, if they can, some of the absurdities which are involved in its creation.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The questions that have been raised by the Amendment are no doubt important. Although they have been discussed to some extent during the discussion of the financial Clauses, it is quite correct to say that we have not been able to have a general discussion as to the constitution, the duties, and the powers of this Board. The hon. Member has put before the Committee very good grounds, as it seems to me, for a consideration of this Amendment, and he has argued his case quite clearly and forcibly. But what occurred to me, and what I suggest to the Committee, is that a complete answer is that the points raised particularly—and I hope to give some explanation as I go on—need not be dealt with in this Bill. It is quite unnecessary to provide in the Bill for, I will not say all, but some of the matters which are included in the Amendment. I will point out one when I have proceeded a little way in discussing what are the powers and functions of this Board. The hon. Member said that this Board has to deal with opinions and facts, and, he also added, matters of policy and of opinion. I agree with him that the Board will have to deal with matters of fact, and also that the Board will have to express opinions, but I do not agree that the Board will have to determine policy. That seems to us to be quite outside the functions of this Board as regulated by Statute. As was pointed out yesterday, in determining matters of fact, it may be that in some instances—I think there are instances—the Board will have to determine a matter of law. But in the main what the Board will have to answer is the question put to it as to what is the amount in certain and particular cases that come before it. They will have to answer what is the amount of the proceeds in one case, and in another what is the amount by which the Transferred Sum is to be reduced. A series of questions of that character will no doubt come before the Board. They are set out in the Bill, and I do not propose to enumerate them. The hon. Member knows they are of a varied character. Except certainly in one or two instances at the most, what the Board will have to deal with is a question of figures, and the determination of what is the answer to be made upon a calculation of a series of figures, it may be upon a compilation of statistics, and also the consideration of the various points that should be taken into account in arriving at the true answer to the question which is put.

    1319
    This Board is really a Board of financial experts. It is not intended in any sense to be a legal tribunal, nor is it intended to be in any sense a Board which will sit in judgment in any way upon either of the Parliaments, or both. What it is intended to be is a Board which shall determine questions of fact that must arise upon the figures, and which cannot be determined unless you appoint some such Board. In order to give effect to our views the Board is constituted of two members appointed by the Treasury of this country and two members appointed by the Irish Treasury. There will be a chairman appointed who will act in a sense as umpire. In a number of cases no doubt the Board will be agreed. In some cases there no doubt will be a difference of opinion. Where there is a difference of opinion there must be some mode of arriving at a settlement of the difference, and what is provided is the quite well-known course of having the views of either side put forward by those competent to form and express an opinion upon the facts, and after the matter has been discussed for a decision to be arrived at. In the case of a difference of opinion between the Irish members on the one side and the British members on the other, the chairman of the Board will act between the two, and he with them will decide the whole question.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Has he only a casting vote or an ordinary vote as a member of the Board?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: He votes with them. There are five members. The majority will decide and his opinion will prevail. He is to be the chairman. He is simply there under the terms of the Bill as one of the members of the Board, and as chairman.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Without a casting vote?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Without a casting vote.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Supposing there are an equal number present and that the vote is equal, will the chairman enter the casting vote or not?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The only result will be that they will have to wait until there is a meeting of the full Board, or at least a sufficient number to make a majority. No difficulty would seem possible to arise in regard to that. The
    1320
    utmost that will happen will be that supposing the meeting consists of four members instead of five, including the chairman, and there is an equal division of opinion, you would have to wait until the fifth member came to a meeting in order to arrive at a definite conclusion.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: What is the quorum?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: No quorum has been actually fixed. But I can tell the Committee that what is intended is that the quorum should be three. That is all put down by the regulations in a later Clause, Clause 44. It will have to decide various questions of this kind. The Clause was often referred to, and it undoubtedly saves a great deal of unnecessary repetition in the Bill. I am glad of that, but I should think it is quite an ordinary course, and what we propose to do by that means is to make regulations which will provide for the carrying out of these powers without the necessity of having to enumerate all of them.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: May I ask a question? If two Irish members and only one English member were present and arrived at a decision, would that decision be valid without the consent of the absent members?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I should have thought when a question of that kind arises it would not be decided by the three members, but that they would wait for another meeting.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: They could rescind it.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I have no doubt they could rescind it, but it would be a very curious thing for them to come to a conclusion and then immediately to enter upon its reconsideration. I have been explaining what the situation of the Board is, and I will add this. I do not profess for a moment to be determining who are to be the members of the Board, but what we contemplate is that you should have as representatives of the Treasury upon this side, and equally, I presume, upon the Irish side, financial experts such as high officials of the Treasury—men who are accustomed to dealing with questions of this character, and who, as everybody will admit, are the best men for dealing with questions of this kind that can be found in the country. When I make that statement I will add this, dealing with that

    1321
    part of the Amendment which is out of order, so far as incorporation in the Bill is concerned, but which does not prevent me from discussing it, and therefore permits an answer, that although the hon. Member is quite right in saying that, in view of the Chairman's ruling that the Bill, according to the Money Resolution passed, could not provide for the payment of salaries, there is no difficulty in providing with salaries. These salaries could be voted, and will be put upon the Estimates, and would come up for discussion in this House so far as payments are concerned made out of the British Treasury, and the same thing would apply in Ireland.
    But it does not necessarily follow that salaries would have to be paid and it is as well to bear that in mind, and therefore it is unnecessary to provide for them in the Bill. Suppose you had representatives of the British Treasury sitting upon this Board; they have their appointments and the time taken up in doing this work would not be such as would necessitate the appointment of permanent members to sit upon this Board. I agree at the outset some time will be taken up in bringing the Bill into operation and in determining some questions left for them to face in the first year. But once you answer the main questions here all subsequent questions that arise are by no means such as would necessitate the attendance of the members of the Board perhaps more than once in two or three months, probably it might be less, and therefore, as it seems to us, it would be rather ridiculous to appoint men with salaries under this Bill for duties that may never be necessary. I agree we have to bear in mind that the chairman is in a different category, and his position may or may not require a salary. There may be found a gentleman to do the work without it, but whether or not, no difficulty arises because the officials will be a body paid by the two Parliaments, and it would be a matter of negotiation for the two Parliaments to determine what salary is to be paid, and the proportion between the two; and each Parliament would have to vote the amount to be paid. And although I agree it is not necessary, and indeed it is not possible, to deal with this particular point upon this Amendment, it is possible for me to give the answer I have given, and to explain why it is we make no provisions for that in the Bill.
    Now, if I may deal with the first part of the Amendment which provides for the
    1322
    term of years. For the reasons I have explained we do not want to fix a term of years. What is contemplated is that high officials will be appointed while they are officials and we do not want the term to be five years or ten years. It may be that the official would cease to be an official of the Treasury after a number of years and you may require that the person in that particular office in the Treasury-should sit upon the Board. Consequently we cannot accept the first part of the Amendment. The rest of the Amendment deals with the salaries and service and expenses. What I have already said with regard to the salaries of the members of the Board would apply equally to clerks in that service, if they are necessary. It is quite possible, no doubt particularly so at the outset, that some clerks would be requisite. That also would come upon the Estimates. I have now answered in detail each of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman upon his Amendment, but I would add some information for the Committee, not only upon the duties of the Board, but also what we propose to do with reference to questions of law which may arise. I have already dealt with this on two occasions, but I agree some what in a piecemeal manner, because one is only able to answer particular questions on particular Amendments.
    I desire to make quite plain to the Committee what the position of the Government is now that we are discussing the whole question of the Clause, and what it is we are prepared to do, taking into account the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College and also the discussions that have taken place in the Debate since. The conclusion we arrived at was that there should be on matters of law, if they arise, and if the Board's opinion is expressed on matters of law, an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. We have already said this in terms with regard to whether or not a service is an Irish service, and we have already said it in reference to the question whether an independent tax is substantially the same tax as that imposed by the Imperial Parliament. In regard to that, as I stated yesterday, we are proposing not only that there should be the ordinary right which is given under this Bill to the Lord Lieutenant and the Secretary of State to refer the matter to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, but also that the subject shall have the right of appeal—an appeal not to be simply upon

    1323
    the opinion expressed by the Joint Exchequer Board, but an appeal heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on its merits, decided according to the opinion of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; and I think, as I explained it yesterday, the Committee was satisfied that that view did certainly redeem the promise the Government had made in regard to it.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is that on Clause 29?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Yes.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Then you will have to modify this Clause.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: We shall deal with it all together, because there are various points I have not touched upon which must also be the subject of amendment when we come to Clause 29. I have now explained the position with regard to Irish services and independent taxes, but we have come, to the conclusion further that the Joint Exchequer Board in determining any one of the questions referred to it might have to determine a point of law, and in some cases I agree will have, at any rate, to interpret the Statute. In most cases it will not have to deal with questions of law at all, but in some cases it will, and if the Joint Exchequer Board has a point of law on which it is in any doubt or difficulty, and if it desires to have any opinion, what we propose is that the Joint Exchequer Board should obtain the opinion of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on that point of law. In other words, that the Joint Exchequer Board should refer any question upon which it desires an answer to the judges of the highest tribunal—the judges as the Committee knows are the judicial committee of the Privy Council—and we shall get from that authoritative body an opinion for the Joint Exchequer Board which will admit of no doubt, and that will save, as it appears to us, a great deal of time and trouble and expense, because it will enable the Joint Exchequer Board to get the highest opinion without taking the opinion of counsel or of the Law Officers or of any lawyer, except those who are in a position to pronounce authoritatively upon it, and to set at rest any question of doubt that may exist. That is what we propose to do with the Joint Exchequer Board. The whole object of our doing that is to deal with the arguments raised quite recently.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: When the Joint Exchequer Board asks the opinion of the Judicial Committee, will they give notice that they are going to do so, so that other parties that are interested may be heard if necessary?
    Sir E. CARSON: Will there be a hearing?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Oh, certainly, there will be a hearing, and the Judicial Committee will have the right, as I indicated yesterday, to give leave to any party who, in the opinion of the Judicial Committee, ought to be heard at the hearing so that anyone who has an objection to raise and ought to be heard can be heard by application to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The whole object of this is that as this Board may have to deal with the question of law outside the one dealing with Irish services, upon which we have expressed our view, aid outside the question of whether an independent tax is actually the same tax as that imposed by the Imperial Parliament, there might still be questions arising whether the Joint Exchequer Board has certain powers. If the Joint Exchequer Board acts in excess of its powers then it is subject to the ordinary tribunals of the law and, of course, application could be made and the Joint Exchequer Board could be restrained, as every other statutory Board could be restrained, by the Courts of Law. That, of course, only arises if the Board acts in excess of its powers.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Which Courts would decide that?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It can be raised either in the one Court or in the other. Eventually, of course, the higher Co art has to decide, and it is the same Court both for Ireland and Great Britain, because if it was litigated in the Irish Courts, the ultimate Court is the Privy Council, and if it was litigated in the British Courts the final tribunal is the House of Lords, which is substantially the same Court.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: Do I understand that this appeal to the Privy Council is only on the initiative of the Exchequer Board itself? Supposing that the exchequer Board decided a point of law, that it thinks it knows the law on a point, and that some persons consider themselves aggrieved by that decision, is there any other machinery to bring the matter before the Privy Council, supposing the Joint Exchequer Board did not wish to do so?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Certainly. Take the question whether an independent tax is exactly the same as a tax already imposed by the Imperial Parliament, for example.
    Mr. CASSEL: Does that also apply to revenue restrictions and drawbacks?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That would be a different question, and that is not by any means the same question. What I have said with regard to the subject of appeal relates to the independent tax. What I am now dealing with is the possibility of other questions arising on which there ought to be an opinion of law taken; because the Joint Exchequer Board is not a body of lawyers like the House of Lords or the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. As regards the subject, he always has the right in any Court to litigate this question when the Joint Exchequer Board has acted in excess of its powers. If the Board is properly interpreting a Statute, no question arises; but if the Board wrongly interprets a Statute, then there is power in the Courts to interfere, either by mandamus or certiorari. I am taking the instance of the Board interpreting a Statute which, in their view, gave them jurisdiction, but which, in fact, does not do so, or does so in such a way as would bring one of these Clauses into operation. I am assuming that the Exchequer Board expressed an opinion on it, but was wrong in the view taken. There is always the power of the subject to proceed in the ordinary Courts of Law; but it must always be borne in mind that what I am referring to now is a matter of appeal to the Judicial Committee, which is quite outside the appeal already given under another Clause. What we are giving now is supplemental, and when we have given this right of recourse to the Judicial Committee we have given every safeguard which can possibly be asked in reference to any legal decision of the Joint Exchequer Board. Of course, we do not intend to give an appeal on facts from the Joint Exchequer Board, and I do not suppose that anyone would ask for that. There is no other tribunal to which you could go. There is not even a Parliament to appeal to, because you would really have to appeal to two Parliaments as one sitting together. What is intended is that we should have an end put to any doubt on this question, and that is provided for in the Bill. Matters of fact are left entirely to the Board, and we do not
    1326
    intend to interfere either with their decisions or opinions upon matters of fact. As I have already indicated, I have confined this entirely to questions of law.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Joint Exchequer Board must go to the Privy Council, but the subject must proceed in the ordinary way?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Yes, that is quite right. If the Joint Exchequer Board has to determine a number of these questions, and would like an opinion as to how to interpret a particular Clause, what we desire is that there should not be any time lost or litigation over it, but that they should be able to get an opinion without loss of time from the highest Courts.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: But the highest Courts are open to both parties. They are open to an aggrieved subject.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It is not a question of both parties or of an aggrieved subject. We are dealing with the view which the Joint Exchequer Board may form as to the interpretation of a particular Clause, and in order that the Board may form its opinion upon a matter of law quickly, we are giving it this opportunity of going to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. If, on the other hand, the subject is aggrieved, if his view is that the decision of the Joint Exchequer Board has travelled outside the powers which are given to them under this Bill, then, of course, he is entitled to defend any suit or litigate the matter.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I understand that the Joint Exchequer Board, when in doubt, are to take the opinion of the Privy Council, but the subject cannot go to the same tribunal?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The subject can go to the Privy Council, but no doubt he would have to go through the ordinary course, and it would be a question of law as to whether they have exceeded their powers or not. If the hon. and learned Member will just look at what the powers of the Joint Exchequer Board are he will see that it can rarely happen that a question of law can arise for their determination. They will, in the main, have to deal with figures, but if they have to decide a point on which they desire to have an opinion, we have given them the opportunity of taking the opinion of the highest

    1327
    authority. I do not quite follow why it is suggested the subject should have that right in the same way. The subject is not affected in the same way, and he would not be the person aggrieved. It is not like the collection of taxes from him, because those are matters which a subject has a right to litigate in the Court.
    Mr. CASSEL: In regard to revenue restrictions as to drawbacks.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That shows what is the difference between the hon. and learned Member and ourselves upon this subject. We do not intend that there should be an appeal on questions of that character. All we intend is that there should be an appeal on certain questions of law with the right of the Joint Exchequer Board to go to the Privy Council if it desires to obtain an opinion on a point of law.
    Mr. CASSEL: The case may involve a question of law as to what the powers of the Joint Exchequer Board are.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The hon. Member is repeating what I have just pointed out. That arises in case they are acting in excess of their powers. In that case, of course, there is the right which exists for the subject in the ordinary Courts. It does not appear to us that there is any real need for any further appeal in the case of the subject, and we have given every possible safeguard which he can desire.
    Mr. HOHLER: Under this Bill are not the decisions of the Joint Exchequer Board matters of opinion and discussion? If that is so, can the Attorney-General suggest any form in which they can come into a Court of Law? Will he point out how in any action at law the subject can ever get to the Privy Council?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: So far as the Board give decisions on matters of fact which come before them, there is no intention that there should be an appeal. So far, however, as they are giving an opinion based upon law in which some legal question arises on which they have any doubt and desire further opinion, then they can have recourse to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. We do not give anybody the right to question the decision on matters of fact arrived at by
    1328
    the Joint Exchequer Board, and it is only with reference to legal facts that we are going to allow the Joint Exchequer Board to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
    Mr. HAMERSLEY: If the Joint Exchequer Board act ultra rires, has the subject no appeal?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Only in the instances to which I have referred.
    Mr. HAMERSLEY: In that one instance.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: We do not give the subject the right except through the ordinary recourse he has to the Courts.
    Mr. HAMERSLEY: Then there are no ordinary rights unless the Joint Exchequer Board act ultra vires?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: If the Board travel outside their powers then the subject has an appeal. I am waiting to hear how7 the subject will be placed at any disadvantage through not having recourse to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in cases where the Joint Exchequer Board is to have the opportunity of taking that course. I think I have now dealt with all the questions which have been raised by the hon. Member who moved this Amendment, but, if not, I am ready to answer further questions. What I am submitting to the Committee is that, having constituted this Board for the purpose of arriving at conclusions on facts, it is essential that it should remain as provided by the Bill, the sole judge of the facts; but we have altered the appeal in deference to suggestions made from the other side, and we have endeavoured to give everybody who will be affected a right of access to the Courts. So far as I can see, we have succeeded in that object; in fact, I think we have gone a good deal further than we have been asked to do, and certainly we have gone further than we have been pressed to go up to the present moment. Having considered this matter, we thought it was only fair that there should be this opportunity given to the Joint Exchequer Board, so that they might get the highest opinion, and I hope the Committee will think that we have done all that is necessary in this direction. Therefore the answer we must make to the Amendment is that we cannot accept it for the reasons I have pointed out, namely, that the various matters

    1329
    dealt with are to be dealt with in a different way by the Government, and it is not necessary to include them in the Bill.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think anybody who came into the House while the right hon. Gentleman was speaking would, after the first five minutes of his reply, have found it difficult to trace any connection between his speech and the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I do not complain of the right hon. Gentleman having taken the occasion to give us some information which is entirely outside the scope of the Amendment. My complaint would rather be a repetition of one made previously, that it now appears the proposals we are really invited to discuss are not the proposals of this Clause or even the proposals on the Paper, but some proposals which have not yet found a place anywhere on the Government Order Paper. For instance, you need cast you eye no further than the end of the second Sub-section of this Clause to find that—
    "the decision of the Board on any matter which is to be determined by them shall be final and conclusive."
    The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have already promised an appeal from the Board on certain questions. The Attorney-General has slightly enlarged that promise to-day, but even yesterday he did not think it worth while to put down an Amendment on the Paper to alter these words, which are directly contrary to the present intention of the Government, and this Clause and another have to be voted on at half-past Seven without the intentions of the Government being embodied in them. That really is not fair treatment of the House of Commons. I do not desire to follow the right hon. Gentleman into the rather technical legal questions which were raised in the latter part of his speech. They will, no doubt, be dealt with by learned Gentlemen on this side of the House who are much more competent to do so than I am, but I do not understand why the subject should not be able to appeal directly to the Privy Council under Clause 29. The Lord Lieutenant, if he thinks there is a question which the Privy Council should determine, may take that question directly to the Privy Council. Why should not the subject have an appeal directly to the Privy Council? After all, the resources of the subject are less than the resources of the Lord Lieutenant, and I do not know why he should be made the victim of more
    1330
    cumbrous processes of law. I do not say whether the appeal given to the subject is sufficient or not, but I should think, if ever there was a case, this was one where he should be allowed to take it direct to the Privy Council.
    I want rather to call the attention of such Members as are present—not thirty at any time on the Government side of the House while the Attorney-General was speaking—to the revolution which they are making in our Constitution by the Clauses we are going to pass in the course of a few hours. Not long ago the Government carried, with great beating of drums and blowing of trumpets, the Parliament Act, and the feature on which they most prided themselves in regard to that Act was that it established without question and beyond attack from any quarter the absolutely supreme authority of this House of Commons in all matters of United Kingdom finance. No sooner have they secured by Statute the supreme authority of the House of Commons in matters of finance than they proceed to transfer that supreme authority to another body. It is the most extraordinary revolution in our Constitution we have ever known. It is more extraordinary even than the proceedings of the Parliament Act itself. You now transfer the ultimate decision in these matters from the House of Commons in some eases to an Exchequer Board, and in other cases to the Privy Council. You introduce a written Constitution, and you create an Exchequer Board on which we have two representatives and the Irish two representatives, and a chairman holds the balance. That Board will decide, as I understand the intention of the Government, without appeal to anyone except to the Privy Council, all points of law in matters of finance deeply affecting the interests both of the Irish Parliament and the Irish revenue and of this Parliament and the British revenue. I do not think that is the sort of change that ought to go through after two or three hours' discussion in a House of this kind. It really does create an authority in finance superior to the Chancellor of the Exchequer of either Parliament.
    Why is it done? The reason given by the Attorney-General is as extraordinary as the choice which the Government have adopted. He says the questions are necessarily questions between two Parliaments. You cannot appeal from the one to the other, and you must create an authority-external to both of them to decide between

    1331
    them. Are they co-equal bodies? Is that the intention? If they are co-equal bodies, I perfectly understand there can be no appeal from the one to the other; but hitherto we have been told the one was a subordinate body and the other a superior Imperial body. I should have thought when the subordinate body clashed with the Imperial body, the subordinate body must give way and the Imperial body had the right to decide the thing as it thought proper. Not a bit of it. Where the two clash, the authority to decide is to be an outside authority. The matter is to be taken out of the hands of the Imperial Parliament on the ground that, the Imperial Parliament and the Irish Parliament being equal and rival authorities in the case, the Imperial Parliament is not fitted to judge the point at issue. That seems to me to strike at the whole basis of the Government's defence of the Bill. It is an admission that the two Parliaments are not a subordinate Parliament and a superior Parliament, but two co-equal bodies, and that when they differ neither can enforce its will upon the other, but they must refer the question to arbitration. If you once admit that in relation" to finance, it will carry you much further than finance. If you once admit that proposition it will carry you far beyond this Bill, and I have no doubt, if this Bill ever becomes law, you will be forced step by step into adopting that attitude in regard to all questions in dispute between the new Irish Parliament and what is called the Imperial Parliament.
    I raise on the threshold of this Clause, as I have done on other Clauses of the Bill, an objection to the creation of the Exchequer Board. I think, if you are to have an Exchequer Board, it is very desirable you should have an appeal, at any rate, on all the subjects mentioned by the Attorney-General, and, I would add, on some others to the Privy Council. I am not quite certain whether the present method of summoning the Privy Council for appeals of this kind is altogether suitable for the new purpose to which you are putting the Privy Council. The moment you want a tribunal to judge points under the British Constitution I, speaking for myself only, am wholly in favour of taking the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as that tribunal. It acts now in that capacity in Indian, Colonial, and Dominion appeals, and I feel the tribunal which can decide these questions in regard to the Dominions is the right tribunal to
    1332
    decide them where such questions arise in our country. I am not quite certain that the present chance selection of members by the Lord Chancellor for a particular appeal is safely to be applied to the settlement of constitutional questions under our own Constitution—constitutional disputes very likely to which the Lord Chancellor himself may be one of the parties. I think it is at least worth consideration whether, under such circumstnees, the whole Judicial Committee ought not to be summoned for the trial of any case arising under the Statute. That is a matter, perhaps, to be discussed at a later stage. All I say at this stage is that I in no sense complain of the appeal to the Privy Council from the Exchequer Board, but I object to the setting up of the Exchequer Board.
    If the Exchequer Board is to be set up, then surely my hen. Friend's case that you should strictly define its constitution is one that cannot be passed over as lightly as the Attorney-General passed it over. What does the Attorney-General do? He points to Clause 44. Does he mean Clause 44 as it stands on the Paper, or some new Clause he is going to make some time after we have added this Clause 44 to the Bill? I defy him to point to anything in Clause 44 which gives His Majesty in Council any power to make regulations for the future constitution of the Exchequer Board. The whole Clause deals only with Orders in Council for the purpose of the transitory provisions of the Act. Those are the governing words of the Clause. The Exchequer Board is not one of the transitory provisions. Though certain things are specifically mentioned in the later Sections of the Clause, no reference is made to the Exchequer Board. I do not believe the Attorney-General will say that as the Clause is now drawn he could deal with the composition of the Exchequer Board under it.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think the Clause as it stands is certainly open to the construction that it can be done, but, as I have already said I think at a much earlier stage, there will not be any doubt about it. If you read the Clause with the first words to which the right hon. Gentleman referred and also the next part of it—
    "and also for any other matter for which it seems to His Majesty necessary or proper to make provision. …"
    I think there is no difficulty.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I will not go into a detailed discussion of Clause

    1333
    44 now because we must use such time as we have for Clause 22, and trust some day we may be able to discuss Clause 44. Even if Clause 44 did enable the Government to do it, I think it is the most unsatisfactory way of having the thing done. You are setting up a tribunal on finance superior not merely to the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the Irish Parliament or the British Parliament, but superior to this House of Commons, and by the confession of the Attorney-General you are setting it up because where there is a difference on any of these matters between the two Houses, then in the opinion of the Government this House, though nominally superior and though nominally retaining its supreme control, is debarred from exercising that control because it is a party to the suit. At least, to decide a question of that kind you are going to set up an independent tribunal which will be beyond the control of the Government, and, therefore, we ought to have the nature of that tribunal and its constitution clearly defined in the Statute. What does the Attorney-General say? That the idea of the Government is that the British Treasury will appoint officials, and it is a very natural supposition that one of those officials who will be appointed will be the Permanent Under-Secretary of the Treasury, and inasmuch as there will be a great number of questions relating to the Excise, it would be not unnatural that the chairman of the Board of Excise should be another of those representatives. What we want to know further is: Are the Government going to make these as life appointments? Where in the Bill is there any authority to revoke an appointment once made? I say there is no such authority; here is what the Bill says:—
    "There shall be established a Board, to be called the Joint Exchequer Board, consisting of two members appointed by the Treasury and two members appointed by the Irish Treasury, and a chairman appointed by His Majesty."
    The Clause then goes on to describe the duty of this Board, and says that in case of any vacancy arising owing to death, resignation, or incapacity, it shall be filled by the authority by whom the member whose place is vacant was appointed. Thus we have three contingencies contemplated for vacancies arising. Does that not show that my contention is right, and that we ought to have it definitely stated what the conditions of appointment are to
    1334
    be? The right hon. and learned Gentleman indicated that the representatives of either Treasury might be high officials who would be appointed because they held a particular office, and that it would not be the desire of the Government that they should continue to act as members of the Exchequer Board if they cease to hold those particular offices. I want to ask how is the chairman to be appointed, and how, when once appointed, he is to be got rid of? On these subjects the Attorney-General had nothing whatever to say. He suggests that we need not trouble ourselves about that. We have not such complete faith as the right hon. Gentleman naturally possesses in this Government, and, while protesting with all our power against the establishment of this Exchequer Board, this revolution in our finance, and this curtailment of the powers of the House of Commons, we say that if these things are to be done we should have the terms on which these men are to hold office, and we should also have clearly defined in the Bill the powers which they are to exercise.
    Mr. LEES SMITH: I should like to deal with one or two of the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. He argued that the fact that we are setting up an Exchequer Board, with the powers proposed to be given to it, would reduce the House of Commons to a position of inferiority; that it would be a Board superior to the House of Commons. I am bound to say that that way of looking at the subject seems to me to be rather fanciful. If we take any Constitution which is at all federal in its character, inevitably questions for determination must arise between the different parties. These questions have to be decided by some impartial authority. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that in the case of differences between a subordinate authority and a superior authority, the question ought to be decided by the superior authority. But that would be obviously unjust to the subordinate authority.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I suggest that if any question arose between the London County Council and this House, it would be decided by this House, and it would not be referred to a body like the Exchequer Board?
    Mr. LEES SMITH: I do not think that case is analogous. Let us take a parallel case. Obviously, in all federal Constitu-

    1335
    tions—as, for instance, in Canada, the decision is in the hands of an authority which would be impartial towards both sides. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the authority in Canada?"] The Privy Council. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Law Courts."] That is leading to another point. The right hon. Gentleman is objecting to the constitution of the Exchequer Board as distinct from the constitution of a Court of Law. It seems to me really what we are doing in the establishment of this Exchequer Board is to create an authority which in these matters will partake of the character of the Privy Council in dealing with questions of legislation. This abnormal development of the sense of dignity by hon. Members opposite is really showing itself too consciously as being only for the purposes of this Bill. The question we have to determine is: What authority shall decide these financial points. Hon Members opposite have put forward various proposals, and one was that a body which would not only affect the policy of the House of Commons, but might influence the very foundation of its authority, should be an external authority. I have been reading the Debates of 1893, and I have noticed rather curiously that predictions of exactly the same character on this point were then made. But experience has shown that the task imposed on the Privy Council by the Bill of 1893, the task also by this Bill, has been carried out in other countries, where the situation is suitable, without creating any insoluble difficulty. As a matter of fact, you cannot attack the task imposed on the Privy Council if you attack the task of the Exchequer Board. After all, the sums of money involved will be very small compared with the total revenue of the two countries. The points on which the decisions of the Exchequer Board will be taken will depend upon quite intricate financial statistics, which form most unfavourable material for popular expressions of opinion. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have concentrated their attacks on the Exchequer Board to the powers proposed to be conferred on it. The reason appears to me to be that t he powers of the Exchequer Board seem to them formidable simply because they are new, and because the provisions cannot be compared, as in the case of the Privy Council, with results achieved under other constitutions. Apart from that, I can quite understand the point of view of
    1336
    hon. Members opposite, who are discussing this as a wrecking Amendment. Provided you are going to have this Bill, some authority has to be set up to determine questions of this nature, and, after all, the Government are proposing a tribunal whose constitution will be acceptable. We propose a tribunal where the Irish Parliament will be represented on practically an equality with the British Parliament. I think that the question of chairmanship has been exaggerated. I take it for granted that the chairman will be somebody who will be acceptable to both sides. That is the tribunal which we propose to set up. What tribunal do hon. Gentlemen opposite suggest? They suggest a tribunal which will not be judicial in its character, a tribunal in which Ireland, so far from being equally represented, would find its members swamped and its representation out of all proportion to population. This House would be a tribunal in which all these questions would be decided by a party vote. It would be a tribunal in which a decision would be the decision of the British Government, and the British Government is itself one of the parties to the case. If we compare our proposal with the alternative proposal put forward by hon. Members opposite it is perfectly clear to me that the suggestion they make is one of such a character that you can scarcely imagine any other suggestion which would be better calculated to poison the good relationship between the two countries.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I confess to feeling nothing but astonishment at the last remarks of the hon. Gentleman, who does not appear to realise what Amendment is before the Committee. He appears to think that we are pressing some Amendment which is going to strike at the very root of the composition of this body.
    Mr. LEES SMITH: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to explain. The Chairman said at the beginning of the Debate that we could take this Amendment as an opportunity for a general discussion. I therefore thought I should be right in considering the alternative proposals of a general character which have been put forward by the Opposition.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I understand the hon. Member's point of vies, but he kept alluding to "our proposal and your proposal." Our position is perfectly plain.
    Mr. LEES SMITH: The proposal to which I referred was actually made in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who preceded me.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I agree that my right hon. Friend said we do not like your Joint Exchequer Board at all, that we do not like your Bill, and that we do not like your body. I agree with that entirely. The hon. Gentleman complained that we single out the Joint Exchequer Board for attack rather than making an attack on some other provisions of the Bill. My answer to that is, that we have got very little time to discuss the Bill, and that when do come to a Clause which contains something of importance, he cannot complain if we do attack it. The part of the hon. Gentleman's speech which most interested me, and which unhappily ended with a hiatus, was the part in which he began by saying that this body was one which had many parallels in Colonial Constitutions. I waited with great interest to hear the parallels the hon. Gentleman was going to give us, but we never heard one, for the very good reason that there is not a single Colonial Constitution and, so far as I know, not a single federal Constitution which contains a body anything like this one, or with anything like its powers. If the Government are going to reply later in the Debate, perhaps they will supply the example which the hon. Gentleman omitted. Dealing with the narrower subject of the Amendment, the defence made against the proposal which we put forward is, of course, the old defence which the Government invariably made when they got into difficulty with regard to any of the previous proposals. They say, "This will all be provided for under Clause 44." We have heard a great deal about that Clause, and I should like to make one or two observations upon it. The Attorney-General seemed rather inclined to deny that Clause 44 was intended to deal with transitory provisions. If the Committee will look at the Bill they will see marginal notes and cross headings. We know that marginal notes and cross headings in a Bill have no legal force, but at the same time they are very useful guides, and they are put in with the intention of guiding Members in finding their wav through the Bill.
    If the Committee will look at the Bill they will see that the Clauses are grouped under the headings "legislative autho-
    1338
    rity," Executive authority," "Irish Parliament," and so on. When you come to Clause 38 you find a group of four Clauses dealing with general provisions. Then you come to another group consisting of Clauses 42 to 46, which includes Clause 44. What is the heading for that group? Is it "general provisions" or "special provisions"? Nothing of the kind. The heading is "Transitory." This Clause is, therefore, one which, on the Government's own showing, is marked in the Bill by the guide post "Transitory." That is the Clause upon which the Government are pinning their faith. The second observation I wish to make on that Clause is that under the natural, or, rather, unnatural, order of things devised by the Government for this Debate, we have between 7.30 and 10.30 on one evening to discuss from Clause 43 to the end of the Bill, and I see no prospect that Clause 44 will ever be brought to the cognisance of the Committee. I therefore think we are fully justified in discussing, while we have a little time, one of the points we have brought forward in the Amendment. As to the omission of any description in the Bill as to the term of office of these gentlemen who are to compose the Joint Exchequer Board, as I read the Bill, these gentlemen are not removable at all. Does the Attorney-General say that they are, and, if so, by whom are they removable? If they are removable, is there some authority, as yet unknown, which has power to dismiss them. I believe that on the strict construction of Sub-section (3) of the Clause, if one of these gentlemen was dismissed, there would be no power to fill the vacancy, because Sub-section (3) only gives power to fill a vacancy in the case of the death, resignation, or incapacity of any member of the Board. I shall be interested to hear from the Attorney-General whether these gentlemen are removable, if so, by whom, and whether, in the event of their being removable there is power to fill the vacancy given in the Clause.
    As to the question of salaries the right hon. Gentleman practically admitted that the chairman would require a salary. He said there might be some public-spirited gentleman who would be willing, as in the case of other authorities created in this country, to take office without a salary. I think that is an invidious position in which to put a man. I know of no precedent. I believe that in every public Act which has been passed a salary has been stated. Whether any gentleman is public-spirited

    1339
    enough to discharge these duties without salary is another question, but I think a salary should be stated in the Bill. I do not believe there is any precedent in the setting up of a body of this kind under an Act of this importance for the absence of particulars as to the term of office and as to the salaries. I have taken the trouble to look at one Act affecting Ireland, passed by a Liberal Government—Mr. Gladstone's Irish Land Act of 1881. He set up a body in Ireland of great importance, the Land Commission—a body whose importance was in no way comparable to the functions which this body has to discharge. It was a purely Irish body created for purely Irish purposes, not like this body, which is to be the one determining factor between the two countries. What happened in the case of the Irish Land Commission? The term of office of the Commission is stated in the Act of 1881, the salaries are stated, the quorum is stated, the powers for the appointment and remuneration of officers are stated; and not only that, so much did Mr. Gladstone attach importance to the necessity of making the House of Commons fully cognisant of all proposals to establish Boards of this character, that he went further and set up the right of the House of Commons to ask that before a body of this kind is established they shall have the names of its members. You find in the Act of 1881 that a Judicial Commissioner and two other Commissioners are set up, and, solemnly in Section 41, it is recited:—
    "The first Judicial Commissioner shall be Mr. Serjeant O'Hagan. … The first Commissioners other than the Judicial Commissioner shall be Mr. Edward Falconer Litton and Mr. John E. Vernon."
    That is how Mr. Gladstone dealt with the Commissioners. What do the Government do now? They simply come down and say there shall be a body which shall have certain powers. They tell us nothing about the term of office, the status, and the salaries, and the last thing they ever think of telling us anything about is the names. I think, therefore, we are fully justified in making the complaint we do. We ventured to put a question to the Attorney-General as to a matter of procedure, but a matter not without its importance, namely, as to what is to be the position of the chairman. The position of the chairman is really very important. Is he to have a vote only as a member of
    1340
    the Board, or is he to have a vote as a member of the Board and a casting vote as well? If I understand the Attorney-General aright, the chairman is only to have a vote as a member of the Board. Let me put to him this question: What is to happen supposing, owing to illness, or accident, or anything you like, one Member of the Joint Exchequer Board is away? Let us say the two Irish members take one view, and the single English representative left and the chairman take another view. I understand the chairman has no casting vote in these circumstances, but only a vote as a member of the Board. I suppose the Attorney-General answers, they will have to wait until the fifth member of the Board comes back. You get this curious position, that apparently with three members of the Board present they can arrive at any decision they like because there is a quorum, but if there are four members present and an equality of voting they cannot arrive at a decision, and must wait until the fifth member comes back. I think that is absurd. As to the duties of this Board, they are anything you like. It is to determine practically any financial matter which arises under the Bill. It is to determine—
    "any matter which is to be determined by the Board under this Act, and also to determine any other matter in connection with the Transferred Sum or Irish revenue or expenditure, or the cost of any reserved service."
    Their powers are therefore of the widest character. We have said, and I think the Government have admitted the justice of our claim, that if this absurd tribunal is to be set up under this ridiculous Bill, there ought to be an appeal from it on questions of law. We labour under great difficulty because we have not seen the terms of the Government's Amendment, and I hope that before we reach Clause 29 as long notice as possible will be given us of the terms of that Amendment, in order that we may see how far it meets the case. If I understand it aright, the effect of that Amendment will be that as regards the question of determining what is an independent tax, and also what is an Irish service, the subject is to have the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Is that right? I am not quite certain about the Irish service, but I think the right ought to be given in that case. As regards the Joint Exchequer Foard they are to have the right at any time, on a

    1341
    question of law, to go to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for an expression of opinion, and that expression is to be given at a hearing at which any party interested may be represented.
    We come now to the question what recourse has a subject to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on any other point than the question of an independent tax or the question of whether a service is an Irish service or not. The right hon. Gentleman says he has an appeal to the ordinary Courts by a mandamus, but he has only got that appeal if he can show that the Joint Exchequer Board are acting outside their powers. There are cases, and there may be plenty of cases, where the Joint Exchequer Board are acting inside their powers, and yet might be wrong on a point of law and inflict substantial injustice on the subject Let me give a couple of cases. Take first of all the question of drawbacks under Clause 15. Under the Amendment which was inserted on the Motion of the Postmaster-General, the Joint Exchequer Board are to determine certain questions with regard to drawbacks. It is perfectly easy for any lawyer to raise a question—it is open to the gravest doubt—as to what are the powers which are given to the Joint Exchequer Board under this Amendment, and whether, in the exercise of those powers, the Joint Exchequer Board is or is not confined to the terms of that Amendment. That is one question of law on which a subject might be obviously vitally affected, and yet he would have no recourse to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council because the Joint Exchequer Board would be acting intra vires, but yet making a mistake on a question of law. Here is another suggestion. What about the mistake of the Joint Exchequer Board, or a mistake, as the subject thinks, in construing the Section of the Act which refers to the determination of the proceeds of an Irish tax. The Postmaster-General has suggested one way in which the Joint Exchequer Board may arrive at the proceeds of an Irish tax. He suggested that it is to be taken by determining what the existing tax brings in and then seeing what the new tax brings in and saying that the surplus is the proceeds of the Irish tax. It is quite obvious that there is another way in which it can be done by taking the amount of the tax and dividing it proportionately into the amount of the the revenue. Neither of these ways is specified in the Bill. No directions are given to the Joint Exchequer Board, and
    1342
    any subject might think himself aggrieved because the Joint Exchequer Board had taken one view or the other, and proceeded on one line of determination or on the other.
    The right hon. Gentleman may say, how could that affect the subject? How could the subject be aggrieved by that? It is quite plain that the subject might be aggrieved by it if the Joint Exchequer Board took the view, for instance, that they could reduce the amount they were giving to the Irish Parliament, because, in order to make up the tariff, the Irish Parliament might have to impose fresh taxes on Irish subjects. Therefore an Irish subject might obviously have an interest in the right to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I cannot see why, if you are giving one party, the Joint Exchequer Board, the right to go to the Judicial Committee, you should not give any subject who is interested the same right. I entirely endorse everything my right hon. Friend said about the position of this Board in relation to this House. This House is setting up a new financial authority, which is to be entirely supreme over this House of Commons and over the Irish House of Commons, and I am not saying a word more than the truth in that, because on the action of this new authority which you are setting up, depend the Budgets of both Houses of Parliament. They can give a decision which will vitally influence the Budget of either Chancellor of the Exchequer. They may give a decision which upsets the whole Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in England or the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Ireland, and it certainly is a very odd thing that a party which has concentrated its efforts during the past two years on depriving another place of any financial control whatever should be prepared to-entrust the complete control in certain vital matters of finance to a House of Lords of five not appointed by the House, not responsible to the House, and not controlled by the House. That is a most remarkable thing, but it is only typical of what is going on all the time. Inside this House the Government are having constant recourse to methods of despotism and outside the House they are giving the freest licence and the fullest range to what I can only describe as a system of uncontrolled bureaucracy.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: It is quite clear that this Clause is necessitated by the fact that a situation is evolved like

    1343
    none that has ever occurred under any other Constitution, and in order to meet a situation which has no precedent, this Board is to be created. The hon. Member (Mr. Lees Smith) said there were precedents for a Board like this, though I want to do him the justice to say I understood him to correct himself in so far as to suggest that Dominion Governments, provincial and federal, have power to submit their case to a Supreme Court. But does the hon. Gentleman mean to suggest that there is given to a provincial Parliament in any of our Dominions or to a federal Parliament an appeal on such questions as are proposed under this Bill which are to be submitted to this Joint Exchequer Board? There is no such power here. There is power given by the Supreme court to interpret Constitutions, but there is no power to deal with a question of finance on the part of the Supreme Court, and the point which the hon. Member attempted to make is absolutely without any foundation in fact or in history. As a humble Member of the House who who has sat through a great many financial Debates and has seen a great many proposals made, I think it an extraordinary thing, in view of past experience, that this proposal is made for the appointment of this Joint Exchequer Board. It is within the memory of Members of the Committee now present that the Chancellor of the Exchequer repudiated the suggestion made by hon. Members opposite that a Select Committee of this House should be appointed, a Committee of experts, who would revise the Estimates for the financial year. He said it would be interfering with the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day and the financial authority of this House. What is proposed now is something infinitely more important. There is no man who has a more profound respect for the Civil Service in this country and for the Treasury officials than I have, but it is proposed by the Government that you should set up a Board composed of Treasury officials—for that is what the Attorney-General suggests—closely in touch with Ministers affected by questions of policy, in spite of the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that they would only deal with questions of fact and not with questions of politics.
    If the Joint Exchequer Board are to deal with the question of an independent tax, or whether a tax is similar in nature
    1344
    to an Imperial tax or not, and if the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer takes one point of view, and the English Chancellor of the Exchequer takes another point of view, it is quite clear. But suppose the English Chancellor of the Exchequer opposes the view of the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Joint Exchequer Board would have to decide not only upon a question of fact, but upon a question of policy, and would be influenced by questions of policy. I say that without the slightest suggestion of disrespect for or disbelief in the great expert knowledge or independence of mind of our Treasury officials. It would be imposing on expert and honourable men a task which they ought not to be called upon to perform, and that they are to have in case of difficulty an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is an afterthought which comes from a difficulty which we all recognise and which the Government recognises, as it seems to me, rather late in the day. I think it is going to be extremely difficult if this Joint Exchequer Board is to be composed of officials of the Government—of Civil Service officials—to keep their judgment absolutely isolated and independent of all political considerations. I say that with the most sincere respect for their ability and the greatest belief in the honesty of their judgment. The fact of it is that Parliament is going to consign, not to a Court, but to a set of Civil Service officials, the authority which has been denied to Select Committees of this House, which would have the power, if appointed, to call these same Treasury officials into their counsels and to question them, had power been given to such a Select Committee to revise the Estimates.
    6.0 P.M.
    There is another question. I do not know whether I am absolutely correct in this, but I believe I am. I think every Chancellor of the Exchequer has considered it absolutely necessary to keep secret the proposals for any tax that is to be applied by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has carefully shielded and shrouded his purposes to prevent any advantage being taken of the proposals which he would make. I should like to ask the Postmaster-General this question I am not putting it merely for the purpose of obstructing or merely in order to pick holes in the Bill. If the Joint Exchequer Board is to take into consideration all the taxes which the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer may intend to apply to Ireland, and that question is discussed by the Joint

    1345
    Exchequer Board, and the Joint Exchequer Board appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and the public is admitted to the consideration of that question of whether a tax of a certain kind can be applied or not, I ask the Postmaster-General if it is not the case that that secrecy which has always been considered necessary by the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding any tax that he proposes will be violated, and very seriously violated. I see in this proposal for this Joint Exchequer Board a most curious lapse from the old, stern, rigid view taken by Chancellors of the Exchequer that their financial proposals shall be a secret locked in the mind and judgment of the Cabinet alone. If you are going to have a question of taxation discussed by the Joint Exchequer Board, and appealed to the Privy Council, with the right of entry to the public, and the protest of any individual, then, it seems to me, you have driven a coach-and-four through all the precedents that have ever controlled the actions of Chancellors of the Exchequer in the past. In view of these considerations, which I think are extremely important, I take the view that this Joint Exchequer Board when it comes into operation will be found to be a body absolutely inconsistent with the financial policy of this country. I take the view, if it is going to be composed of Treasury officials, that so far as the officials are concerned we will be placed in a false position, and that so far as this House is concerned it will be placed in a false position also. Without control and without power you would have a Government circle within deciding for the nation and for this House what financial proposals are possible and what financial proposals may be instituted. This, I believe, to be a gross breach of the authority and traditions of this House.
    Mr. DAVID MASON: The hon. Member (Sir G. Parker) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) laid considerable stress upon one point, namely, that the creation of the Joint Exchequer Board undermined the supreme authority of this House in the domain of finance. I think my hon. Friend near me very admirably answered that contention, and perhaps I may be allowed to supplement what he said. The contention of hon. Gentlemen on the other side seemed to be that the Joint Exchequer Board would be placed on a pinnacle of power far beyond
    1346
    and away above this House. I would point out, in the first place, that this House delegates powers, and that it cannot obviously delegate greater powers than it possesses. What this House does to-day it can undo to-morrow, and this Joint Exchequer Board will only have to do with matters essentially Irish. It will have nothing to do with the bringing forward of taxes in this House, or with any matters of policy in connection with British finance. The contention that this Board will be far and away superior to the powers of the House of Commons in these matters cannot be held for a moment. There was another point made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) to which I listened with very considerable interest. I do think with him that this Amendment merits very great consideration on the part of the Committee. The learned Attorney-General showed in his sympathetic reply to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Walter Guinness) that he is not in any sense opposed to many of the sections contained in the Amendment, and probably he may on the Report stage be willing to consider some of the suggestions. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did say that they were covered by Clause 44 on which the whole matter may be gone into; but I agree with the hon. Member that if at the present time we can improve the Bill and make it the very best Bill possible we should endeavour to do that, and leave as little over to be revised later on as we can. Therefore, I hope the Government will favourably consider some of these Sub-sections. The particular ones that appeal to me are Sub-sections (3) and (4). The third Subsection says:—
    "There shall be paid to each member of the Joint Exchequer Board such salary as the Treasury and the Irish Treasury jointly may direct."
    I do not know whether the Chairman's ruling would affect that particular Section. It does not provide for an actual definite Grant of money, but merely provides for delegating powers to each Treasury, and there might be an Order. I should hope that that will be taken notice of by the Government. I think we ought to know something now of the remuneration to be, given to these several officials. The fourth Sub-section is as follows:—
    "The Joint Exchequer Board may act by three of their number, and subject to the approval of the Treasury and the Irish Treasury jointly, may regulate their own procedure."

    1347
    I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire, that we ought certainly in this House to definitely state what is to constitute a quorum of this body. I quite agree also as to the possibility, not an improbable one, of four members of that Board meeting together and taking a whole day to discuss very important matters of Irish finance, and then, when they come to take a vole at the end of the day's proceedings, finding they are unable to come to a conclusion because the Members are equally divided. That seems most unbusinesslike, and power should be given to the chairman to use a casting vote, which, of course, would prevent such a state of affairs. I hope that also will have the support of the Government. I do not apprehend that the Government will be adverse to these particular Sections. The Attorney-General showed, in his reply, that, while he could not accept the whole Amendment, there were certain points in it to which he was certainly sympathetic. I therefore will be only too glad to support hon. Members opposite with regard to the Sections I have mentioned, and I hope the Government may see their way on the Report stage to incorporate them in this Clause.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: The hon. Member opposite has put the case of Ministers for them better than they could do for themselves. But even as he put the case it seemed to me that he really went so far as to represent the Bill as setting up something like federal relations. Hon. Members sometimes say more than they intend, and I am not sure that he did not get so far as to suggest that we are now setting up a co-ordinate Legislature, and he suggested that we should, as a necessary consequence, set up arbitral bodies to decide between the two. What becomes of those thundering declarations of the Prime Minister as to the reservation of the absolute sovereignty of the Imperial Parliament—those declarations which practically form the sum and substance of the very few sayings of the Prime Minister whereby in two General Elections he condescended to lift the veil at all regarding any of the points concerning Home Rule? According to the hon. Member opposite this supremacy is gradually being whittled away, and it is going to be no greater than that of a Dominion authority over a provincial authority at the very best, Both the
    1348
    Dominion authority and the provincial authority are subject to the authority, in theory at all events, of the Parliament from which both of them derive, not only their respective authority, but also the provisions which define their relations to each other. All I can say is that this reserved supremacy seems in this matter to be evaporating, as it evaporated when we discussed the Veto, and when we discovered that the supremacy of this Parliament with regard to that important matter was going to rest on nothing stronger than Irish good will on the one hand and the Prime Minister's credulous optimism on the other.
    The hon. Member's Amendment proposes that something should be done which I do not think has ever failed to be done in any similar case. I should like to know if any case can be pointed to where appointments of such extreme importance—where a body of this exceptional kind has been set up to wield powers so very unusual without almost the minutest definition as regards tenure, remuneration, method of voting, revocation of powers, and all the other things that are always found necessary in these cases. I was not present to hear the Attorney-General's speech, and I should like to know if he expressed any opinion at all in the Debate as to the effect of a Statute which simply says "may appoint." The appointment must be one of two or three kinds. It must be during good behaviour, or during pleasure, or a freehold appointment. If it is during good behaviour, are we to have any provisions, as you have in the case of the Controller and Auditor-General, or the judges, for arriving at a decision that want of good behaviour has been established I If it is to be any other kind of tenure—such tenure as during pleasure—what is to be our position as regards pensions, or the difficulties which necessarily arise when you take away appointments from those whom probably you have withdrawn from other important functions? Did anybody ever hear of the constitution of such a body as this in which there are to be two members on each side, each representing what must on some occasions be conflicting interests, without saying whether the votes of those two are to be taken as votes for countries, so to speak, or as votes for individuals? You have not defined beforehand the functions of the chairman. I think we had a remark in a previous

    1349
    Debate about "sloppiness." If ever there was a Legislative proposal of which that could be said., this is the Legislative proposal.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: The hon. Member for Coventry spoke in sympathetic terms of this proposal, and intimated his agreement with the Amendment in so far as it proposed that remuneration should be provided for the members of the Joint Exchequer Board, and I understood the lion. Member to throw out a hope that the Government themselves might see their way to put in a provision for such remuneration at a later stage. But surely the hon. Member must be aware that there is no later stage when that can be done.
    Mr. D. MASON: We can give power to (he Irish Parliament to fix the remuneration the same as we fix remuneration ourselves now.
    Mr. R. M'NEILL: I do not quite follow what bearing precisely that has on the case; but it is the unfortunate fact that we have reached a stage now when nothing can be done in this regard, and in an hour and a quarter our very last chance of doing anything of that sort will be gone. The hon. Member for Northampton, at an earlier stage of the Debate, rather attempted to minimise the criticism of these proposals, which have come from this side of the House by pointing out that similar criticisms had been levelled by the Conservative party in 1893 against the Privy Council; but I do not think that the hon. Member can have rightly followed the criticism on that occasion, because, if I recollect rightly—and I have also studied to some extent the Debates of 1893—the criticism levelled against the Privy Council in 1893 was totally different from that which we now level against the Joint Exchequer Board. There was no proposal in 1893 to throw upon the Privy Council any functions similar to those which are now to be exercised by the Joint Exchequer Board. The criticism there was: it was said that questions of appeal should go not to the Privy Council, because that was the Court for Colonial appeal, but rather to the House of Lords as being the Supreme Court of Appeal for the domestic litigation. The hon. Member also took exception to our position, because he said that our alternative was that the functions of the Joint Exchequer Board should be discharged by this House. I do not think that the hon. Member was really justified
    1350
    in making that criticism, because if he had listened to the speech made very recently by the Leader of the Opposition, he would have learned that what we contend—and one of my hon. Friends moved an Amendment to a previous Clause substituting this House—is that this House should have an opportunity of constantly-reviewing the actions of whatever body was charged with the actual administration which is given in the Bill to the Joint Exchequer Board, which is, of course, a totally different thing. I think that the Leader of the Opposition suggested that it would be actually done by the Treasury, and that that would bring the whole operation within the view of this House. Speaking for myself, I think the strongest possible objections to the proposals in the Bill are to be found in the fact that very intricate and complicated financial work is to be done by this body without this House having any opportunity of reviewing from time to time and criticising the methods especially by which this body has arrived at its conclusions. Let the Committee just remind themselves of what the sorts of functions are which this body has to perform. For instance, under the 24th Clause, one of the things which the Joint Exchequer Board has to do is to decide what is the true revenue of Ireland. Members of the Government tell us that that is merely a matter of fact. I do not wish to embark on the almost metaphysical discussion as to the limits between questions of fact and questions of policy which we have had in earlier debates; but even if this is purely a question of fact, it is a very difficult question of fact, and there are great varieties of methods by which the calculation might be done, each one of which is open at all events to criticism, and ought to be open to the criticism of this House. May I call to the recollection of the Committee upon this point what was said by the Primrose Committee. Talking about the true revenue of Ireland, which is now in these discussions being treated as a plain matter of fact about which no difficulty whatever exists, they say:—
    "We now know that the exact ascertainment of true revenue is, "with existing machinery, vastly more difficult than seems to have been realised in 1893."
    In another place the same Committee on the same point said:—
    "We find it quite impossible to estimate what the margin of error may be—"
    That is in calculating—
    "or even to suppose in which direction error may lie."
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir J. Simon): They also say that they are satisfied that the margin of error is not so wide as to affect their conclusions.
    Mr. R. M'NEILL: Quite so. They say the margin of error does not vitiate the advice which they are able to give in their Reports, but they do say that it is a vastly difficult thing to arrive at a true calculation of what true revenue is, and therefore I think it a reasonable thing to suggest that when you set up a Board, one of whose duties will be to calculate that very thing, the true revenue of Ireland, which is open to differences of opinion as to how it shall be arrived at, with a margin of error as to which this body of experts is not prepared to specify even in what direction it is to be found, that when those calculations have been arrived at there should be some ready means of this House passing them in review and deciding whether it thinks that the calculation has been made on a proper footing. Take another of the duties of this Board. They have got to distinguish between what are Imperial services and what are Irish services; that, again, we may admit with the Postmaster General, is a question of fact, but although it is a question of fact, it is a question not only of opinion, but of very keenly controversial opinion, as to whether or not the decision arrived at is a just decision upon the question of fact. On this let me again quote what is said by the Primrose Committee. They have some very valuable comments to make on that point also. There is one especially on which I would like to call the attention of the Committee. It is on page 7 of the Report. After speaking on this point, they go on:—
    "The principle—"
    that is the principle which they recommend—
    "is one that has in fact been followed by the Treasury in compiling the White Paper, and to the classification resulting from it objection has been taken by some of our witnesses."
    There we have a conflict between some of the expert witnesses who were called before this Committee and the officials of the Treasury which produced the White Paper, and it is noticeable that this statement of objection by these witnesses gives just that evidence upon this question which we have never been allowed to see. We have got this Report which actually states that disagreement on this very important point was expressed by some of the witnesses, and this House to this day
    1352
    have never had an opportunity of seeing for themselves how much force there would be in the objection of the witnesses on this same point. In another place they say:—
    "Subsequent inquiry has shown the practically insuperable difficulty of determining a ratio between British and Irish shares of expenditure on joint services that can claim any close approach to scientific precision or command any large measure of general assent."
    So there, again, on this other point we have this body of experts saying as plainly as possible that there is great difficulty in these questions, which are now treated as a plain, simple matter of fact which a Board sitting for a few hours, for two or three weeks, can quite easily, determine, and which cannot do any injustice to any subject and does not call for any appeal or a review by this House. These are very difficult problems. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General, in answer to a point raised some time ago, said, "Do you think as soon as you state a problem that it is necessarily insoluble?" It seems to me that the right lion. Gentleman himself and the Government proceed on quite as unjustifiable an assumption as that. They think that if they have got a problem, all they have got to do is to set up a tribunal and immediately the problem is solved by the mere fact of their doing so It seems to me that you have got a number of very difficult problems to solve here, and although they may not be insoluble, nevertheless they ought to be solved, and when a solution has been arrived at it must be a matter of controversy and a matter of opinion. Surely, when the solution which the Joint Exchequer Board thinks the proper solution of these questions has been arrived at, it is only right that the constitutional machinery should be such that all their solutions and their methods of arriving at them should be brought into review by Members of this House. Another matter which this Board has to decide is whether an Irish tax is substantially the same in character as an Imperial tax. Again, it may be true in one sense of the word that that is a question of fact, but can anyone imagine anything which is more obviously open to differences of opinion and more obviously impossible to decide? What vaguer term could it be possible to use in a Statute of this House than the word "substantially" There is nothing vaguer than that is substantially so-and-so. What does it mean? "Subtantial justice," for instance, is a byword

    1353
    for bad law. What ratio dicendi have we got here when we are told that things are substantially the same? Obviously any five members might differ between the two. I do not suppose that there are any dozen men whom you could pick, qualified to judge a thing of that sort, who would not be equally divided as to whether or not legislation near the line of similarity could be said to be substantially the same in character.
    Therefore the objection which I have to the constitution of this Board is mainly upon the ground that they have these functions to discharge, all of which are largely matters of opinion, and might be very hotly debated, and upon the decision of which the rights of subjects depend and the correction of financial methods must depend—that they have these financial duties to perform without being in any sense responsible to this House. There is one other point which I wish to bring to the attention of the Government one which I think remains in doubt. Supposing the Exchequer Board does not, hi point of fact, at the proper time, or at all, discharge some duty which is thrown upon them by the Statute, is there any machinery provided by which they can be compelled to do that duty; is there any way by which they can be compelled to take up the duty thrown upon them by the Statute, and carry it out? Take the duty under Clause 26, when they have to consider from three years to three years the conditions of the financial relations of the two countries with a view to revision. On that point I put a question to the Prime Minister earlier in the Session, and I would like to remind the learned Attorney-General of the answer which the Prime Minister gave me. On the 13th May I asked the Prime Minister—
    "Whether the English High Court of Justice will have jurisdiction to issue writs, mandamus find certiorari in relation to acts or omissions of the Joint Exchequer Board proposed to be established by the Government of Ireland Bill; and, if not, what Court will have jurisdiction over the Board?"
    The Prime Minister gave me an answer which I need not read, as it is rather a long one. It was to the effect that of course under the common law there would lie control, and the learned Attorney-Gneral endorsed that the other day. I asked the right hon. Gentleman a further question:—
    "Whether, in view of the possibility of varying jurisdictions, he will put into the Bill some Clause which will make it clear as to whether the High Court in England or the High Court in Ireland will have jurisdiction?"
    1354
    The Prime Minister replied:—
    "I am advised that it is not likely to arise, but when we reach that point in Committee I will consider the matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th May, 1912, col. 786, Vol. XXX VIII.]
    We have arrived at that point in Committee, and although the promise of the Prime Minister, I agree, does not go any further than that he will consider the matter, which after all does not mean very much, it is a point which I would like to bring to the attention of the learned Attorney-General, so that when he comes to reply he will say whether he still thinks, as the Prime Minister apparently thought in May, that it was a point worthy of considering, and, if so, whether he will do something to meet the point, either now or at a later stage?
    Mr. PRINGLE: The earlier part of the discussion was upon the constitution of the Joint Exchequer Board, and the later part has been devoted to the functions of that body. Very lurid pictures have been drawn of the anomalous state of things that is coming into existence when this Joint Exchequer Board is set up. We have been told that the House of Commons is adbicating its functions and its supreme authority in finance, and that henceforth, instead of having the House of Lords at the other end of the passage, we are to have a House of Lords of five members to supervise the financial arrangements made by this House. I have listened very carefully to all the arguments put forward by the Opposition speakers, and I have not found a title of evidence put before the Committee to indicate that in any substantial degree will the supremacy of this House, in relation to finance, be interfered with in any way. In not one single instance has it been shown that the taxing capacity of the House of Commons will be interfered with by the Joint Exchequer Board. That Board will have very important functions, but their powers will be under the limitations of the taxing powers of the Irish Parliament.
    I am anxious to discover any tax which could not be imposed by the Imperial Parliament because of the action of the Joint Exchequer Board. Unless it can be shown that the powers of this House are interfered with, and it has not yet been shown, then I say there is no foundation whatever for the suggestion that we are diminishing or abdicating the supremacy of the House of Commons over finance. There are certain other points which have

    1355
    been brought forward in the course of debate. The hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir G. Parker) discovered one grave source of difficulty. He said that in the past Chancellors of the Exchequer had found it necessary to preserve the utmost secrecy in relation to future financial arrangements, and that before a Budget was put forward every Chancellor concealed his proposals, and that if it is necessary under the Bill that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should consult the Joint Exchequer Board in relation to taxes to find out whether these taxes could be legally imposed under the Government of Ireland Act, then this secrecy would be done away with, and the position would be impossible. There would be some force in this contention if the powers of the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer extended to the imposition of new Customs Duties. It is only in relation to new Customs Duties that there is any necessity for secrecy on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is really no necessity for secrecy in relation to internal taxes.
    The hon. Gentleman went on to enumerate a number of the functions of the Joint Exchequer Board, and said they were functions of extreme difficulty. Everybody admits that they are functions of extreme difficulty, and it is for that reason that it has been found necessary by the Government to set up a special body to discharge those difficult functions. But they are not functions which it is impossible to discharge. He quoted, by way of example, the fixing of the true revenue. The hon. Gentleman said that it was very difficult to determine the true revenue, but I would point out that under the provisions of the Bill there will be more efficient machinery in the shape of better registration of imports into Ireland, which will render it easier to determine what the true revenue of Ireland is, so that it will be a considerably easier function to discharge when the Bill is passed into law. It has been said by hon. Members opposite that the Government are very fond of setting up all sorts of bureaucratic boards. We are told that this proposal of a Joint Exchequer Board is on all fours with the Development Board and the Road Board. I was not a Member of this House when the Development Board was brought into existence, but my recollection is that the Development Board was forced upon the Government by the Opposition.
    My recollection is that when the Bill was first introduced the functions were to be
    1356
    performed by the Treasury with the advice of an Advisory Committee. As a result of criticisms in the House of Commons, particularly on the part of the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil), the Government accepted the principle of the Board, and, mark you, a Board very similar to this which is now proposed, a Board independent in character. It was expressly provided that the salaries of that Board should not be on the Estimates, so as to take it altogether out of the hands of Parliament. So here we have the present Government, at the instance of the Opposition, setting up a Board very much like this which is now the subject of discussion, and which takes away the financial supremacy of the House of Commons—precisely the gravamen of the charge made against the Government this afternoon. It does not lie with the Opposition, therefore, to make this charge on the present occasion. I admit, however, that there is something shadowy in the constitution of the Board as laid down in the Bill, but I hope before the Bill leaves this House that the Government will have devised a plan which will meet the criticisms that have been raised in the course of discussion. I think that many of the suggestions contained in the Amendment are worthy the attention of the Government, and if those points receive the attention which they deserve, the Joint Exchequer Board will be set up in such a form that it will be admirably fitted to discharge the difficult functions which are laid upon it.
    Mr. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down tried to persuade us that there was no real constitutional issue raised by the creation of this body in connection with finance, because if T caught the purport of his argument correctly, no charge could be placed on any subject by the action of the Board. I think that was his argument.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I did not state it in that form.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I thought that was what it came to. If so, he must, I think, on reflection, see that as a matter of fact this Board has the power to determine what taxes shall be paid in certain cases by His Majesty's subjects. They can raise taxation in one country and they can diminish taxation in another country, simply by their own decision, unappealable against in those particulars, under the powers given them by this Bill. In these circumstances it seems to me that when my right hon. Friend the Member

    1357
    for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) pointed out to the Government that while they were so sensitive about the supremacy of this House in matters of finance that they would not allow even the limited powers, which the Constitution up to 1910 undoubtedly permitted to the House of Lords, to survive, because they might interfere with the exclusive jurisdiction of this House in matters of finance; yet the same Government, which thought that the House of Lords was unworthy to exercise those powers, has come down with a proposal that they should be exercised by five gentlemen, two of them Treasury officials appointed by the Government, two other officials, presumably Irish Treasury officials, appointed by the Irish Government, and the fifth appointed in the manner prescribed by the Bill—that the Government, which thought the House of Lords was unworthy to touch finance, should think that this body is capable of touching finance without any appeal, not even an appeal to the country, is certainly one of the most singular legislative paradoxes which has ever come before the attention of the House in our time.
    Before I deal with the larger aspect of the question, the constitutional aspect, may I call the attention of the Committee again to the extraordinary manner in which the Government have thought fit to treat the House of Commons and this Committee with regard to the subject of this Clause. They are going to pass under the Closure in about three-quarters of an hour a Clause which states, in the form in which they are going to pass it, that the decision of the Board they are setting up, "On any matter to be determined by them shall be final and conclusive," and they have tabled no Amendment to modify those words. They have stated that they do not mean to hold by them. They stated, I think it was two days ago, that they had come to the conclusion that they could not stand by them. Does anybody believe if we were not working under the gag that the Government would have treated, I will not say the Opposition, but the Committee, with the ordinary decencies of debate, and that they ought to have put down Amendments to the Clause bringing it into the shape in which they state they think it ought to be, and that we should never have seen the Attorney-General coming down and asking the Committee under Closure to vote for a Clause he himself is going to modify.
    1358
    I think of all the many evils which this system of ruthless and indiscriminate Closure brings, the fact that it makes His Majesty's Government perfectly indifferent to the ordinary decorums of legislation, and that they can come down without their Amendment, and that they can make what speeches they like and leave out answering all the arguments that they think inconvenient, and that they can devote their arguments to those they think they can answer—very often erroneously—and that they can concentrate their attention on those alone, knowing that whatever muddle they may get into between a quarter to four and half-past seven, everything will be wiped out when you, Sir, rise in obedience to the Orders of the House to put the Question, I think that is most demoralising to the House. I think that is admitted by the Government themselves; but they have not yet reached that stage of moral consciousness to show them that it is not only demoralising to the House but utterly demoralising to themselves. Let us ask in what condition the Clause is going to be left. The Clause is going to be left in the condition in which it is on the Paper. There are no Amendments going to be moved, not one. What is the Clause which is some day going to be inserted in the Bill? Am I wrong in thinking that the Clause is not going to stand as it is.—[Sir RUFUS ISAACS made some observations which were inaudible.]—I am right. We are not asked to discuss the Clause as it is going to be voted on, nor are we discussing the Clause as it will be when Amendments are handed in. We are not discussing the Clause as it is, we are not discussing the Clause at it would be, if there were Amendments down, but we are discussing the Clause as it is some day to come out of the legislative workshop of the Government. We do not know exactly what it is to be; we know roughly that it is not the Clause which is going to be passed in Committee, or which is going to be reported to this House. What is the Clause? I am not referring to the Clause on the Paper, but, as I understand, the Clause which the Attorney-General has foreshadowed.
    This Debate has largely turned on questions of appeal. On what is appeal refused? Appeal is refused on two matters. Of course, it is refused upon everything which is decided to be a question of fact. Questions of mixed law and fact have not been treated on by the Attorney-General, and I do not know how they are going to be decided, but any question the Attorney-

    1359
    General thinks is a question of fact is to be decided without appeal by this tribunal. Let me mention two of those points which are described as questions of fact to be decided without appeal. They have both been mentioned by my hon. Friends and dwelt upon, and I do not think any satisfactory answer has been given to the argument advanced. The first is the question of true revenue. My hon. Friend who spoke a moment ago (Mr. Ronald M'Neill) pointed out that in the opinion of the Primrose Committee this raised questions of the extremest difficulty, and there is not the least doubt about that. Will anybody say those difficulties are merely difficulties of fact, and that they do not involve directly and indirectly questions of law. They involve, among other things, questions of domicile, Questions of domicile are questions of extraordinary difficulty. I am informed that questions of domicile raise points which, if the interests at stake are sufficiently large, constantly have to go right up to the ultimate tribunal of the House of Lords. These people are to decide questions of domicile without any appeal at all. How on earth can you say that these five gentlemen, none of whom, so far as we know, are to have any legal training whatever, are competent to decide questions of domicile. I understand, for example, the question of domicile involves, what I suppose is a question of fact, the decision whether a person means to return to a place. For example, in the case of my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Carson) whether his domicile is Ireland or England. I suppose, if a question of that sort came up, they would have to decide whether, if this Bill finally became law and was finally acquiesced in by my right hon. and learned Friend, he would have any intention of reverting to Ireland as his domicile. Those gentlemen, I understand, are to competent to deal with figures, and to be financial experts and nothing else. I do not know that they are specially qualified to deal with the psychology of my right hon. and learned Friend. I do not think anybody-can deny that these questions of the true revenue of Ireland really do raise most difficult questions of law and other questions.
    There are other questions of equal importance which, I admit, raise no question of law, and on which these men are to be absolutely supreme. There is the point my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the
    1360
    Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) and others, and I am not sure I am not one of them myself, have-dwelt on before in this discussion. It is the settlement of the drawback which is to prevent a particular duty having a protective effect. An error in that has prodigious financial consequences, and I would recommend that to the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down. It may make the whole difference as to whether the Irish manufacturer has an advantage over the British manufacturer or the British manufacturer over the Irish manufacturer. But the whole of that tremendous question, with its great difficulties, is to be handed over to those five gentlemen, those five financial experts, and on that there is to be no appeal. The Attorney-General repeated over and over again that that is a question of fact, and on questions of fact no appeal lies. Can anybody say that we in this House are not handing over to a body, which, once we have created, is beyond our own control, and which will be supreme over this House and over the Irish House in regard to those great matters which I have mentioned; can anybody deny that we are derogating from our own financial supremacy, and that that derogation is the work of those whose proudest boast in the country is that they have completed the task begun in the Long Parliament, and made this House the supreme and sole arbiter of the financial destinies of the country. I have mentioned, and not for the first time. I think, those two great questions on which there is no appeal, and we have had no adequate answer.
    7.0 P.M.
    Then consider the question on which there is an appeal promised by the Government to be embodied in another Amendment though not to be introduced into the Clause with which we are dealing to-day. There is to be apparently an appeal to the Privy Council which anybody may start as to whether a tax is identical in the two countries. Anybody may start that and may go straight to the Privy Council without any preliminary-excursions into the subordinate Courts. I cannot understand why that distinction is drawn. If it is proper that an aggrieved subject should go straight to the highest Courts of Appeal if he thinks his interests are injured in one case, I do not quite know why the Government should have refused similar rights in other cases. The fact is in this extraordinary jumble in which this Clause will be, when all the

    1361
    Government Amendments are left out, this is subject not only to appeal by the Board themselves but any aggrieved subject may go to the Privy Council and may say: Is this tax or is it not identical with another tax put on by the English Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is most arbitrary and exceptional; arbitrary I mean in the sense of illogical to the general scheme of the Clause which the Government has foreshadowed. Then we leave the subject upon which anybody, the Board themselves or an individual, may appeal straight to the Privy Council, and we come to the subjects on which the Board and the Board only may appeal direct to the Privy Council. They are subjects on which the Board happens to be in doubt as to what the law is. I understand that doubts in no other part of the world will compel the Board or move the Board to go to the Court of Appeal. The Attorney-General may have all the doubts in the world as to some decision come to by the Joint Board. He may be backed up by the Solicitor-General and in fact, the Treasury may be of the same opinion, but it makes no difference unless this august, body themselves have doubts about their own legal infallibility, there is nothing on earth which can make them ask the highest tribunal in the land what the law really is. I call that grotesque, because these are not even lawyers. They are accountants, and there is no proof that they will be modest accountants. They may be accountants with a very high opinion of their own legal capacity, and the opinion of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General and the Cabinet may be regarded by them as so much waste paper, strong in the entrenchment which you are so laboriously putting up around them; unless, in some unexpected moment of diffidence, they think themselves not wholly competent to decide delicate questions of law. That is the second branch of the subject on which there may be an appeal. What is the third branch? There can be an appeal by any subject who thinks the Board has gone beyond their legal powers. Here we come back to our old friend, the common law, upon which the Attorney-General was so admirably eloquent a few nights ago. I have already pointed out that it is rather absurd to compel the subject to go to all the cost of litigation from the lowest Courts to the highest when he thinks himself aggrieved in ordinary cases, while he may go
    1362
    straight to the highest Court when he thinks himself aggrieved as to the classification of taxes between England and Ireland. However, the Government think that the ordinary law is the better remedy in this case. I am no authority on legal questions; I get my law entirely from the Attorney-General, and I may have mistaken the purport of his observations. But I understood that any Irishman who thought himself aggrieved by a decision of the Board might begin legal proceedings in the Irish Courts, and that the case would go on in the ordinary course until it reached the Privy Council; and that an Englishman aggrieved might follow the same example, begin in the lowest Courts, and go on from Court to Court until he got to the House of Lords.
    The Attorney-General was good enough to suggest, though I thought that even my very modest store of legal knowledge detected a slight exaggeration, that, after all, the Privy Council and the House of Lords were very much the same thing. I should have thought that they were not quite the same thing, and not even very much the same thing. Supposing, as is extremely likely, that an Englishman and an Irishman are both aggrieved at the same decision of the Joint Board; one begins proceedings in the Irish Courts, the other in the English Courts; you have the two chains of appeal, until finally the House of Lords is asked to decide on the English ease and the Privy Council on the Irish case. I do not know that there is the least security that they will come to the same decision. There may indeed be one possible security, and that is that it is the Lord Chancellor who nominates the particular members who will serve on the Privy Council. That may secure that the members of the Privy Council agree with the Lord Chancellor, but it is no security whatever that they will agree with the majority of the House of Lords. The House of Lords, I understand, decide a case by the majority, whereas in the Privy Council the decision is always given as the judgment of the Court. In the House of Lords each separate Law Lord, I understand, gives his own reasons for his decision. Could anything be more awkward than these two appeals, decided by different Courts at the same time—one by a majority, the other by a unanimous Court—in one case each judge giving his reasons, in the other not? The Attorney-General said that the two Courts are very much the same. Their procedure is different, their constitution

    1363
    is different, and apparently they decide these cases for two different nations. While the Attorney-General was gliding with such charming ease over all these difficulties I was attempting to grasp the full complexity of the system as he explained it to us, but I got more and more puzzled, and what little reflection I have been able to give to his speech of an hour and a half ago has not enabled me to see anything in the nature of logical and artistic simplicity in the scheme which he has laid before the Committee. May I ask one question upon this remedy of the subject against the overstepping of its powers by this Board? The Attorney-General said that it is to be by mandamus. Are we to understand that this is a corporate body which can be sued?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It is a statutory Board.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I admit that I am entirely out of my depth in dealing with questions of this kind, but we are left in such extraordinary doubt by this Clause as to what the legal constitution and character of this body is, that the question really ought to be asked and answered whether this is a continuous Board which can be served with a mandamus or not. On that point I do not see that any light has been thrown by the Government so far. But that is only a question. The question, however, brings me to a criticism which, I think, meets with some sympathy from hon. Gentlemen opposite. They have, at any rate, suggested that we ought to know something more about the salary and status of this Board, and exactly what its character is. The last Sub-section reads as if these gentlemen were to be appointed for life and practically to have the status of judges—or, at all events, a fixed status quite outside and irrespective of any action the Government might take. So, at all events, I read the Sub-section. But that is not consistent with the general tenour of the speech of the Attorney-General, who most clearly implied in the course of his speech that two at least of these members were to be Treasury officials. Certainly, if all be wants is financial competence, he could so to no better source. As far as I am aware, there is no salary taken for these officials in the Bill. Therefore their duties are to be carried out as part of their ordinary official duties: one morning they will work in the Treasury preparing
    1364
    the next Budget of the British Chancellor of the Exchequer; the next they will go into another room, meet their three colleagues, and become members of this corporation which apparently can be sued. I think that is a very difficult and absurd arrangement. May I ask whether the Government would think themselves justified in giving advice to these officials? Are they to act under instructions? If they are not to act under instructions, and if the two Irish gentlemen are not to act under instructions of the Irish Government, their position will be anomalous. If they are to act under instructions of their respective Governments, all judicial character is entirely removed, and they become merely delegates of their respective Governments—two British delegates, two Irish delegates, and a gentleman appointed by the Crown, whose qualifications have not yet been stated, who is to be in the happy position of holding the balance between these two sets of emissaries.
    The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Lees Smith) said that whenever you had a federal Constitution you must have a Court of Appeal. I do not think, by the way, that the Government love Courts of Appeal, who in certain respects and upon certain subjects are practically the highest authorities in the country, the governing power of the country, higher than Kings, Lords and Commons. But at all events, the hon. Member for Northampton said that you must have some Court of Appeal if you have federal government, and that it must be an impartial Court of Appeal, separated both from the interests both of one party and of the other, and having a status which would command respect. But if four of these gentlemen are to be mere delegates of their respective Governments, if they are to be officials taken from Departments in Ireland or in Whitehall, as the case may be, and asked to go and defend a certain policy upon this Board, is that the kind of Court of Appeal of which the hon. Member for Northampton was thinking when his prophetic gaze looked forward to a federal system being adopted throughout the United Kingdom, with the necessary arbitrators in the shape of some body of gentlemen of eminence We do not know what their status is to be. They have not a salary. If they are to have a salary, we do not know whether it is to be secured as judicial salaries are secured. We are left completely in the dark. Although the Government have

    1365
    had several opportunities of telling us all these things, they have neglected to put down Amendments which the course of argument up to the present time has induced them to believe are necessary to make this Clause tolerable; they have not explained the Clause or justified it; they have not looked forward to these difficulties at later stages of the Clause. They have been content with the greatest, the best, the most unanswerable Parliamentary argument which the ingenuity of man ever devised—the Closure.
    This is only another proof of the preposterous method in which this Government set about Constitution making. This is the first step towards that great symmetrical federal structure which is gradually to arise upon the foundations of this Bill. The first attempt they have made to provide that Court of Appeal, which the hon. Member for Northampton thinks is so necessary, is to give us five gentlemen, two of them appointed by the Imperial Government, and two by the only subordinate State which they have yet been able to create, with no arrangements such as other countries have made to see that great dignity, authority, and impartiality shall surround this Court of Appeal, which is the ultimate arbiter of your constitutional destinies. The precursors of this final Court of Appeal are to be four public officials taken from the permanent Civil Service of the country. This is not the way to treat either the Committee of the House of Commons or the constitutional questions which the Government have chosen to raise in connection with this Bill. It cannot even satisfy the hon. Member for Northampton. There is no security for the impartiality which he desires; there is no evidence, in fact, that they want impartiality. And they may not! Their view may be that it is better to have two advocates from Ireland and two advocates from England, with an umpire standing in between. We do not know. As between these two vitally different policies we do not a bit know which is the policy of the Government. It is not for want of asking. After these days of debate, when this matter has been riddled with criticism from both sides of the House, it is odd that no attempt has been made, either by the Law Officers or by the Cabinet Ministers in charge, to deal with the larger aspects of this question. It remains a standing proof that if we ever are to have federalism established in these Islands we shall have to look to better
    1366
    architects than those at present attempting to raise the first stage of this extraordinary fabric.
    Sir E. CARSON: May I, just before the right hon. Gentleman replies, put one question on a point which has been raised by my right hon. Friend? It is in relation to the Joint Exchequer Board. What is it? What is its existence? It is not, according to this Bill, a corporation; therefore it has not a perpetual succession. There is no permanent succession, so far as I can see, in the Joint Exchequer Board at all. This Amendment of my hon. Friend aims at setting up a general scheme for the appointment of members of the Board, their staff, for the term in which they have to occupy office, and so on. That would establish something in the nature of a permanent Board. We were told in the course of debate to-day that this Board would not be a perpetual matter at all; that there might be times when it would not have to be set up for six months, and that when it was set up it would be set up, as my right hon. Friend has remarked, of two Treasury clerks in England and two from Ireland; and that the Government would appoint someone else, but that they would not be necessary to the Board.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I never said so If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is quoting me that is nothing like what I said.
    Sir E. CARSON: The right hon. Gentleman was not here. What I understood the Attorney-General to say was that it would not necessarily be the same persons that would decide the same cases that arose from time to time. They would, he said, not be specific people—he certainly did not mention specific people—who would from time to time constitute the Board. In point of fact he told us that Sub-section (3) did not give anything like a life office and did not create any term. We rather thought it did. He said it did not. What have you got then? You are making this Board, which is not a corporation and which has not a succession. You appoint, or at all events can appoint, merely if a particular question arises. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order," and "Time."] It is not my fault that the time is short. [An HON. MEMBER: "You said you wanted to ask a question."] I will only say one word. What I want to know as regards this matter is that when this Board which is constituted for a particular occasion is functus officio, what Board or staff or person is there who can be sued by mandamus?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Those who have refused to discharge their statutory duty would be amenable.
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): There are questions raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London which might perhaps be within the competence of a layman to attempt to answer, although I feel even more than the right hon. Gentleman a diffidence in treading where lawyers sometimes fear to tread. There are four objections which the right hon. Gentleman and the Opposition generally have raised to our proposal. In the first place, the Opposition object to the constitution of the Exchequer Board at all. In the second place, they say that its powers are excessive. They declare that from those powers there ought to be an adequate appeal which is not given in the Bill. Lastly, they say that the procedure of the Board should be more fully defined. With regard to the first point, the necessity for having the Exchequer Board at all. Apart from certain occasions on which I. agree the Board will have important functions, the Board will be called upon to do day by day work, and that work will be this: To say to the Irish people, "So much of the yield of your taxes, so much of your revenue is drawn from Ireland, so much is the cost of Irish services." The whole financial arrangements of the Irish Exchequer are to a much greater extent dependent upon the decisions of the Joint Exchequer Board than the financial arrangements of the Imperial Exchequer.
    Of course this Parliament might say in the Bill, "We will determine for you these matters affecting your finance so closely; this Parliament here shall keep control over the decision of this statistical and to a great extent arithmetical questions." But if this Parliament kept control it would of course mean that the Treasury would keep control, for, as has been pointed out, it is out of the question to suggest that anybody such as this Parliament, composed of 670 Members, could possibly go into those details into which the Exchequer Board has to inquire. An arrangement of that kind which would leave these matters, which are of such great importance to the Irish Parliament and the Irish Exchequer, entirely in the hands of the Imperial Treasury, would indeed be likely to give rise to friction between the two Governments. Although we regard our Treasury with complete confidence, in Ireland for many a long year
    1368
    the Treasury, I am afraid, has been regarded in some quarters with a certain degree of suspicion, and I think it is a right, generous and proper thing for this Parliament to say, "As we are giving Home Rule to them, we may not keep the determination of these questions strictly in our own hands; we think it more right and proper to let them be decided by representatives of the Imperial Treasury and representatives of the Irish Treasury sitting at the same table, with an independent chairman to give his opinion on points of dispute." Hon. Members opposite say that that is a surrender of the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. Not so!. They say that these five Gentlemen are placed above the Constitution. That is not so. Because in the last resort, if this Parliament thought that the Exchequer Board was acting wrongly or improperly, it could—though I agree it is not the course which will ordinarily be taken—and it would be an extreme step—it could as it wished under the powers reserved to it in Clause 1 overrule the Joint Exchequer Board. Of course that is not contemplated; it is not contemplated by the Bill. These matters are left to be decided day by day by the Joint Exchequer Board, and they will be decided by them, and Parliament will not intervene.
    But Parliament does not surrender the right, the constitutional right, if it so-wishes, to exercise an overruling power. Then hon. Members have said that the mere fact that an outside body is brought in to arbitrate, as a quasi Court of arbitration shows that the Parliaments are coequal, and that the one is not subordinate to the other. In all our Colonial Constitutions, although there is no Joint Exchequer Board—there is no need for it, the point does not arise—the Constitutions are different. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] That is obvious on the face of the Bill. Though there is no Joint Exchequer Board, constantly year by year the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Canada may find itself engaged in litigation with the Parliament of one of the provinces, or in Australia, before the Privy Council.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: A Court nominated by the two parties?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am dealing with the question of principle. Hon. Gentlemen have said that the mere fact that, we are not deciding these things ourselves,

    1369
    by our own fiat, shows that the Irish Parliament is no longer a subordinate Parliament. My answer to that is that in the great federations in our Empire, where you have Parliaments which are acknowledged on all hands as regards one another to be superior and subordinate Parliaments, you do have differences between them, and settled, not by the Parliament of Canada or by the Parliament of Australia as against one of the provincial Parliaments, but settled by an outside tribunal. Secondly, with regard to the powers of the Hoard, the right hon. Gentleman has raised this matter to the level of a large constitutional issue. He says that the powers conferred upon the Board are greater, or as great, as we have taken away from the House of Lords. What are they I "What are the right hon. Gentleman's instances? In regard to independent taxes, and, as to whether or not a tax is an independent tax or a substantial sum. That is indeed an important issue. On that we give an appeal to the Privy Council, and on that notice has already been given of Amendment. His next instance was that this Parliament has to decide as to what is true revenue, and that the Exchequer Board has to decide the true revenue from Ireland. But the Board have only to decide that for the purposes of Clause 26. Whether or not the individual person is liable to an Irish tax or not, is not within their province. They would not be called upon to decide whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College is domiciled in Ireland or not.
    Sir E. CARSON: Under Clause 24?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: They have to decide what are the proceeds of the Irish tax. They cannot decide whether of not any individual person is liable to pay that. They are not called upon to act the part of an ordinary Court of Law and say whether or not a person is rightly subject to a tax of the Irish Parliament.
    Sir E. CARSON: The decision involves the domicile?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The matter does not rest with them. As to other aspects I agree that within limits strictly defined they have to decide whether or not a certain drawback is of a suitable amount. Who decides such questions now? It is always left to experts to decide. It is left to experts to decide and to suggest the right drawback. It is left to Parliament to decide policy, because
    1370
    Parliament can decide whether it wishes the drawback to have a protective effect. But it will always be left to the expert advisers of the Treasury to decide whether, given a policy, the drawback is to be precisely equal in effect to the duty and whether or not a particular sum is adequate for the purposes. With regard to appeals, that question arises under Clause 29. We have not put down an Amendment to this Clause dealing with the questions of appeal, because that Amendment could not be properly made on this Clause. The words, "That the opinion of the Joint Exchequer Board shall be final and conclusive," may have to be omitted or may have to be modified. Whether they are omitted or whether they are modified depends upon the form which the Amendment takes to Clause 26.
    It being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 14th October, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (seated and covered): May I ask you, Mr. Whitley, on a point of Order, whether, if we pass the words in Sub-section (2) "The decision of the Board on any matter which is to be determined by them shall be final and conclusive," it will be open to hon. Members at a later stage to move an Amendment giving an appeal from their decision.
    The CHAIRMAN: I can only be guided by what I heard. I have seen no Amendment. I have some doubt whether it could be raised at this stage or on Report stage, but I cannot give a decision upon the point until I have seen the Amendment.
    Mr. BUTCHER: May I ask you, Sir, whether, in view of the uncertainty as to whether we could correct what the Government admits wants correction with regard to whether the decision of the Board is to be final and conclusive, would not the proper course be to postpone the Clause?
    The CHAIRMAN: It certainly could be done on Report stage, if not on a later Clause in Committee.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: Will we get more time on Report stage in consequence of this bungling?
    The CHAIRMAN: That is not a question for the Chair.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 191; Noes, 322.

    Division No. 350.]

    AYES.

    [7.30 p.m.

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Goldman, Charles Sydney

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Goldsmith, Frank

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

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

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

    Baird, John Laurence

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Balcarres, Lord

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gretton, John

    Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

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

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

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Barnston, Harry

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Barrie, H. T

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Rawson, Col. R. H.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Bigland, Alfred

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bird, Alfred

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

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Blair, Reginald

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Royds, Edmund

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hills, John Waller

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

    Boyton, James

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Burn, Col. C. R.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Butcher, John George

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Home, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

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

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Campion, W. R.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Stanler, Seville

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Cassel, Felix

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Steel-Maitland, A.D.

    Cave, George

    Jessell, Captain H. M.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Swift, Rigby

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Keswick, Henry

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

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

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Chambers, James

    Kintoch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Larmor, Sir J.

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

    Clyde, James Avon

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

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

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

    Touche, George Alexander

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Valentia, Viscount

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Denniss, E. R. B.

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

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

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Doughty, Sir George

    Lowe, Sir F W. (Edgbaston)

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

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

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

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

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

    Fell, Arthur

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

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

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

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Forster, Henry William

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Yerburgh, Robert A.

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Moore, William

    Younger, Sir George

    Gardner, Ernest

    Mount, William Arthur

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Newman, John R. P.

    Astor and Mr. Walter Guinness

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Barton, William

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Adamson, William

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Bentham, George J

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

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

    Barnes, G. N

    Black, Arthur W.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

    Boland, John Pius

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

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

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Nannetti, Joseph P,

    Brace, William

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hayward, Evan

    Nellson, Francis

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Nolan, Joseph

    Bryce, John Annan

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Norton, Captain Cecil William

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Hinds, John

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Hodge, John

    O'Dowd, John

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

    Hogge, James Myles

    Ogden, Fred

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Grady, James

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Holt, Richard Durning

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

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Malley, William

    Clough, William

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Shee, James John

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Cotton, William Francis

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

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Crooks, William

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Jones, Leif Straiten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Cullinan, John

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

    Joyce, Michael

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

    Keating, Matthew

    Pointer, Joseph

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    De Forest, Baron

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Delany, William

    King, Joseph

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

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

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Dillon, John

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

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

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Leach, Charles

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Doris, William

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Duffy, William J.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Radford, G. H.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Rattan, Peter Wilson

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Lundon, T.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Reddy, Michael

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Essex, Richard Walter

    MacGhee, Richard

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Falconer, James

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

    Richards, Thomas

    Farrell, James Patrick

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

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Ffrench, Peter

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Roberts, C. H. (Lincoln)

    Field, William

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    M'Kean, John

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Robinson, Sidney

    France, Gerald Ashburner

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

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Gilhooly, James

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

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Manfield, Harry

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Rowlands, James

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Martin, Joseph

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

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

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Meagher, Michael

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Scanian, Thomas

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

    Menzies, Sir Walter

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

    Gulland, John William

    Millar, James Duncan

    Sheehy, David

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Molloy, Michael

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Hackett, J.

    Moltene, Percy Alport

    Shortt, Edward

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Mormanton)

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Hancock, John George

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Mooney, J. J.

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton).

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Morrell, Philip

    Snowden, Philip

    Harvey, A. G. G. (Rochdale)

    Morison, Hector

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

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

    Muldon, John

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W.)

    1374

    1375

    Sutherland, John E.

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

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Sutton, John E.

    Wardle, George J.

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Waring, Walter

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

    Tennant, Harold John

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

    Thomas, James Henry

    Watt, Henry A.

    Wilson, W. T (Westhoughton)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Webb, H.

    Winfrey, Richard

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Wadsworth, John

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Whyte, Alexander F.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Wiles, Thomas

    Illingworth and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    The CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government, of which notice had been given, and the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past
    Seven of the clock at this day's sitting.
    Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 319; Noes, 193.

    Division No. 351.]

    AYES.

    [7.40 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Crooks, William

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Adamson, William

    Crumley, Patrick

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Cullinan, John

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

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

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

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

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Arnold, Sydney

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Hayward, Evan

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    De Forest, Baron

    Hazleton, Richard

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Delany, William

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Balfour, sir Robert (Lanark)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Dillon, John

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

    Barnes, George N.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Doris, William

    Hinds, John

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

    Duffy, William J.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Barton, W.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Hodge, John

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Bentham, George J.

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Esmonds, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Boland, John Pius

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Hudson, Walter

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Falconer, James

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    John, Edward Thomas

    Brace, William

    Ffrench, Peter

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

    Brady Patrick Joseph

    Field, William

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Bryce, John Annan

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Jowett, Frederick William

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

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Joyce, Michael

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Glanville, Harold James

    Keating, Matthew

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    King, Joseph

    Chapple, Dr. William Alien

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

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

    Lardner, James Carrige Rustic

    Clancy, John Joseph

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

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Clough, William

    Gulland, John William

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

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Leach, Charles

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hackett, John

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hancock, J. G.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Cotton, William Francis

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Lundon, T.

    O'Shee, James John

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Parker, James Halifax

    Snowden, Philip

    McGhee, Richard

    Pearce, Robert (Stalls, Leek)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

    Sutherland, J. E.

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Sutton, John E.

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    M'Kean, John

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Pointer, Joseph

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

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

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Tennant, Harold John

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

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Thomas, James Henry

    Manfield, Harry

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

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

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Martin, Joseph

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

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

    Verney, Sir Harry Wadsworth, John

    Meagher, Michael

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Radford, George Heynes

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Millar, James Duncan

    Rattan, Peter Wilson

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Molloy, Michael

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Wardle, G. J.

    Mond, Sir Alfred

    Reddy, Michael

    Waring, Walter

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Mooney, John J.

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Morrell, Philip

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Watt, Henry A.

    Morison, Hector

    Richards, Thomas

    Webb, H.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Muldoon, John

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

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

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Nannetti, Joseph

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Needham, Christopher Thomas

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Neilson, Francis

    Robinson, Sidney

    Wiles, Thomas

    Nolan, Joseph

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Norton, Captain Cecil William

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Rowlands, James

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

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Winfrey, Richard

    O'Donnell, Thomas

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

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

    Ogden, Fred

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    O'Grady, James

    Scanian, Thomas

    Young, William (Perth, East)

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

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

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Sheehy, David

    O'Malley, William

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

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

    Shortt, Edward

    Illingworth and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    NOES.

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Doughty, Sir George

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Butcher, John George

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Ashley, W. W.

    Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Astor, Waldorf

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

    Fell, Arthur

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Camplon, W. R.

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Balcarres, Lord

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

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

    Cassel, Felix

    Fleming, Valentine

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Forster, Henry William

    Barnston, Harry

    Cave, George

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Barrie, H. T.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

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

    Goldman, C. S.

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Chambers, James

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Bird, Alfred

    Clyde, James Avon

    Gretton, John

    Blair, Reginald

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

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

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

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

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur C. T. Griffith-

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim S.)

    Gwynne, R S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Craiq, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Boyton, James

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Bridgeman. William Clive

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Bull, Sir William James

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

    1378

    1379

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

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

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Stanler, Beville

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

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

    Starkey, John Ralph

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

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Stewart, Gershom

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Moore, William

    Swift, Rigby

    Hills, John Waller

    Mount, William Arthur

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Newman, John R. P.

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

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

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

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

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

    Home, William E. (Surrey, Guildford)

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

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Horner, A. L.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Touche George Alexander

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Hunt, Rowland

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Hunter, Sir Charles R.

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

    Pretyman, Ernest George

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

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Quilter, Sir W. E. C.

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Kerry, Earl of

    Rawlinson, Sir John Frederick Peel

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

    Keswick, Henry

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Rees, Sir J. D.

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

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Rothschild, Lionel de

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

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

    Royds, Edmund

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

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

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

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

    Yerburgh, Robert A.

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Younger, Sir George

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

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

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    J. Gordon and Mr. S. Roberts.

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

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

    CLAUSE 23.—(Charge of Irish Government Loans on Transferred Sum and Management by Joint Exchequer Board.)
    (1) If provision is made by Irish Act for securing any loan raised by the Government of Ireland upon the Transferred Sum and for the payment of such part of the Transferred Sum as in the opinion of the Joint Exchequer Board may be required for the services of the loan in each year direct to that Board, the Board may undertake on behalf of the Irish Government the issue and management of tie loan and the application of the money paid to them for the services of the loan.
    (2) Where provision is so made for the payment of a part of the Transferred Sum to the Joint Exchequer Board in connection with a loan the management of which is undertaken by the Board in accordance with this Section, the Treasury shall cause the requisite part of the Transferred
    Sum to be paid to the Joint Exchequer Board instead of to the Irish Exchequer.
    (3) The accounts of the Joint Exchequer Board in respect of any sums received by them under this Section in connection with any loan shall be audited in the same manner as the accounts of the Irish Consolidated Fund are for the time being audited.
    (4) Any stock or securities issued in respect of any loan raised by the Irish Government shall be deemed to be included amongst the securities in which a trustee may invest under the powers of the Trustee Act, 1893.
    Government Amendment: At the end of Sub-section (4), to add the words, "or of the Trusts (Scotland) Acts, 1861 to 1910."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
    Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 317; Noes, 192.

    Division No. 352.]

    AYES.

    [7.50 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

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

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Arnold, Sydney

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Adamson, William

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Barton, William

    Hancock, J. G.

    Morrell, Philip

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Morison, Hector

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Bentham, G. J.

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Muldoon, John

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Black, Arthur W.

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

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Boland, John Pius

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Neilson, Francis

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Nolan, Joseph

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Hayward, Evan

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Brace, William

    Hazleton, Richard

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Helme, Sir Nerval Watson

    Nuttall, Harry

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

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

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Hinds, John

    Ogden, Fred

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

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Grady, James

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Hodge, John

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

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Malley, William

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Holt, Richard Durning

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

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Shee, James John

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Clough, William

    Hudson, Walter

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Hughes, S. L.

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    John, Edward Thomas

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvll)

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Craig, Herbert James (Tynemouth)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Jones, T. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Crooks, William

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Pirie, Duncan Vernon

    Cullinan, John

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Davies, Ellis William (Efion)

    Joyce, Michael

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Keating, Matthew

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Dawes, J. A.

    Kilbride, Denis

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

    De Forest, Baron

    King, J.

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Delany, William

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Devlin, Joseph

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Dickinson, W. H.

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

    Radford, G. H.

    Dillon, John

    Leach, Charles

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Doris, William

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Duffy, William J.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Reddy, Michael

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Richards, Thomas

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    McGhee, Richard

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Essex, Richard Walter

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

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Falconer, James

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

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Ffrench, Peter

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Robinson, Sidney

    Field, William

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    M'Kean, John

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Fitgibbon, John

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    France, Gerald Ashburner

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

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Gill, A. H.

    Manfield, Harry

    Rowlands, James

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Glanville, H. J.

    Martin, Joseph

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

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Samuel, J. Stockton-on-Tees)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Meagher, Michael

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

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

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Sheehy, David

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Sherwell, Arthur James

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

    Molloy, Michael

    Shortt, Edward

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

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Gulland, John William

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Hackett, John

    Mooney, John J.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    1382

    1383

    Snowden, Philip

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Sutherland, John E.

    Wardle, George J.

    Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

    Sutton, John E.

    Waring, Walter

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

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

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

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Tennant, Harold John

    Watt, Henry A.

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

    Thomas, J. H.

    Webb, H.

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Young, William (Perthshire, E.)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Illingworth and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.

    Wadsworth, John

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    NOES.

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Goldman, C. S.

    Newman, John R. P.

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

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

    Astor, Waldorf

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

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

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon William

    Balcarres, Lord

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gretton, John

    Parkes, Ebenezer

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

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

    Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Barnston, Harry

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Beach Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

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

    Ouilter, Sir W. E. C.

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Rawlinson, Sir John Frederick Peel

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Bird, Alfred

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Blair, Reginald

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Boles, Lieut-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S)

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

    Royds, Edmund

    Boyton, James

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hills, John Waller

    Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Butcher, John George

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

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

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Campion, W. R.

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Stanier, Beville

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Cassel, Felix

    Hume-Williams, W. E.

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hunt, Rowland

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Cave, George

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Ingl'eby, Holcombe

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Swift, Rigby

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Kerry, Earl of

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

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

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Chambers, James

    Keswick, Henry

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Thomson W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Thynne, Lord A.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

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

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

    Valentia, Viscount

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Doughty, Sir George

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

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

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

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

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

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Fell, Arthur

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

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

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

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Mackinder, Halford J.

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

    Fleming, Valentine

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

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Forster, Henry William

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Yerburgh, Robert A.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Younger, Sir George

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Moore, William

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Mount, William Arthur

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Wheler and Mr. Hugh Barris.

    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 314; Noes, 186.

    Division No. 353.]

    AYES.

    [8.4 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Ffrench, Peter

    McGhee, Richard

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Field, William

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

    Adamson, William

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

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

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

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

    Gill, A. H.

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Ginnell, Laurence

    M'Kean, John

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Glanville, H. J.

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

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Manfield, Harry

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Greenwod, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Martin, Joseph

    Barnes, G. N.

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

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

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

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

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Gulland, John William

    Meagher, Michael

    Barton, William

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Hackett, John

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Bentham, G. J.

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Hancock, J. G.

    Molloy, Michael

    Birrell, Rt Hon. Augustine

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Black, Arthur W.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Boland, John Pius

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Mooney, John J.

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

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

    Morrell, Philip

    Brace, William

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Morison, Hector

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Muldoon, John

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hayden, John Patrick

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

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Hayward, John Evan

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hazleton, Richard

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Needham, Christopher T.

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

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Neilson, Francis

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

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

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Nuttall, Harry

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Hinds, John

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hodge, John

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Clough, William

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Dowd, John

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Ogden, Fred

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Grady, James

    Cotton, William Francis

    Hudson, Walter

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

    Craig, Herbert, J. (Tynemouth)

    Hughes, S. L.

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    O'Malley, William

    Crooks, William

    John, Edward Thomas

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

    Crumley, Patrick

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

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Cullinan, John

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Shee, James John

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

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

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Dawes, J. A.

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    De Forest, Baron

    Joyce, Michael

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Delany, William

    Keating, Matthew

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

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Dillon, John

    King, J.

    Pointer, Joseph

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Doris, William

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Duffy, William

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Leach, Charles

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

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Lewis, John Herbert

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

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Radford, G. H.

    Falconer, James

    Lynch, A. A.

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Shortt, Edward

    Waring, Walter

    Reddy, Michael

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Snowden, Phiiip

    Webb, H.

    Richards, Thomas

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Stanley, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Whitehouse, John Toward

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Sutherland, John E.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Sutton, John E.

    Whyte, Alexander F.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Wilkle, Alexander

    Robinson, Sidney

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Thomas, J. H.

    Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Toulmin, Sir George

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

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Rowlands, James

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Winfrey, Richard

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Verney, Sir Harry

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

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Wadsworth, John

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

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

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Young, William (Perthshire, E.)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Walton, Sir Joseph

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

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Sheehy, David

    Wardle, George J.

    Illingworth and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    NOES.

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Fell, Arthur

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

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

    Astor, Waldorf

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Fleming, Valentine

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Forster, Henry William

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Foster, Philip Staveley

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

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

    Gardner, Ernest

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gibbs, George Abraham

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

    Barnston, Harry

    Gilmour, Captain John

    MacCaw, Win. J. MacGeagh

    Barrie, H. T.

    Goldman, S. S.

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Moore, William

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Mount, William Arthur

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Gretton, John

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Bird, Alfred

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

    Newman, John R. P.

    Blair, Reginald

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

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Haddock, George Bahr

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

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid.)

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

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

    Boyton, James

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

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hamilton, Marquess, of (Londonderry)

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Harrison-Broadley, H B.

    Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Butcher, John George

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

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

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

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Campion, W. R.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Quilter, Sir W. E. C.

    Cassel, Felix

    Hills, John Waller

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Rolleston, Sir John

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

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Chambers, James

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Royds, Edmund

    Chaplain, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Hume-Williams, W. E.

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

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Hunt, Rowland

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Kerry, Earl of

    Stanier, Beville

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Keswick, Henry

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Doughty, Sir George

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Stewart, Gershom

    1388

    1389

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

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

    Swift, Rigby

    Valentia, Viscount

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

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

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

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

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Yerburgh, Robert A.

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

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Thynne, Lord A.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Gastrell and Mr. Hamersley.

    CLAUSE 24.—(Ascertainment of True Irish Revenue.)
    In ascertaining for the purposes of this Act the proceeds in Ireland of any Imperial tax or of any Irish tax, the Joint Exchequer Board shall treat the proceeds collected in Ireland as the proceeds of the tax in Ireland, subject to such adjustment as the Board think equitable, with a view to attributing to Ireland any proceeds of taxes collected in Great Britain but properly attributable to Ireland, and to attributing to Great Britain any proceeds of taxes collected in Ireland but properly attributable to Great Britain, and with a view to meeting cases where the rate of a tax is, or other conditions affecting the charge of a tax are, different in Great Britain and Ireland.
    Mr. HEWINS: I beg to move, after the word "shall" ["the Joint Exchequer Board shall"], to insert the words "in accordance with regulations made under this Section."
    In moving this Amendment perhaps I may be allowed to allude to the consequential Amendment to add three new Sub-sections as an adumbration of the scheme I wish to submit to the consideration of the Committee. This Amendment follows as a consequence of the concessions already granted or adumbrated by the Government with regard to the Joint Exchequer Board. We are now in this position with regard to that Board. They have to deal with a large mass of questions, some of them questions of law and of legal interpretation. In regard to that class of question we understand the Government are going to provide some Amendment later on. At the other extreme there are questions of what the Postmaster-General the other day called pure financial and statistical estimates, and in which no matters of controversy came in at all. Between those two extremes in the functions which the Joint Exchequer Board will have to discharge, there are a large number of questions of general economics and general expediency or discretion, such, for instance, as the
    1390
    bearing upon the Irish taxes of the interpretation of Clause 2, Subsection (7), dealing with trade limitations, and with regard to those the Government at present have given us no indication at all of any willingness to make a change. We also understand from the Attorney-General that whatever Amendments the Government may suggest later on, they do not propose to give anything in the nature of an appeal upon questions of fact. If, as the Attorney-General adumbrates, there is to be no appeal upon questions of fact, I think it is all the more incumbent upon the Government to lay down very precise rules or a standard on which the Exchequer Board might act when it is discharging this particular part of its functions.
    The Clause to which my Amendment relates has to deal with the ascertainment of true revenue. The general feeling on the Government Benches appears to be that there is really no room for doubt or controversy when you are dealing with the question of the interpretation of true revenue. My opinion is diametrically opposed to that, and I am going to propose a scheme by which the Government, if it cannot meet us altogether, can, at any rate, give satisfaction to the people of Ireland and of this country by adopting machinery which will make certain, things which are at present uncertain, and which will introduce stability where at the present time there is no prospect of stability. I hope that the Government will adopt this Amendment. I may point out it does not affect the framework of the Bill. It is merely a question of establishing precise and accurate machinery for dealing with certain classes of problems—machinery which, I think, would improve the Bill and which would certainly improve the organisation of the Joint Exchequer Board. I hope they will consider it very carefully. Of course, the nature of the financial relations in the Bill is determined by the actual financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland so far as they can be ascertained. There are many assumptions you could make if you were framing de novo the

    1391
    basis upon which your financial organisation is to be built. The Government choose the basis of true revenue. Their view appears to be that when you speak of true revenue you are speaking of some quantity definitely ascertainable which can be found out and set down, whereas really it is a question of controversy which belongs to what the Postmaster-General calls the arithmetical sphere. At an earlier period this afternoon one of my hon. Friends quoted passages from the Primrose Report showing very little acceptation of that sanguine view of the possibility of estimating true revenue.
    I suppose that, among the many controversial statistical questions which surround the Irish problem there are very few which are more controversial than that of the ascertainment of true revenue. Ever since we have had an Irish question we have quarrelled about the hypothesis involved in estimating these quantities, and I do not see anything in the Rill which promises, if it should be passed, that the quarrelling will be less when the related but separated interests of Great Britain and Ireland have to be considered. In estimating true revenue you have a good many things to take account of. First, there is the nature of your taxation. The Debates which we have already had upon the taxing powers to be exercised by the Irish Parliament show how very different may be the result if you take one hypothesis or the other in making your calculations. We have had impassioned speeches, one, for instance, by the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy), in which he controverted the whole financial basis on which this Bill is constructed, and we have had other speeches denying the validity of the estimates made in the Paper issued by the Treasury. We have had speeches raising all kinds of questions relating to the incidence of taxes, and it is of the utmost importance that we should place all this on a satisfactory basis, and that the principle which it is proposed to lay down should be indicated as clearly as possible, and should be principles binding on the Board we are about to appoint, and from which it shall not depart. I think the Postmaster-General will agree with mc that of all questions which have ever been debated in economics, that of the incidence of taxation is the most controversial. If you take our experience during the last nine years it will be admitted that one of the main differences between parties has turned on the question of the incidence of
    1392
    taxation, and when you have set up the Irish revenue system, with these separate taxing powers, and still more if the actual number of commodities taxed is increased, I am sure everyone will admit that this question of the incidence of taxation may become an important factor in determining actually large amounts of money. That being so, I certainly should despair of ever getting any body of experts to discover the absolute truth of these arithmetical matters, as the Postmaster-General calls them. Short of getting to the region of absolute truth, if you can get to a working hypothesis which will reduce the danger of difference, I think it would be an enormous gain, and it would be a still greater gain if you could have rules laid down which the Board are going to follow. That is the whole object of this Amendment.
    I do not, of course, withdraw any single word I have said with regard to the Joint Exchequer Board in its bearing on the interpretation of the Bill or on the question of what are the Irish services, or on the subject of Parliamentary control of finance. All these things have gone by the board now, and we have to wait for the Amendments which the Government are to put down to satisfy some of our objections. But here you have another question which may easily become exceedingly controversial. The Postmaster-General seems to think these matters are not so controversial. We think they are highly controversial. The method we suggest should be adopted to deal with them would not involve any sacrifice of principle, but it would have a good effect if it helped to conciliate a certain amount of opinion on this side with regard to what may become a precedent in future measures affecting other parts of the Empire. I do therefore ask the Government to consider this carefully. My first suggestion is that before you set the Joint Exchequer Board in operation you should have an Advisory Committee consisting of our best statistical and financial experts. I put down in my Amendment the Secretary to the Treasury, the Chairman of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, the Chairman of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, and certain Irish officials. I suggest you should have this body of experts, thoroughly competent to deal, from their point of view, with these questions of Customs, and I further suggest that these experts should draw up a scheme of rules for the guidance of the Joint Exchequer Board in making the calculations of true Irish revenue which will

    1393
    have to be made to carry out the purposes of this Act.
    You cannot get absolute truth. I am sure it is perfectly hopeless to think you would ever kill all controversy on this disputed question of the relations of Great Britain and Ireland; but I am quite sure that you can diminish the bitterness of that controversy, and diminish the controversy itself, if what you do is entirely open and above board, and if the whole world knows upon what main principles these proceedings are to be conducted, so that people will feel, whether the rules you adopt are perfect or imperfect, that at any rate they are rules that are going to be followed, and that there will be no important change from one period to another. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware that in all these fiscal matters one of the most important things we have to see to is not so much to guard against small changes, which you cannot, of course, avoid in all these important matters, but to create in your people a sense of stability. If you can do that, if you can get people to feel that although your action may not be perfect and may be open to this or that objection, at any rate you are doing your best, to lay down rules from one year to another, you will give them a feeling of confidence in what you are doing which otherwise it would be very difficult to create. I do not think that the question of Parliamentary control conies prominently to the front in a matter of this kind. I so far agree with what the Postmaster-General said the other day with regard to the functions of the Exchequer Board being confined to arithmetical matters, so long as they are questions you cannot debate comfortably in the House of Commons and they are not questions about which there is much controversy. But I think that if you follow the method which I suggest you will get indirectly the sense, if I may so call it, of Parliamentary control, because the whole thing is open, and can be raised in Parliament if there is anything felt to be particular iniquitous, although I do not for one moment suppose that the financial experts I have named in the Amendment will arrive at a conclusion as to the calculations of the true revenue of Ireland which will substantially differ from that which will be arrived at by any other group of experts.
    It will come to a question of controversy about small points which will not be matters of great importance. You may
    1394
    start with a different principle and with different interpretations of this or that class of figures, but when you are dealing with the class of figures with which this Amendment is intended to deal—I am guarding myself in that way—and the question of what is the principle on which the true revenue of Ireland should be calculated, although you would have slight grounds for controversy, you would not have grounds for controversy which will be estimated in large amounts of money, which is the important thing. I hope the Postmaster-General will see his way to adopt that part of the Amendment as to the laying down of the rules and regulations. Do not leave the Clause in the vague and unsatisfactory form in which it now is. The impression Clause 24 leaves on my mind is that the Government see that this work has to be done, but, as a matter of fact, they have not carefully thought out the way in which it is to be done. I think, if I may say so without offence, that it is rather scamping work for the Government to put a Clause like that into the Bill without giving the body which is to be set up any guidance as to the principles upon which they are to act. The second part of the consequential Amendment provides that—
    "The Committee shall as soon as may be present a Report to His Majesty, and thereupon His Majesty in Council may frame regulations founded upon the said Report, and in carrying out their duties under this Section the Joint Exchequer Board shall act in accordance with such regulations."
    I do not think there is any difficulty about that. In the third part of the consequential Amendment I am copying the Government in providing for an appeal, supposing there is any serious dispute even on the question of these rules and regulations. I have provided that there may be an appeal in the form prescribed to the Privy Council on any question of controversy that arises. I feel this about the Amendment, that, although we may and do differ on the large political questions involved we say we are not going to accept Home Rule on any terms; we differ, and we have shown that we differ on almost every question we, have had to discuss during the Home Rule controversy—but here is a point upon which I appeal to the Government to say that it is surely possible for the two sides of the Committee to come to some agreement as to the general principles which are to be

    1395
    adopted in regard to the calculation of the true revenue of Ireland. On that ground I would ask the Government to give favourable consideration to the Amendment.
    Mr. DAVID MASON: I hope that the Government will not accept this Amendment. I appreciate very much the speech we have just heard from the hon. Member, and I think we may congratulate ourselves on the tone and temper of that speech.
    Mr. HEWINS: It is a statistical question.
    Mr. D. MASON: As an alternative to the non possumus attitude of having no Home Rule and having nothing to do with this Bill, it is a very great improvement.
    Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: You will get that later on.
    Mr. D. MASON: I believe the Amendment is an honest and sincere attempt to discuss this Bill.
    Mr. MOORE: Do you suggest the other Amendments have not been honest and sincere?
    Mr. D. MASON: Oh, no.
    Mr. MOORE: Then just be careful what you say.
    Mr. WATT: You know it is not sincere.
    Mr. D. MASON: I said I believed that this is an honest attempt to improve the Bill, and as such it is worthy of the consideration of this Committee. I do not agree with the Amendment for the following reasons. In the first place, I think hon. Members will agree that there has been a considerable amount of criticism as to the number of these Committees, and even with regard to the creation of the Joint Exchequer Board itself, that it was another addition to the many Committees and Boards which it has been found necessary to create from time to time to help the machinery of government. Yet here is a proposal made to still further enlarge the number of Committees by the creation of a still larger and more cumbersome Committee. The consequential Amendment proposes that—
    "Upon the passing of this Act a Committee, consisting of the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, who shall be chairman of the Committee, the Chairman of the Commissioners of Inland
    1396
    Revenue, the Chairman of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, the Treasury Remembrancer in Ireland, and the Superintendent of the Statistics and Intelligence Branch of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland shall be appointed for the purpose of determining the method to be adopted by the Joint Exchequer Board in carrying out their duties under this Section, and in such determination the Committee shall provide for deductions being made for that portion of the total cost and charges of collection attributable to the collection of the proceeds of any tax."
    Perhaps some other hon. Member later on may suggest the appointment of a further Committee to determine what this Committee is to determine, and it will become interminable.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That is in the Amendment.
    Mr. D. MASON: I was coming to that The third Sub-section of the consequential Amendment provides that—
    "The Committee shall as soon as may be present a Report to His Majesty and thereupon His Majesty in Council may frame Regulations founded upon the said Report, and in carrying out their duties under this Section the Joint Exchequer Board shall act in accordance with such Regulations."
    Further—
    "If any two Members of the Joint Exchequer Board are of opinion that in respect to any matter within the provisions of this Section the Joint Exchequer Board have not acted in accordance with the aforesaid Regulations, they may represent the same to His Majesty in Council, and thereupon the said question shall be forthwith referred to and heard and determined by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council."
    So that I honestly feel that this Committee, which again is dependent upon a further recourse to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—
    Mr. HEWINS: The Government are providing that in regard to the other points.
    Mr. D. MASON: It is ancillary to your proposal. It will increase the amount of confusion if we were to accept this Amendment. If these gentlemen referred to by the hon. Member are such excellent

    1397
    men for his Committee, it is very possible that the Treasury in Ireland and the Treasury of the Imperial Exchequer will appoint them. They will be eligible, I presume, and if they are the financial experts that he evidently believes them to be and are suitable to the purpose, they will very probably be appointed. But it would add to the confusion to create a further Committee, and one so cumbersome in its composition as the Committee which has been suggested by the hon. Member. He says this Clause is far too vague, and I think he used the word "scamping."
    Mr. HEWINS: I said it did not define the principles.
    Mr. D. MASON: I think I am right in saying the hon. Member said it was far too vague in its terms. In the nature of things you must be vague to a certain extent. That is to say, you have, first, to appoint to the post men suitable for the purpose and then leave them as wide powers as possible. If you try to define what they are appointed to do, they have been appointed to determine—that is, to judge. If you are going to crib, cabin, and confine them in their judgment and to hold them down in this direction and the other direction, you are in a sense taking away from them the functions which they have been created to do. To be able to determine, you must have as wide freedom as possible. The very fact that the powers are wide is the best proof, if proof is needed, that the Clause has been wisely and properly drafted In the nature of things you must make these powers as wide as possible. I quite agree that you must be very careful in the appointment of members of the Joint Exchequer Board. I quite agree in the care the hon. Member has taken in selecting very eminent and distinguished men, and I have no doubt the Irish Treasury and the Imperial Treasury will follow that example in the composition of the Exchequer Board when it comes to be drawn up. But to suggest that you should have a further Committee to check this Exchequer Board and that they should have the right to appeal to the Privy Council seems to me really to be adding to the existing confusion and not advancing the object we all have in view.
    The arguments with regard to the Exchequer Board have been directed to the fact that it was not necessary—that it was
    1398
    superfluous—and yet the lion. Member suggests that we should add to the number of Boards by the creation of a further Board. I believe this is a necessary Board. If there are new conditions being created there must be new machinery to deal with the new conditions. This Exchequer Board will be a check upon the Treasury. It will really be purely a Hoard created for the purpose of determining matters of fact—matters as to the allocation of taxes, the amount going to Ireland and the amount going to the British Treasury—and that surely is a pure matter of fact, and I entirely dissent from the view which has been expressed by the Leader of the Opposition that this means determining policy. I cannot for the life of me understand why the hon. Member does not perceive that this body only has to deal with the facts of the case. It is quite true that facts affect policy and policy in turn governs expenditure, but there are certain taxes passed and this Board has to determine the allocation and the proceeds of these taxes and it particularly refers to the ascertaining of true Irish revenue. Surely, that is essentially a matter of determining—a matter of judgment. I quite agree that you will require very able and very expert men on that Board to be able to ascertain what that allocation should be, but the Committee surely will agree with me that this is essentially a question of determining actual facts which exist. Therefore I have no doubt that the Government will be willing, as they always have shown themselves willing, to receive any suggestions from distinguished men who may be called upon to join this Exchequer Board, and I hope that they will certainly not add to the existing confusion, if any confusion exists, by supporting the Amendment.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: The hon. Member has made a very interesting speech, but the only reason he has given against the Amendment is that it would lead to the creation of an additional Committee. I think it is one of the most important Amendments which has been proposed during the whole course of the Bill, and I do not think the mere argument that it would lead to the creation of an additional Committee ought really to stand in its way. It is very important indeed, before altering the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland, that we should know exactly how the two countries stand financially one towards the other. At present we do not in the

    1399
    least know what the true revenue of Ireland really is, and as the financial provisions of the Bill are entirely based upon an estimate of true revenue, surely some endeavour should be made to obtain the figures in this respect which, at any rate, are approximately correct. It is quite true that the Primrose Committee referring to true revenue, say:—
    "It would be a mistake to infer that the margin of error is so wide as to impair seriously the value of the calculations."
    That is to say the calculations in respect of true revenue. But a little later on in the Report they go on to say:—
    "The data for the exact calculation of true revenue neither exists, nor under present administrative machinery, can he procured."
    If that is the fact, and I believe it is, is it a satisfactory state of things on which to build up a most delicate financial scheme which the Government tell us is going to harmonise the financial relations in the future between this country and Ireland. On what evidence are these calculations based? The evidence given before the Primrose Committee on Irish Finance has been withheld from this House, although a great many efforts have been made to elicit it. I believe if that evidence was forthcoming, hon. Members would find the opinion given by the gentlemen who gave evidence before the Committee would differ very considerably from the opinions embodied in the text of the Bill. Every writer on the subject of Irish finance agrees that the present estimate of Irish true revenue adopted by the Government is very wide of the mark indeed. This does not apply only to Unionist writers; it applies even more strongly to Nationalist and Home Rule writers. Take Professor Oldham, who is a distinguished Irish economist and financial authority. In his pamphlet, "The Public Finances of Ireland," he says:—
    "The revenue contributed by Ireland is not really known."
    That is to say, the true revenue.
    "It is estimated by a process of guess work annually conducted in the Treasury, with results (where they can be tested) that we in Ireland find to he inaccurate."
    Professor Kettle, another very distinguished Irish economist, who sat in this House not long ago, says in his book, "Home Rule Finance":—
    "We deliberately challenge their accuracy as lo details, and their authority as to classification. …In the last normal year, for instance, the revenue collected in Ireland was returned as £11,250,000, and
    1400
    the revenue contributed by Ireland as only £9,250.000, It cannot be too plainly understood that the first of these is a known and recorded figure; the second is little better than a conjecture."
    If you turn to the writings of Lord Mac-Donnell, you find exactly the same thing. Last year, in an address at Queen's University, he said:—
    "The highest Treasury authorities have admitted that in calculating what is called Ireland's estimated true revenue, the Treasury has acted largely on guess work.…In the beginning, the Treasury deprecated the attachment of weight to these calculations. But the myth, like all myths, has grown with use, and now the White taper, as it is called, which reproduces the myth year after year, is referred to in the House of Commons and outside. … as an authentic and authoritative document."
    The right hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough), in his pamphlet on "Irish Finance," says:—
    "Without a Customs harrier, the true revenue of Ireland can never be ascertained, and it is strange that any Irishman can assent to a financial settlement which will not ascertain this."
    And yet hon. Members below the Gangway are at the present moment supporting a financial settlement before the necessary calculations and adjustments have been found out. It is not really necessary in support of the argument of my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment to go to what I may call external authority. What does the Secretary to the Primrose Committee say in the appendix to the Report? He deals in turn with all the Customable and all the Excise articles, as well as Income Tax, etc. In dealing, for instance, with the revenue from cocoa, he says:—
    "The revenue from Cocoa Duty is apportioned between the three Kingdoms according to population. … No other method has, since 1891, been devised for apportioning the Cocoa Duty revenue."
    He points out that the revenue from chicory and coffee is dealt with in the same extremely unreliable and slovenly way, and he tells us that the same method has been applied to the true revenue of Ireland as regards dried fruits. If you take the basis of population, you cannot possibly get a more unreliable method in trying to find out the true revenue of Ireland. The Secretary to the Primrose Committee goes on to deal with foreign and Colonial spirits, and he points out in the appendix that every single quantity under a gallon does not come under the permit system, and that therefore absolutely no record is available for determining the true revenue so far as these smaller quantities are concerned. In respect of sugar, tea, and wine, he points out that the true revenue is based on the result of inquiries instituted no less than ten years ago, and

    1401
    is really worth nothing. I will quote a couple of sentences:—
    "In that year (1903–4) the owners of vessels carrying these goods between Great Britain and Ireland were requested to furnish weekly statements throughout the year of their shipments.….Officers of Customs were directed to make occasional examinations of these goods. … and were instructed to compare the results of their scrutinies with the shipowners' accounts."
    I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman who will reply for the Government whether he thinks that is a businesslike basis on which to found the financial provisions of this Bill in respect of true revenue. I may say in regard to the Tea Duty that in 1903–4 it was 6d. on the pound, and that now it is 5d. With the ever-increasing consumption of tea in Ireland, it is perfectly evident that the basis at that time on which the Treasury made their calculations cannot possibly hold good at the present moment in respect of true revenue. It is perfectly well known also that large quantities of tea are sent over by various grocers by parcels post. These quantities, which, I am told, in Ireland amount to a large sum indeed, are absolutely unaccounted for in the figures of the Government in regard to tea as shown in the White Paper. The same argument applies to sugar. In 1903–4 the duty on sugar was a good deal higher than now, and as the consumption of sugar in Ireland has enormously increased since then, the estimate made at that time cannot possibly hold good at the present day. Then as to sugar, no account has been taken of the great number of articles in which sugar plays a very important part. I refer to jams, marmalades, chocolate, candied peels, and other such items. Over 120,000 cwts. of these preserves were imported into Ireland in 1909, and there is absolutely no calculation of the amount of sugar contained in this quantity of material brought into Ireland for the ascertainment of true Irish revenue. If you take glucose, Ireland is credited with absolutely no returns as to that commodity at all, and yet the figures of the Department of Agriculture show that 54,000 cwts. were imported in 1909. In regard to tobacco, the true revenue of Ireland, according to the secretary to the Primrose Committee, is also based upon proportions ascertained no less than ten years ago. The Secretary to the Primrose Committee has pointed out that the returns are based on information casually, voluntarily, supplied by tobacco manufacturers and dealers where these gentlemen happen to choose to give information to the Trea-
    1402
    sury; but surely that is utterly unreliable and insufficient information to go upon, and, just in the same way as in respect of sugar and tea, very large quantities of cigars and cigarettes go into Ireland at the present moment by parcels post in respect of which we have no official Government Report at all. That exhausts most of the Customable articles. With regard to all the other Customable articles in Ireland, the secretary to the Primrose Committee says the revenue is calculated in the same rough-and-ready way, according to population, which, as I said before, can give absolutely no proper estimate of true revenue. In regard to Excise, hon. Members know very well that no permits, as in the case of whisky, are required for the removal of beer from place to place. The secretary to the Primrose Committee points out that—
    "no official statistics are available bearing on the question of true Trish revenue from this source. In the absence of such statistics, it has been necessary to base the adjustments on information derived from various sources, chiefly from returns supplied by traders and dealers"
    who send in returns whenever it happens to suit them. To my mind, a more serious point is in regard to Income Tax and Estate Duties. In the case of the Estate Duties, because the figures which are dealt with are a great deal larger, the same utterly unreliable and slovenly method has been relied on, as far as the probate for the Estate Duty is concerned, no attempt even being made to arrive at the true revenue. The revenue up till now has been taken merely as collected. With regard to Legacy Duty, the secretary to the Primrose Committee quotes the opinion of the Inland Revenue. They say—
    "this tax is collected in the country where the deceased was domiciled, and even assuming that it falls on the recipient of the legacy, there is no means of ascertaining in which of the three Kingdoms the recipient of any particular legacy is domiciled. This branch of revenue must therefore be taken as collected."
    The Succession Duty has been treated in exactly the same way. The Income Tax revenue is calculated in an even more unreliable and slovenly method. The Secretary to the Primrose Committee says:—
    "as to Schedule A there is no means of ascertaining where the persons lived who are in receipt of the income derived from such property, and there is therefore no alternative but to assign those items in accordance with the figures of collection."
    9.0 P.M.
    And this is the basis on which the Government is calculating the deficit which is going to fall upon the British taxpayer. In regard to Schedule C, that is to say profits from Government securities, and

    1403
    part of Schedule D, that is to say profits from public companies, the secretary to the Primrose Committee confesses himself that very large adjustments are necessary to arrive at the true revenue, but he goes on to add—
    "as, however, the machinery of the Income tax cannot be employed to ascertain where the recipients of interest and dividend reside, the adjustments are made on the basis of the probate statistics on resealing."
    Could there be a more ludicrous method of estimating the Income Tax on the basis of the Estate Duties for the five years ended 1907–08? As hon. Members know, the Estate Duty is not paid at all by Irish banks, limited companies, railways, corporations, or certain classes of trustees, but, according to the last reports of the Irish banks, the market value of their invested funds amounts to no less than £23,000,000 sterling. What information drawn from the statistics of Estate Duties on properties of deceased persons could possibly give the slightest inkling of the real amount of Income Tax deducted from dividends on these moneys from outside Ireland? I do not see that you could arrive at any basis which would be the slightest good for the purpose of arriving at estimates of the true revenue. Take, again, the rubber shares bought by investors in Ireland during the last few years. What can the statistics of Estate Duties of deceased persons for the five years ending 1907–8 do to throw any light at all on the amount of Income Tax attributable to Ireland in respect of these shares? The result is, in the opinion of those who have studied the Government proposals, that there is an enormous sum by which the Government is out in its estimates, and yet, in spite of all this, the Primrose Committee tell us—
    "It would be a mistake to infer that the margin of error is so wide as to impair seriously the value of the calculations."
    I would like to know what evidence they have for this statement. Once more I ask the Government will they produce the evidence on which the financial provisions of this Bill have been formed? Surely the House is entitled to have this evidence, and it is all the more entitled to have it as during the progress of these Debates it is shown on what flimsy grounds these financial provisions have been framed. An accurate estimate of true revenue it is quite possible may turn out to give more fabourable terms to Ireland and reduce the figure of the deficit, and so shorten the period before which financial revision must take place, and I do not think that
    1404
    anyone would object to Ireland getting a fair share in the event of a more accurate estimate being made. On the other hand, it is quite possible that it might turn out that the deficit is very much greater than is supposed, and that the period therefore would be considerably longer before any financial revision of the Bill would take place, but whatever the issue may be of the inquiries, the House ought really to have the truth in this respect. No Government has any right to rush through a revolutionary financial scheme of this description without knowing upon what financial basis the scheme rests. I apologise to the House for quoting these various statements, but I do not think they have been quoted before, and I think that they are important as coming from gentlemen who have studied this question, and they are, I submit, germane to the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend. I will end by one more quotation which, I think, should be heard by the Postmaster-General and the learned Attorney-General. It is written by a gentleman who for forty years was a Customs official in Ireland. He says:—
    "The basis on which the accounts are prepared is in many respects highly misleading and inaccurate so far as it purports to be a true account of Irish revenue."
    He goes on to say—and knowing him personally, I know it to be absolutely true—that:—
    "It was not written from any political standpoint whatsoever."
    Sir J. D. REES: I hope the Government will accept the very important Amendment of my hon. Friend appointing a Committee to determine the method to be adopted by the Joint Exchequer Board for carrying out their business. I also hope that the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. D. M. Mason) will, not add to the many Committees which already exist, a Committee of one to establish a sliding scale to determine the amount of sincerity which attaches to the different Amendments which may be moved from this side of the House. It is a Committee which, with all respect to him, we can well dispense with, though I am not at all sure that the establishment of a Committee of that sort would not prove far more inconvenient to his friends than to Members on this side. I cannot agree with what the Postmaster-General has said about the duties of this Exchequer Board having reference merely to questions of facts and figures. I speak, as I always speak, with the utmost respect for the right hon. Gentleman's ability in regard to figures. It was said of one that omniscience was his

    1405
    foible. It may be said of the right hon. Gentleman that figures are his foible, but they are not everybody's foible, and the dealing with these figures is a matter of the utmost difficulty and the utmost importance on which a decision has to be arrived at by this Committee.
    I speak in the presence of many hon. and learned Gentlemen sitting in this House, but I submit that it is absolutely impossible to say where the point of law or where the point of fact begins, for the ingenuity of Members learned in the law either in this House or outside can show that any question of fact may be brought into an appeal upon a point of law, or vice versa. I submit that is a kind of argument—whatever the Postmaster-General may do with it—which the Solicitor-General will never condescend to adopt in its entirety. The Joint Board of Exchequer will have to decide questions of fact. Suppose it dealt with a figure such as that mentioned in Lord MacDonnell's letter to the Times, in which he said that in ninety-three years Ireland had paid to England £325,000,000 over the money spent during that time in that country. That is precisely the kind of thing that this Board would have to decide, and on which they are to arrive at a final decision. It is suggested that the question of true revenue is a simple matter. That is positively absurd. I do not suppose there is a more difficult question than what is true love and what is true revenue. Both questions are exceedingly difficult, and it is impossible to say which is the more difficult of the two. The Amendment, which in its fourth paragraph, provides for an appeal to the Judicial Committee. It has been suggested that this is rather an unnecessary thing. I wonder whether hon. Gentlemen learned in the law looked at the law reports in the Times of yesterday. I saw there an appeal from the Indian High Court, prima facie a very high class tribunal. The Government tell us that they take very great pains in selecting the barristers they appoint as judges in India. There may be a difference of opinion about that, but still I assume that it is a good High Court, though circumstances would lead one to grievously doubt that. I start with the assumption that it is, but the last appeal which came before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council resulted in the contemptuous reversal of the decision of the High Court in India as being contrary to all precedents and principles.
    1406
    Why is this body, the Exchequer Board, which is really no more distinguished than the High Court in Calcutta, to have its judgment regarded as final and conclusive, and not only final and conclusive I In this Exchequer Board you have a body of officials who are to be above the law. So profound is my respect for officials, so-much do I believe in their intellectual integrity, in their experienced and tried impartiality, that I do not at all fear, like the hon. Member for Graves-end, that they may be led to import politics into finance. I believe they would steer perfectly clear of that particular difficulty. Permanent officials do not import politics into their duties; at the same time they will be none the better if they are to sit as a kind of star chamber of this description. It would be enough to demoralise an Aristides himself, or a permanent Under-Secretary, or anybody else who in our own time may correspond as nearly as possible to that classical character. I do think that an appeal should by all manner of means be provided, and my hon. Friend's Amendment does provide for that. It may be said that my hon. Friend is creating an extra Board—and I admit it is a serious offence, but, after all, he has learned it from hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is to be a Board, however, with a temporary and transitory function to perform, and, having performed it, it will disappear, and will not sit like the old man of the sea on the taxpayer's shoulders so long as there is a penny in his pocket to be squeezed out of it by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Paragraph (2) of the Amendment, as I think anybody will allow, provides a most excellent Board, as good as could well have been put together for the purpose indicated. I should welcome some means of getting to close grips with the problem which is before us in connection with Clause 24, and which, I think, the Government, instead of grappling with it, have consistently and persistently evaded. In the wording of paragraph (4) of the Amendment it says that such questions shall be determined by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council "constituted as if hearing an appeal from a Court in Ireland." This is a somewhat ambiguous expression. My hon. Friend here describes the Privy Council as possessing attributes with which it is to be endowed. It is really a Court of Appeal for the Colonies and dependencies, and it has not yet become a Court of Appeal in any other

    1407
    sense. That function is in respect of the United Kingdom being discharged, as is well known, by the House of Lords in its judicial capacity. I think it would be well if the Government would provide for an appeal, not merely in the case of officials, but, as I would prefer at any rate, an appeal on behalf of the subject in Ireland against the decision of this irresponsible financial body which it is proposed to set up. My hon. Friend who last addressed the Committee referred to the functions of the Joint Exchequer Board, and I only do so for the purpose of dwelling in passing upon the extreme inconvenience and loss to a very important industry in this country which will result, that is the tea industry, of which I have some experience, unless my hon. Friend's Amendment is accepted. Bad as it is to have a commodity, raised by British capital with British labour in British Possessions, taxed with something like 70 per cent, or 80 per cent, of its value, it is felt almost more by those concerned in the production and distribution to have varying rates of duty, and that is what we shall certainly get unless there is some appeal against the decisions of this body, and unless it comes, as all bodies in this country should, at least we democrats think so on this side of the House, under the control of what we are told under this Bill, is to continue to be an Imperial, Parliament. I cannot see what could be more consonant with the whole scheme of the Bill, if there is to be a real federation, though I cannot say there is any federation about it. And if there are any Imperial attributes remaining, than that there should be an appeal provided on behalf of the subject, as well as on the action of the Joint Exchequer Board to a body like the Committee of the Privy Council.
    When the last Imperial Conference met in London and right hon. Gentlemen were in office, it was urged on behalf of the Dominions and Commonwealths present that there should be one great august tribunal comprising the functions of both the House of Lords in its judicial capacity and the Privy Council, to deal with all appeals of all descriptions from all parts of the British Empire. If Ireland is to remain part of the British Empire under this Bill, and it may do so by accident, what could be more proper than that it should have an appeal to the Judicial Committee to the Privy Council. I hope that that will he the result, and that it will lead to the
    1408
    constitution of the Judicial Committee with a proper body of judges. The Lord Chancellor has at this moment a Bill before the House of Lords to amalgamate the functions of the House of Lords in its judicial capacity with those of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I welcome this Amendment as much on that ground as on any other. Something of the sort, or something substantially the same appeal's to me to be absolutely necessary. I welcome it particularly on the ground that it will lead, I believe, to what is an appropriate Imperial provision for appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. If it is the case that the Joint Exchequer Board will be relieved from the control of the Imperial Parliament, then it is obviously necessary that some other body must be set up, and none is so equal to the occasion as the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, particularly when it is fortified and strengthened as it will be under the Lord Chancellor's Bill, which is proposed by one of the most distinguished of their own Ministers. Other hon. Gentlemen who have addressed the Committee have dealt at some length with the financial functions of the Joint Exchequer Board, and I will not weary the patience of the Committee with vain repetition, which not only characterises the heathen, but is not an uncharacteristic of Members of Parliament.
    Mr. KING: I cannot pretend that I have given profound study to this very important Amendment, but still I have devoted as much time and attention as possible since the dinner interval. I therefore venture to rise on behalf of Members sitting below the Gangway to offer some criticisms, and on mature consideration our opposition to this proposal. I did not hear the Proposer of this Amendment, but I have had the great advantage of hearing the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Bees), who brings great official weight and authority on behalf of any cause which he may espouse. Whatever side of the House he may sit and whatever cause he may temporarily be devoted to he will always, at any rate, be listened to with great attention by myself. I call the attention of the Committee, in the first place, to the fact that we are setting up another Committee. My experience of this House and its proceedings is that, if anything, it sets up too many Committees. I was successful yesterday in opposing a Committee proposed from the other side of the House, and I hope my opposition to this proposal will induce the House

    1409
    eventually to reject it. I am confident that will be the case, but I venture especially to point out the peculiar composition of this body that is proposed. First of all, there is the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury. I am quite sure he will make an admirable chairman of any Committee that is set up anywhere, but I fancy his time is already fully occupied, and if he only attends to all the numerous duties which he has to perform, I am sure he will not want to preside over another Committee. Then there is the Chairman of Commissioners of Inland Revenue. I believe our Inland Revenue is increasing, under the admirable Budgets that we have had during the last few years, by leaps and bounds. Therefore, I think that that gentleman has already enough to do. The next Member proposed for the Committee is the Chairman for the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. As there may be differences between the Customs and Excise of the two countries under the beneficent system of Home Rule that we are introducing, I think that gentleman will have plenty to do, and ought not to be taken away to serve on this Committee. Next there is the Treasury Remembrancer of Ireland. I am not aware what duty that gentleman performs, but I have no doubt that in Ireland he plays a very important part. Fifthly, there is a Superintendent of the Statistics and Intelligence Department of the Department of Agricultural and Technical Instruction for Ireland. I observe that this gentleman's title occupies two lines of print, and under those circumstances he occupies a place far too high for me to contemplate.
    Therefore, I consider the setting up of a Committee of this kind quite unnecessary, and I shall oppose it if it goes to a Division. I hope my hon. Friends sitting upon this side, and especially below the Gangway, will do the same. I think that this Committee will certainly set up a record in what we may call the art of circumlocution. The Joint Exchequer Board is not to get straight to work; it is to have rules drawn up for it by another body, and then when those rules have been drawn up and it has got to work, a special machinery for upsetting its decisions and the work it has performed is proposed by this Amendment. The hon. Member suggests that before the Board gets to work two or more of its members should be able to take a case to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. All these circumlocutory methods are quite unneces-
    1410
    sary. Personally, I would be as ready to trust an Irishman with my watch or purse as an Englishman, and I believe that that is the principle upon which Englishmen generally regard the Home Rule Bill. All the circumlocutory methods of this kind introduced as safeguards are to my mind perfectly irrelevant and unnecessary, and I shall have pleasure in voting against this Amendment.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: The hon. Member opposite (Mr. King) began by giving us the interesting information that he had recently been dining, and, in the self-complacent mood which we hope was induced by a generous vintage and good cigars, the hon. Member prided himself that his opinions would prevail and defeat this Amendment. In that he was probably correct; we on this side have no hope that the Solicitor-General will shake himself free from the controlling influence of the hon. Member. But notwithstanding the very baffling position in which we are placed by the hon. Member having come back after dining, I will offer one or two' observations in a contrary direction to those of the hon. Member. The hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. D. Mason) said it was important that great care should be taken in the appointment of the Gentlemen who were to serve on the Joint Exchequer Board. That is, I will not say a platitude, but at all events a very important announcement. Does not the hon. Member think that the Committee might go a little further than the mere assertion of the principle that care should be taken in the appointment of gentlemen to serve on one of the most important bodies ever set up? Might not the Committee have sufficient interest in the personnel of this Board to insist upon knowing who were to be placed upon it before they agreed to the Clauses bringing the body into being? Earlier in the evening one of my hon. Friends pointed out that Mr. Gladstone, when setting up the Land Commission in 1881, set out in the Bill itself, not only every detail concerning the working of the proposed Commission, its staff, methods of work, and remuneration, but also the names of the gentlemen who were to serve on the Commission. We have heard nothing from the Government to show why that precedent is being departed from in the present case. The principle is a good one, and I think the hon. Member for Coventry might go further, and support us in demanding that the names of these gentlemen should be

    1411
    known before the Bill passes from the House. The Amendment before the Committee is very important in more respects than one. The Exchequer Board is to have thrown upon it the duty of investigating and then regulating in a very far-reaching way the finances both of Ireland and of Great Britain in so far as they affect the Constitution set up by this Bill. It is very important, having regard to the fact that these are continuing functions to be exercised over a long period of time, that there should be some definite fixed method by which the Board shall work, so that there may be some sort of continuity in their operations, and the work whether made public or not, put on record so that their successors may know the methods which have been adopted. It is the greatest mistake to suppose that all this Board has to do is to decide what is the true revenue of Ireland at the date of the passing of this Bill or that its functions are in any way temporary. The most important part of its duties are those thrown upon it by Clause 36. It is admitted that the deficit period, if it ever ends at all, will not end for a long period of years. We on this side are very sceptical whether we or our children or grandchildren will see its end. I do not suppose that anyone imagines that it will come in less than half a century. Look at what the Joint Exchequer Board have to do: they have to report in periods of three years the state of the financial relations between the two countries with a view to determining whether the deficit period is to be brought to an end.
    Sir J. SIMON: Not every three years.
    Mr. R. M'NEILL: No, but whenever they have reason to report that for three years the finances have changed from the conditions prevailing at the present moment. I do not believe they will make such a report for a long time. But, in order that they may be able to make that report when the time comes, it is clear that the necessary statistics and investigations must be carried on from year to year; otherwise they could never tell when the time had come to make the report. It is very important, supposing the time ever arises, that the Exchequer Board should then investigate the true revenue from Ireland upon the same footing and by the same methods of calculation that are to be applied at the present time. Under the Bill there is nothing to secure any such
    1412
    continuity of method. The Amendment is of value from that point of view, because if carried it would set up a definite principle or doctrine by which the operations of the Joint Exchequer Board would be guided from time to time, and thereby ensure that fifty, thirty, or twenty years hence, whenever it may be, the same methods of calculation would be applied to the problem as are brought to its solution at the time of the passing of the Bill. Let me pass from that to another aspect of the case. We are dealing here with this question of true revenue. I have in my hand the appendix to the Government White Paper. The Primrose Committee have told us—and they laid stress upon the point—that the figures set out under the column "As contributed" are merely an estimate. We have got to bear that very clearly in mind. By what method have these estimates been made? There is some apparent sanctity attached to the word "estimate," especially if it comes from the Treasury. People are inclined to say that a Treasury Estimate must be something very near the mark, and it is almost too sacred to inquire into the evidence the Treasury officials have had at their disposal, or the methods by which they have arrived at their conclusion. Let hon. Members look at the figures under the head of "Excise." They will find that the revenue as collected in Ireland is £2,000,000 more than is contributed by Ireland. Now can any Treasury official give more than the widest possible guess as to the difference between the revenue from Excise "as contributed by Ireland" and the revenue from Excise "collected in Ireland"? The material is not at their disposal. We have had evidence from all sorts of expert sources to show that there is not the possibility of getting at anything which could really be called an estimate, and which should not rather be called a pure guess. Take one other figure—and a material one—the Income Tax. Under that head we find there is £300,000 difference. There, again, what possible evidence is there to go upon? One turns again to the Primrose Committee's report, and we get a little insight into how these so-called estimates are framed. These gentlemen say:—
    "As regards revenue, the materials for exact classification are admittedly imperfect."
    How far does the word "imperfect" satisfy the situation that these gentlemen reveal?

    1413
    "Official records localise the receipt of revenue, but with one or two exceptions they do not make it possible to identify with precision the final incidence of the whole of the sums collected,"
    They go on in these words—and I have been pointing out the discrepancy between the two sides of the accounts as regards the Excise—and say:—
    "Accordingly, it has been necessary in the case of taxes on commodities to obtain, from time to time, through the agency of traders and carrying companies, special returns of the quantities of dutiable goods passing between Great Britain and Ireland."
    What is the use of putting down all that with all the solemnity of a Government White Paper, and calling it a Treasury estimate, when the figures show a difference in the two sides of no less than £2,000,000? We are told by another body of experts that it is a guess arrived at from such scraps of evidence as may be picked up from trading and carrying companies. As regards the Income Tax:—
    "In the case of direct taxes to draw certain inferences from observed indications in the official statistics and to apply these inferences to the figures of revenue as collected."
    I think, to begin with, that is a very good example in the paper of what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Somerset calls a method of circumlocution. However that may be, it is only a way of hiding from us as far as they can the utter unreliability of the figures upon which the whole finance of this Bill is being based. Therefore it does become, when you look at it from that point of view, that some such principle should be laid down as proposed in the Amendment of my hon. Friend for having some sort of fixed method by which we can test the actions of the Joint Exchequer Board when it is set up. In moving this Amendment my hon. Friend quoted a few words in this report where the Commissioners say—and I think the Solicitor-General fired this passage at me in the earlier part of the afternoon as showing the reliance which ought to be placed upon this very guesswork paper:—
    "It would be a mistake to infer that the margin of error is so wide as to impair seriously the value of the calculations."
    Having regard to what I have just called attention to as to the evidence derived from carriers and the inferences drawn with regard to direct taxation, I wonder whether these gentlemen really have a right to say that it would be a mistake to infer that the margin of error is so wide. For instance, they go on to say this with regard to this very question of true revenue—this is from the White Paper:—
    "In consequence, however useful it may be for giving an approximate idea of the true revenues of
    1414
    Great Britain and Ireland respectively, it could not serve as a sufficiently firm basis on which to found a permanent financial arrangement between the two countries."
    What is the use of their saying that it would be a mistake to infer that the margin of error is not so wide as seriously to incur the value of their calculations after they go on to lay down themselves that the margin of error is, at all events, so large as to make these figures perfectly worthless, so far as founding upon them any permanent financial arrangement between the two countries? That is not all. I find that this Committee take occasion in the course of their Report to examine the financial scheme that was put forward in the last Home Rule Bill. The sentences ought to be of interest to the Postmaster-General, who talks about insoluble problems. They say as to a problem being insoluble:—
    "A problem is not insoluble because an answer cannot be found for it, but because there are so many plausible answers found that the number of solutions threatens to equal the number of solvers."
    That appears to me to be the case with regard to ourselves at the present day. Speaking of the scheme of 1893, they say—and they have been talking of the great simplicity of the scheme
    "that the simplicity of the arrangement was more apparent than real, for we now know that the exact ascertainment of true revenue is, with the existing machinery of this Bill, more difficult than seems to have been realised in 1893."
    The right hon. Gentleman opposite in answer to that point in an earlier Amendment answered, that that was all very well, but that the Joint Exchequer Board were going to provide an improved machinery which would get over that difficulty in which the Primrose Commission found themselves confronted.
    Mr. LOUGH: Hear, hear.
    Mr. R. M'NEILL: The right hon. Gentleman says "Hear, hear." I hope he will get up presently and tell us what is the machinery. What is the means at the disposal of the Joint Exchequer Board? What will be at their disposal in a couple of years' time that was not equally at the disposal of the Treasury, which utterly failed to find any exact or approachingly exact figure as the true revenue of Ireland, or which was not equally at the disposal of the Primrose Commission?
    Mr. LOUGH: The Custom House.
    Mr. R. M'NEILL: The Custom-House was equally at the disposal of the Treasury and the Primrose Commission. These

    1415
    were a body of experts appointed by the Cabinet, as we are told, to advise the Government as to the basis on which to found this legislation. Is any Member of the Government going to get up and say that they appointed this Commission to advise them with the view to this legislation and did not put at their disposal any means of getting at the true revenue or the true statistics on which the true revenue of Ireland was founded? The means at the disposal of these gentlemen must have been quite as full and accurate as anything which can be laid before the Joint Exchequer Board whose future operations, so far as we know up to the present, are entirely mysterious. We do not know how they are to work. The Bill does not lay down any method for them to work, and there is nothing to show what means they will have at their disposal to get hold of statistics or to investigate these insoluable problems, and this is another reason why it is important that we should get some definite method of working laid down either in the Bill or through such a Committee as my hon. Friend suggests we should set up. And their proceedings should be conducted in public, because it is most important that the methods of their calculations should be known to the outside world and open to criticism, and it is more important still that they should be open to the review of this House, and perhaps most important of all, that there should be on record some security for continuity and stability in the method of these gentlemen working, so that the same methods applied to-day may be applied in the future when we come to the revision of the financial relations.
    Sir JOHN SIMON: The hon. Member for Hereford who moved this Amendment said of it, that it was an Amendment which in no way aimed at destroying or undermining the Bill, that in moving the Amendment he accepted, for the purposes of argument, the general principles of the Bill, and that he recommended his Amendment to the Committee upon its merits, and that it would improve the detailed structure of the Bill. I accept the spirit in which the hon. Member moved this Amendment without any reservation at all, and I think those of us who have heard the Debate will recognise that the matter has been discussed in a reasonable, as well as an interesting way. I think it is possible to show, I think indeed it is quite easy to show, that the proposal made by
    1416
    the Amendment would not improve the Bill at all regarded as a matter of merits, and I want to put before the Committee the reasons why I hold that view. The Clause we are dealing with is Clause 24, and as that Clause stands, it throws upon the Joint Exchequer Board the duty of ascertaining true Irish revenue. The Amendment which is now before the Committee is an Amendment which would substitute for the conclusion of the Joint Exchequer Board, or for their unfettered judgment in the matter, the rules or directions that might be laid down or arrived at by some elaborate body or a Committee consisting of eminent officials mentioned in the Amendment.
    The problem what is the true Irish revenue, and how you are to arrive at it, is certainly not a very easy problem. It is a problem which has been a good deal discussed, and it is a problem of the solution of which some hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to assume the greatest doubt. The hon. Gentleman the Member for one of the Divisions of Kent, who has just spoken, used extremely strong language about what he called the White Paper. There are two White Papers which appear every year, and have appeared for eighteen years past, but for these White Papers, which are the attempts of the Treasury, poor faltering attempts they may be, he has the most undisguised contempt. He thinks, to use his own language, that they involve the wildest possible guesses, and he says he cannot conceive how any reasonable person could attach any serious importance to the figures which they put forward as if they were accurate figures. The same view was expressed in greater detail, and with quite as much strength of language by the hon. Member for Salisbury in support of which he made some quotations. I have only one quotation to make, but I respectfully commend it to the attention of the hon. Member because it comes from a well-known book against Home Rule, which was drawn up by a committee of eminent Unionists, and I see that the hon. Member for Salisbury, who speaks in such strong terms about the accuracy of the White Paper, was vice-chairman of the committee responsible for the book. In that book an essay is written by the right h on. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester, who is an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in the course of that essay he has occasion to say what he thinks of

    1417
    the White Papers which the vice-chairman of the committee of Unionists who published the book, speaks of in such contemptuous language, and which do not commend themselves to the good sense of the hon. Gentleman. This is the quotation. The ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer says:—
    "By way of introduction to any adequate discussion of the possible financial proposals of any Home Rule measures, it is desirable to set out in some detail the existing financial relations of Ireland and Great Britain. The Treasury calculations upon this subject—"
    that is to say the White Paper.
    "The Treasury calculations upon this subject are embodied in two White Papers which have been prepared and published annually during the last eighteen years. It is true that doubts have from time to time been expressed upon the accuracy of these calculations and of the methods by which the materials on which they are based have been collected. As to this it is only necessary to nay that the information in the possession of the Treasury officials is infinitely more voluminous and likely to be more accurate than any in the possession of private individuals, and there is no reason to suppose that the succession of eminent public servants who have been in turn responsible for the preparation of these returns, have been moved in one direction or another by prepossessions or bias."
    [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] So far we are agreed.
    "Their one attempt has been throughout to present a statement as accurate as it is possible to make it on one hand of the case of the existing administration in Ireland, and the expenditure incurred there, and on the other of the revenue derived from persons or property living or situated in that country. As the Prime Minister said on 27th November last year, the utmost pains have been taken to make the estimates of true revenue approximately correct, and it is believed that the total revenue as given in the revised returns approximate closely to the facts."
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Was that written before or after the report of the Primrose Committee?
    Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Gentleman knows that better than I do, because he was one of the editors of the book, but I do not suppose that he will suggest that the report to the Primrose Committee has upset the whole of the case made by the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer. When I look at the Report of the Primrose Committee, I find a statement that it would be a mistake to infer that the margin of error is so wide as to impair seriously the method of collection. I will come to the appendix in a moment. The hon. Member opposite referred to it, but I am bound to say it does astonish me a little when the principal financial authority who took part in this volume uses language of that kind about the accuracy of the White Paper, that we should be told by one of the Gentlemen responsible for the book that in his view the whole thing is a wild guess and that not the slightest reliance can be placed upon it.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I was quoting the opinion of the Secretary to the Primrose Committee.
    Sir J. SIMON: The point is, does he or does he not assert that the White Paper gives a fairly accurate account of Irish revenue?
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: What I said was that the Secretary to the Primrose Committee, in the appendix, showed us the inaccuracy of the White Paper.
    Sir J. SIMON: I take it that the hon. Member's view is that it is inaccurate.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes, according to the Secretary of the Primrose Committee.
    Sir J. SIMON: Let me deal with the hon. Member's reference to the appendix to the Primrose Committee. What the hon. Member does not seem to realise, and what apparently is not realised by the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, is that the very matters to which they point are the matters met by the provisions in the Home Rule Bill. The hon. Gentleman quoted from the appendix of the Report to show that up to the present, in order to make out what true Irish revenue is, the Treasury authorities have bad to make calculations on an elaborate scale, not based upon absolutely precise facts, about such things as the consumption of tea in Ireland. The hon. Member who spoke last is entirely mistaken if he supposed that when tea passes through Great Britain to Ireland there is any compulsory Customs examination, because there is nothing of the sort. The whole of the tea drunk in the United Kingdom pays duty in London with the exception of the small portion which I believe pays duty in the port of Liverpool.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: I never suggested that.
    10.0 P.M.
    Sir J. SIMON: I think the hon. Member suggested that there would be nothing available in the future which was not available now for making this calculation, and that is the point I am addressing myself to. As things are at present, however accurate or inaccurate the White Paper may be, it has to be made out without the assistance which the Home Rule Bill provides. If you are exporting from a British port to France you have got owing to the Customs regulations an accurate and a compulsory record of what is passing from this country. That, however, is not true

    1419
    if you are sending the stuff from England to Scotland or from England to Ireland. The very thing which the hon. Member for Salisbury referred to with such satisfaction in the appendix to the Primrose Committee's Report is the device which is used without the machinery of the Home Rule Bill, but the moment Clause 16 begins to operate that will no longer be required. Clause 16 does this for it applies to the transport of goods between England and Ireland and Ireland and England those regulations and requirements which exist in the case of the export or import of goods from or to England across the Channel, and the consequence is that the accuracy of the statistics we have in case of France will only become possible between this country and Ireland as soon as you apply Clause 16 of the Home Rule Bill. I thought anybody who took an interest in the White Paper knew that perfectly well. What the Secretary of the Primrose Committee is point-out is that under the existing condition of things the Treasury have to do their best to find out how much duty is paid at the Port of London on tea which has been drunk in Ireland. The same thing is true about other commodities. Clause 16, for statistical purposes, is going to provide a machinery which will give as accurate a set of statistics as those produced by the Board of Trade or the Customs Department in relation to our foreign trade. The Committee will now see what is meant when the Report of the Primrose Committee says that, with the existing machinery, it is not possible to be more accurate than the Treasury have been in the past. They point to the fact that, with the existing machinery, it cannot be more accurate, and, with that in mind, we have provided the machinery contained in Clause 16. I do not think it is a fact that the White Paper gives one a precisely accurate figure. I do not think that is true. But what is said both by the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer and by the secretary of the Primrose Committee, and, as far as I know, by other competent authorities, is that it is a figure which may be regarded as substantially accurate, which contains very likely errors, but errors which tend to cancel one another. I do respectfully suggest that hon. Gentlemen have been taking part in this Debate under a misapprehension, and that the answer to be given to the question put by the hon. Mem-
    1420
    ber as to what machinery would be at the disposal of the Joint Exchequer Board which is not at the present time at the disposal of the Treasury is Clause 16 of this Bill. Let me come back now to the speech of the Mover of the Amendment. He commended his proposal to us because he thought it was actually going to improve the working out of this Home Rule scheme on its merits.
    Mr. HEWINS: Working out this particular point.
    Sir JOHN SIMON: I think the hon. Gentleman will see that I am not misrepresenting him. The hon. Member said what I think he was quite entitled to say, and the temper of his speech supports what he said, namely, that we are making this proposal because many of us are interested in getting this matter through, and if your Bill comes into force "my scheme is better than yours." I do not think he is right about this. The question is, if your object is to find out true Irish revenue, is it, or is it not, a good thing to lay down as soon as the Bill passes precise regulations and rules to determine how you will arrive at the correct figure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] That is the question. I suggest one reason why it is not. The hon. Member who spoke last does not expect this deficit question will disappear, or that the true Irish revenue will overtop the Irish expenditure for some years to come. Is it in the circumstances a wise thing that we should lay down now a precise set of rules and regulations by which to calculate this matter when, for all we know, between now and the time to make the correct calculation arrives there may be better methods of making the calculation, and there may be elements in the problem we are not aware of now, and other taxes which nobody has thought of at this moment, or some of our existing taxes which may have been removed in the meantime. Let me point this out. Since the last Home Rule Bill, the Bill of 1893, you have had the whole rearrangement of the Death Duties and you have had the Super-tax, the Land Taxes, and other things. How could anybody have said in 1893 that you could have laid down a series of precise and detailed rules and regulations which would have operated with completeness and without difficulty even in the situation as we know it in 1912? It is really not a wise course to endeavour to do what is almost an impossible thing,

    1421
    or at any rate a difficult thing, namely, to lay down precise rules and regulations as to the future. It is, however, perfectly possible to indicate a general principle on which one might proceed, and Clause 24 does indicate and lay down this general principle. It says primâ facie, the revenue collected in Ireland should be treated as the revenue contributed by Ireland. That is absolutely true, so far as the Licence Duties are concerned. It is true as regards the mass of the Estate Duties; it is true as regards the Land Taxes; and it is true as regards a very substantial portion of the taxation of Ireland. It is not true, of course, of such things as the Tea Duty, the Tobacco Duty, or, as a matter of fact, the Income Tax, which is one of the most difficult elements in the matter. It is certainly fair to say the Clause, as drafted, lays down this. Take first the revenue collected in Ireland, and then make such adjustments upon that figure as is just and expedient to arrive at the best and truest calculation we can hope to get. I say that is the extent to which it is wise to go, and it is to that extent the Clause does go in laying down the principle on which we are to proceed.
    Finally, not only is it true to say that under Clause 16 we shall now get accurate statistical experience on which this calculation may be made in future—something undoubtedly more accurate than in the past, though I think the inaccuracy of what we have had in the past has been grossly exaggerated. What is the purpose for which it is important to find out the true Irish revenue? Speeches have been made to-night which would seem to suggest that the Transferred Sum depends on the true Irish revenue. It depends on nothing of the kind, and has nothing to do with the true Irish revenue. It is built up on a basis which has no connection with the true Irish revenue, and is a sum of money representing the actual cost of certain actual services. The idea that you want this Committee in order that the Transferred Sum may be ascertained when this Bill starts is really a complete and utter misunderstanding of the financial provisions of the Bill. The principal purpose for which it is wanted is to ascertain hereafter if and when that day comes that for three years running the true Irish revenue has been sufficient to pay the true Irish expenditure. That is a very different matter, and when that time comes our Bill provides that the Joint Exchequer Board should report to
    1422
    this Imperial Parliament on the subject. We in the Imperial Parliament shall then have the full matter in our own hands, and we are not necessarily going to shut our eyes to the true facts if they are misunderstood or misconceived. That is the sense in which the true Irish revenue is important for the purposes of this Bill, and with great respect I really suggest to hon. Members opposite that they have a little misunderstood the purposes for which, and the extent to which, the provisions of Clause 24 are important.
    Mr. R. M'NEILL: No one on this side of the House, so far as I recollect, suggested that it had anything to do with the ascertainment of the Transferred Sum.
    Sir J. SIMON: I hope the hon. Member knows I would not intentionally attribute any misunderstanding to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I certainly thought from expressions which were used, though I may have misunderstood them, it was thought the Joint Exchequer Board would use Clause 24 for the purpose of fixing the initial figures with which this Bill is to start. We are, at any rate, agreed that is not so, and I suggest, in those circumstances, and approaching it as I wish most emphatically to do as a question of merit alone and I hope with no improper prepossession in favour of the Bill as it stands, that Clause 24 would not be improved by introducing the revised machinery as proposed by the Amendment.
    Sir E. CARSON: No one can deny, I think, that, so far as Ireland is concerned, if Ireland is to be considered in this matter at all, this is one of the most important Clauses which have to be discussed in relation to this Bill, and I am very sorry, that, as usual, we have got a very short time in which to discuss it. I am not going to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman in his quotations from the Home Rule Book. I think he made very little of them. All they really come to is that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), in his article, said the most accurate information he could get was from the White Paper published by the Treasury, and although it had been published for eighteen years they had admittedly never been able to get at more than what they conceived to be the approximate amount of the true revenue of Ireland. My own opinion is that, if the true revenue of Ireland could be ascertained, Ireland would be in a very much

    1423
    more favourable position than that which the hon. and learned Gentleman tries to put forward. The hon. and learned Gentleman himself gave away the whole case as to the propriety of the finance of this Bill without further investigation when he told us that they had had to insert Clause 1G for the purpose of ascertaining the true revenue, or the revenue at all, derived from Ireland by the payment of Customs Duties, which he says have always been paid either in London or Liverpool, and never in Ireland. What a travesty of legislation that is! You are basing the whole of your Financial Clauses in this Bill on the estimate that there is a deficit of £2,000,000 from Ireland, and there is no material by which you can ascertain the true revenue of Ireland under existing conditions.
    There is no material. The Report of the Primrose Committee is subsequent to the White Paper, and that committee took evidence, which the Treasury does not. The Treasury guesses from the Returns before it. The Primrose Committee took evidence, that suppressed evidence of which we have heard so much, and which I have the greatest suspicion is being purposely kept back for some reason. The case of the Solicitor-General is that they have had to put Clause 16 into the Bill because up to this there is no machinery, no statistics, and no method by which one could get at the Customs revenue which is properly attributable to Ireland, and we are asked to start under those conditions by saying our guesswork is that Ireland does not pay its way, and £2,000,000 a year is the deficit in the account between England and Ireland. It say that is very unfair to Ireland, and it is grotesque for founding the finances of a Home Rule Bill. It does not rest there. I noticed the hon. and learned Gentleman was very keen about this Clause. He said it was necessary to get these materials, and I quite agree with him, but he entirely forgot that Clause 16 has nothing to do with Income Tax or with Death Duties. How is he going to ascertain what nobody has ever been able to ascertain up till this moment? Neither the Primrose Committee nor the White Paper professes to ascertain what is the amount of Income Tax or of the Death Duties attributable to Ireland. And the Government are going to leave it as it is. They have no Clause 16 dealing with Income Tax or with the Death Duties: they are going to
    1424
    leave it exactly as it is, and they reject the Amendment, which says that a Committee of this House or some other body ought to set up some principles by which you are going to ascertain the proper revenue in relation to Income Tax and Death Duties, as well as other matters. The Amendment asks that some principles should be laid down for this Joint Exchequer Board to act upon. Let this Committee look at what the Government are doing. They are setting up this Joint Exchequer Board of Treasury clerks. But how are they going to do what neither the Primrose Committee nor the Treasury itself has been able to do for eighteen years? What they say is this: You are to attribute to England everything that is collected in England, and you are to attribute to Ireland everything that is collected in Ireland. That is a broad principle, and so far as Ireland is concerned there could not be a more unfair principle. I think all the companies out of which income is derived from dividends are either English or foreign, and on every shilling that comes into Ireland of accumulated income, apart from mere earnings, Income Tax is deducted at the source—that is, in this country. I believe that even Guinness's the largest company in Ireland is an English company. I think almost every Irish bank is an English company, and could there be anything more unfair than to start with this—that in the estimate of the incomes of Ireland you are to say that everything collected in England, which means really the whole of the accumulated wealth of Ireland, is primâ facie to be credited to England? It is absolutely absurd.
    There is no way of getting at the real amount that goes to Ireland. What do the Government propose as a solution of that question. Having laid down these broad principles of deduction—the deduction being generally at the source—what are the Joint Exchequer Board to do? The only direction given to it is that the broad principle is to be carried out subject to such adjustment as the Board may think equitable! Just fancy the income of a country being dependent on adjustments which a Board may think equitable, without a single rule being laid down as to what is equitable! It is merely that one man may come forward from England and say he thinks so and so is equitable, and another man may come forward from Ireland and say he thinks that something

    1425
    else is equitable. The thing is too absurd. You set up no rule as to what is to constitute equity, except that you say they are to attribute to Ireland any proceeds of taxes collected in Great Britain properly attributable to Ireland, and to attribute to Great Britain the proceeds of any taxes collected in Ireland properly attributable to Great Britain. What the conditions are to be is left at large. I venture to say that on no body except Parliament, or somebody acting under Parliament and responsible to Parliament, there never were such wide taxing powers conferred before.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: They are not taxing powers.
    Sir E. CARSON: Yes, they are.
    Sir J. SIMON: They are not taxing powers. The taxing authority is the Imperial Parliament or the Irish Parliament.
    Sir E. CARSON: That is a mere legal quibble, for this reason, that if they allocate less taxes to Ireland the Irish subject will have to be taxed more, and if they allocate less taxes to England the English subject will have to be taxed more. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] The Postmaster-General shakes his head. He seems to think it makes no difference whether you raise more or less taxes in any one year, and that it does not in the least affect the amount of taxes you have to put on in the next year. That is quite absurd. These gentlemen are to report, "We think it is equitable that so much taxes collected in England should go to Ireland, and we also think it equitable that so much taxes collected in Ireland should go to England." On what basis? On no basis.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Nothing of the kind.
    Sir E. CARSON: On no basis in this Clause. What the Amendment proposes is that before you pass this legislation you ought to set up some principle upon which Commissioners are to act in estimating the revenues both for Ireland and for England. Let me put one or two cases to the Solicitor-General to point out the difficulty. Supposing a man has a residence in England and a residence in Ireland—I am thinking of one or two; there are only one or two fortunate Irishmen who happen to be rich—and lives for part of the year in Ireland and for part of the year
    1426
    in England. What are the Commissioners to do in taking the Income Tax, all collected over here in realised securities, to find out what is just and equitable to attribute to Ireland and what they are to attribute to England? On what principle are they to act? Are they to hold an inquiry as to how many months he spent in Ireland and how many months he spent in England, and make out a sum as to how much by reason thereof he ought to give to England or Ireland? The thing is impossible. There is no way in which you can do it. What is equitable in these circumstances? What ought you to attribute to Ireland and what ought you to attribute to England? Let me take another point. Let me take a very ordinary case with which probably the hon. and learned Gentleman is not so well acquainted as I am or as the right hen. Gentleman who sits on his right and who is not allowed to speak in these Debates (Mr. T. W. Russell). How are you going to ascertain the amount of Income Tax collected in England that is paid over to Ireland? What is your process under the Bill of ascertaining that? You have no process, and you have no principle. You could not get it. You could not go to every company that pays dividends and has extracted them at the source and ask them, "Can you tell me how many Irishmen you have on your list? Can you tell me how much of your dividends you send over to Ireland?" It is impossible, for the simple reason that there are many Irishmen with accounts in London banks into which these are paid. You could not tell. My belief is that as regards all these it is Ireland that suffers in this matter, and for the simple reason that you lay down as your basis that primâ facie, everything that is collected in England is to go to England.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman says primâ facie everything collected in England is to go to England and the Joint Exchequer Board is to allocate to Ireland so much, therefore it will make a difference in the tax raised in Ireland how much they allocate. The amount of the revenue of the Irish Parliament has nothing whatever to do with the determination of the Joint Exchequer Board.
    Sir E. CARSON: Really, have we come to this, that it is not of the least importance whether you find out the true revenue-of Ireland? The more you investigate this-the more farcical the whole thing appears.

    1427
    How are you to ascertain the proper amount of Income Tax to be, in the words of this Clause, "attributable to Ireland"? I defy anyone to tell unless you go round to every company, unless you go round to every foreign company, unless you go to the bonds which are in the banks and try to find out whether people who get them are Irishmen or not. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) to-day referred to my own case. Would a bank return me as an Irishman or would they attribute my income as properly assessable in this country? Would they investigate whether I had a residence in Ireland? Would they try and find out what my domicile is? And, in point of fact, I do not know what it is myself. Surely this matter is not sprung upon the Government. The Solicitor-General spoke very eloquently about Clause 16, and dealt with the Customs, but he did not tell us what he was doing with Income Tax. I have only time to deal with the Income Tax for a few moments, but it applies equally to the Death Duties. How are the Death Duties to be done? According as the Board thinks equitable. If you are to decide upon the question of whether a man has a domicile or not that raises the question that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) dealt with and which was interrupted by the right hon. Gentleman. Are these Gentlemen solemnly
    to sit down and consider as regards the return of Income Tax paid by every citizen of the United Kingdom, go through them one by one, and try and ascertain what is the domicile of each one for making out the revenue between the two countries? I put a question the other day to the Prime Minister on this subject, and it was answered by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herbert Samuel). Of course, it was beneath the dignity of the Prime Minister. I put these cases, one, two, and three, as regards these very questions of residence, joint residence, residence in two countries, banking account in one country and banking account in the other, and the right hon. Gentleman referred me to a White Paper, which said that all they could do was to guess at the thing. What is the answer I get to-night? That at half-past Ten—
    It being half-past Ten of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 14th October, to put forthwith the Question on any Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 187; Noes, 311.

    Division No. 354.]

    AYES.

    [10.30 p.m.

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Cave, George

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Astor, Waldorf

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Gretton, John

    Balcarres, Lord

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

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

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Chambers, James

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

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Barnston, Harry

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Barrie, H. T.

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Courthope, George Loyd

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

    Beckett, Hon Gervase

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

    Bigland, Alfred

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

    Bird, Alfred

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Blair, Reginald

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Hills, John Waller

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Doughty, Sir George

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid.)

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzrey

    Boyton, James

    Fell, Arthur

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Fleming, Valentine

    Home, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Forster, Henry William

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Butcher, John George

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Hume-Williams, W. E.

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

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Hunt, Rowland

    Campion, W. R.

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Goldman, C. S.

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Cassel, Felix

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

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

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Swift, Rigby

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Peel, Captain R. F.

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

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

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

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

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

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Thynne, Lord A.

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Touche, George Alexander

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Quilter, Sir W. E. C.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

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

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Remnant, James Farquharson

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

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

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

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

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Winterton, Earl

    Malcolm, Ian

    Royds, Edmund

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

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

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

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Moore, William

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Yerburgh, Robert A.

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Younger, Sir George

    Newman, John R. P.

    Stanley, Beville

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Amery and Mr. Hewins.

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

    Stewart, Gershom

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Crooks, William

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Adamson, William

    Crumley, Patrick

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Cullinan, John

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Agnew, Sir George William

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

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

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

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

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Arnold, Sydney

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

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Dawes, J. A.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    De Forest, Baron

    Hayward, Evan

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Delany, William

    Hazleton, Richard

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

    Dillon, John

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

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Barton, William

    Doris, William

    Hinds, John

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Duffy, William J.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Hodge, John

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

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Bentham, G. J.

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Boland, John Pius

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Hudson, Walter

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Hughes, S. L.

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Falconer, James

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Brace, William

    Farrell, James Patrick

    John, Edward Thomas

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

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

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Field, William

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Jones, W. S. Glyn-(Stepney)

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

    Gill, A. H.

    Jowett, F. W.

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Joyce, Michael

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Keating, Matthew

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Glanville, H. J.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    King, J.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Clough, William

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

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Clynes, John R.

    Gulland, John William

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

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

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hackett, John

    Leach, Charles

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hancock, J. G.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    1430

    1431

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    O'Malley, William

    Shortt, Edward

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

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

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Lundon, Thomas

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    O'Shee, James John

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Lynch, A. A.

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Snowden, Philip

    McGhee, Richard

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

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

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

    Sutherland, J. E.

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Sutton, John E.

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    M'Kean, John

    Pirie, Duncan Vernon

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Pointer, Joseph

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

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

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Tennant, Harold John

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

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Thomas, J. H.

    Manfield, Harry

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

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

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Martin, Joseph

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

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

    Verney, Sir Harry

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

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Wadsworth, John

    Meagher, Michael

    Radford, G. H.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Wardle, George J.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Waring, Walter

    Molloy, Michael

    Reddy, Michael

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Mooney, John J.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Webb, H.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Richards, Thomas

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Morrell, Philip

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Morison, Hector

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Muldoon, John

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

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

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Robinson, Sidney

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Neilson, Francis

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

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

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

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

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Rowlands, James

    Winfrey, Richard

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Rowntree, Arnold

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

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Russel, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

    Young, William (Perthshire, E.)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Ogden, Fred

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    O'Grady, James

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

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

    Sheehy, David

    G. Howard and Captain Guest.

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    The CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given, and the Questions necessary to dispose of the
    business to be concluded at Half-past Ten of the Clock at this day's sitting.
    Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 313; Noes, 190.

    Division No. 355.]

    AYES.

    [10.40 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Barton, William

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Adamson, William

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

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

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

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Bentham, G. J.

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Birred, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

    Black, Arthur W.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Boland, John Pius

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Brace, William

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Clough, William

    Barnes, G. N.

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Clynes, John R.

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

    Cotton, William Francis

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Pirle, Duncan Vernon

    Crooks, William

    Jones, W. S. Glyn-(Stepney)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Crumley, Patrick

    Jowett, F. W.

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Cullinan, John

    Joyce, Michael

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

    Keating, Matthew

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

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

    Kilbride, Denis

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Dawes, J. A.

    King, J.

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

    De Forest, Baron

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Delany, William

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Radford, G. H.

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Rattan, Peter Wilson

    Devlin, Joseph

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

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Leach, Charles

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Dillon, John

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Reddy, Michael

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Doris, William

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Duffy, William J.

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Richards, Thomas

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid.)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    McGhee, Richard

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Maclean, Donald

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Essex, Richard Walter

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

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Falconer, James

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Robinson, Sidney

    Farrell, James Patrick

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Ffrench, Peter

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Field, William

    M'Kean, John

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Fitzgibbon, John

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

    Rowlands, James

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

    Rowntree, Arnold

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Manfield, Harry

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

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

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Martin, Joseph

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Glanville, H. J.

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Meagher, Michael

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

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Sheehy, David

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Shortt, Edward

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

    Molloy, Michael

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Gulland, John William

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Hackett, John

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Mooney, John J.

    Snowden, Philip

    Hancock, J. G.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Morrell, Philip

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Morison, Hector

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Muldoon, John

    Sutherland, John E.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

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

    Sutton, John E.

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

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Neilson, Francis

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Nolan, Joseph

    Thomas, J. H.

    Hayward, Evan

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Nuttall, Harry

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Verney, Sir Harry

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

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Wadsworth, John

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Hinds, John

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Ogden, Fred

    Wardle, George J.

    Hodge, John

    O'Grady, James

    Waring, Walter

    Hogge, James Myles

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

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, W.)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Malley, William

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

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

    Watt, Henry A.

    Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Webb, H.

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Shee, James John

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Hughs, S. L.

    O Sullivan, Timothy

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    1434

    1435

    Wiles, Thomas

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

    Young, William (Perthshire, E.)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Wilson, W. T (Westhoughton)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    G. Howard and Captain Guest.

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

    NOES.

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Goldman, C. S.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

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

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

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

    Astor, Waldorf

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gretton, John

    Parkcs, Ebenezer

    Baldwin, Stanley

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

    Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Barnston, Harry

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Barrie, H. T.

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Quitter, Sir W. E. C

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

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

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Bird, Alfred

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

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Blair, Reginald

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Boyton, James

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Royds, Edmund

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Butcher, John George

    Home, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Campion, W. R.

    Hume-Williams, W. E.

    Stanier, Beville

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hunt, Rowland

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Cassel, Felix

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Stewart, Gersnom

    Cave, George

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Swift, Rigby

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

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

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

    Chambers, James

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Larmor, Sir J.

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

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Law, Rt. Hon. A Bonar (Bootle)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Clyde, J. Avon

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

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Valentia, Viscount

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Locker, Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

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

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Denniss, E. R. B.

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

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

    Doughty, Sir George

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Winterton, Earl

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

    Fell, Arthur

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

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Malcolm, Ian

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

    Fleming, Valentine

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Forster, Henry William

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Yerburgh, Robert A.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Moore, William

    Younger, Sir George

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Mount, William Arthur

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Newman, John R. P.

    A. Thynne and Mr. Hills.

    CLAUSE 25.—(Alteration of Taxes to be Treated as Increases or Reductions of Taxes as the case may be.)
    For the purposes of this Act the withdrawal in whole or in part of an exemption from a tax shall be treated as the
    1436
    imposition of an addition to or as the increase of a tax, and the grant or extension of an exemption from a tax shall be treated as a reduction of a tax, and any other alteration of the provisions with respect to any tax in consequence of

    1437
    which the proceeds of the tax are increased or diminished shall be treated as an increase or reduction of the tax, as the case may be.
    Question put, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 311; Noes, 189.

    Division No. 356.]

    AYES.

    [10.53 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

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

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Leach, Charles

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Adamson, William

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Falconer, James

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Lundon, T.

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

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Arnold, Sydney

    Field, William

    Lynch, A. A.

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Flennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    McGhee, Richard

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Maclean, Donald

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    France, Gerald Ashburner

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

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Gill, A. H.

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

    Barnes, George N.

    Ginnell, L.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Glanville, H. J.

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Barton, William

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    M'Kean, John

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Beck, Artnur Cecil

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

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

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

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

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

    Bentham, George Jackson

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

    Manfield, Harry

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Agustine

    Gulland, John William

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Black, Arthur W.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Boland, John Pius

    Hackett, J.

    Martin, J.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Hancock, John George

    Meagher, Michael

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Brace, William

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Brady, P. J.

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Brocklehurst, Willam B.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Molloy, Michael

    Bryce, J. Annan

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

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

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

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Money, L. G. Chlozza

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Mooney, John J.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Morgan, George Hay

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

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Morrell, Philip

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Hayward, Evan

    Morison, Hector

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Muldoon, John

    Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Chapple, Dr. W. A.

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

    Needham, Christopher Thomas

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Neilson, Francis

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hinds, John

    Nicholson, Sir C. N. (Doncaster)

    Clough, William

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Clynes, John R.

    Hodge, John

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Nuttall, Harry

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Craig, Herbert J (Tynemouth)

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Crooks, William

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Crumley, Patrick

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Ogden, Fred

    Cullinan, John

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    O'Grady, James

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

    John, Edward Thomas

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

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Malley, William

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

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

    Dawes, J. A.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    De Forest, Baron

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    O'Shee, James John

    Delany, William

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Jones, William S. Glyn-(Stepney)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Devlin, Joseph

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Joyce, Michael

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Dillon, John

    Keating, Matthew

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Doris, William

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

    Duffy, William J.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Phillips, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    King, J.

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Pointer, Joseph

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

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

    Wardie, George J.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton)

    Waring, Waiter

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

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

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

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Sheehy, David

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    Radford, G. H.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Webb, H.

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Shortt, Edward

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Reddy, M.

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Wiles, Thomas

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Richards, Thomas

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Sutherland, John E.

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Sutton, John E.

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

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Taylor, John W (Durham)

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

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Tennant, Harold John

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

    Robinson, Sidney

    Thomas, James Henry

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

    Roch, Walter F.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Touimin, Sir George

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Verney, Sir Harry

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Rowlands, James

    Wadsworth, J.

    Howard and Capt. Guest.

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    NOES.

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Jessel, Capt. H. M.

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Doughty, Sir George

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Ashley, W. W.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Astor, Waldorf

    Fell, Arthur

    Kerry, Earl of

    Balcarres, Lord

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Fleming, Valentine

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Barnston, H.

    Forster, Henry William

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Barrie, H. T.

    Foster, Philip Staveley

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

    Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

    Gardner, Ernest

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

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Goldman, C. S.

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Beresford, Lord C.

    Goldsmith, Frank

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

    Bigland, Alfred

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Bird, A.

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Blair, Reginald

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Greene, W. R.

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Boyton, James

    Gretton, John

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

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

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

    Bull, Sir William James

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

    Malcolm, Ian

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Mcysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Butcher, John George

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Moore, William

    Campion, W. R.

    Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Newman, John R. P.

    Cassel, Felix

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Castlereagh, Viscount

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

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Cave, George

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Nield, Herbert

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

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

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

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

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Hills, John Waller

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Chambers, James

    Hohler, G. F.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Peel, Capt. R. F.

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Horne, Wm. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Hunter, Sir C. R.

    Rawson, Col. Richard H.

    1440

    1441

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Starkey, John Ralph

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

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

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

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Swift, Rigby

    Winterton, Earl

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

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

    Royds, Edmund

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

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

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

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

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Down, North)

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Thynne, Lord A.

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Touche, George Alexander

    Yerburgh, Robert A.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Younger, Sir George

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Stanier, Beville

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Colonel

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Boles and Mr. Walrond.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next (2nd December).

  NORTH KILLINGHOLME (ADMIRALTY PIER).— [Expenses.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred in respect of the medical and surgical treatment of workmen employed in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to enable the Admiralty to construct and maintain a pier at North Killingholme, on the River Humber, and for purposes in connection therewith."—[Dr. Macnamara.]
  Sir HILDRED CARLILE: Is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty going to make any statement as to the probable expense?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I think the Committee would desire that I should explain shortly the reason and the purpose for this Motion. It arises out of the Bill to enable the Admiralty to construct and maintain a pier at North Killingholme, on the River Humber. On the Second Reading of the Bill my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ward) moved an Amendment in the following terms:—
  "This House refuses to proceed with a Bill for the construction of works which does not contain provision for providing decent sanitary house and hospital accommodation for the workmen to he employed in accordance with its Standing Orders, and a minimum rate of wages of not less than sixpence per hour."
  I pointed out that the Standing Order 184A authorises the Committee to take into consideration the question of hospital and
  1442
  housing accommodation, and to make provision for accommodating the number of workmen beyond the provision the locality is able to supply? In pursuance of that power the Committee, with the full concurrence of the Admiralty, put in this new Clause, which I think I had better read:—
  "The Admiralty shall erect, fit up, and maintain or provide such huts or buildings for the accommodation of the workmen employed in and about the construction of the works authorised by this Act such hospital accommodation for the treatment of cases of sickness or accident among such workmen, including accommodation for dealing with infectious diseases, as shall be reasonably necessary, having regard to the accommodation available in the neighbourhood of, or conveniently accessible from, the said works, and shall provide and maintain proper and sufficient sanitary accommodation in connection with every such building and hospital. The Admiralty shall pay all reasonable costs and expenses incurred in respect of the medical and surgical treatment of any workmen employed on the construction of the said works who is treated in any hospital accommodation provided by them, except in so far as such costs and expenses are payable under the provisions of the National Insurance Act, 1911, or otherwise."
  The provision for the original undertaking is in the Navy Estimates amounting to £20,000, and this pier is only a part of that sum, but there is no estimate or provision in this Estimate for the liability in this new Clause, and that is why we have now to come and ask for this Money Resolution.
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Thursday).

  MOTOR TRAFFIC.

    APPOINTMENT OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
    Select Committee appointed to inquire into the circumstances which have led to the large and increasing number of fatal accidents in the Metropolis, due to motor omnibuses and other forms of power-driven vehicles, and to make recommendations as to the measures to be taken to secure greater safety in the streets.
    Mr. Allen Baker, Mr. Shirley Benn, Mr. Daniel Boyle, and Mr. Stephen Collins nominated members of the Committee.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Goldsmith be a member of the Committee."
    Lord BALCARRES: May I say on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), who was originally named for this Committee, that he consented to join the Committee under a misapprehension as to the propriety of his doing so. On it being pointed out to him that he should not serve on the Committee, he asked me to withdraw his name, and accordingly my hon. Friend the Member for Stowmarket (Mr. Goldsmith) proposes, if the House agrees, to serve in his place.
    Mr. Walter Guinness, Mr. Harris, Mr. Kellaway, Earl of Kerry, Mr. Morison, Mr. Munro, Mr. Nolan, Mr. William Thorne, Lord Alexander Thynne, and Sir George Toulmin also nominated members of the Committee.
    Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:
    Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—[Mr. McKenna.]

  VACATION OF SEAT (MEMBER HOLDING CONTRACT).
  Special Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read, as follows:—
  The Select Committee appointed to consider whether Sir Stuart Samuel has vacated his seat as a Member of this House
  1444
  in consequence of the firm of Samuel Montagu and Company, in which firm he is a partner, having entered into transactions with the Secretary of State for India in Council, have come to the following Resolutions, which they have agreed to report to the House:—

  (i.) That the Committee propose retaining the conduct of the inquiry referred to them entirely in their own hands, but will accept the assistance of Counsel (if the leave of the House be obtained) when they think it necessary;

  (ii.) That application be made for an Order of the House that this Committee have leave to hear Counsel to such extent as they shall see fit.

  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 379.]
  Ordered, That the Select Committee on the Vacation of Seat (Member holding Contract) have leave to hear. Counsel to such extent as they see fit.—[The Solicitor-General.]
  The Orders for the remaining Government business were read and postponed,
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

  INSPECTION OF PONIES IN COAL MINES.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I rise to call the attention of the House to the action of the Home Secretary in regard to the appointment of Inspectors of pit ponies under the Coal Mines (Regulation) Act. When the Bill was going through Committee stringent regulations were inserted for the purpose of preventing possible cruelty to these animals and ensuring they should receive kind and humane treatment, but on Report it was found the provisions for inspection for the purpose of enforcing those regulations were entirely inadequate. Regulations, however good, unless there are provisions for enforcing them are mere waste paper. It was found during the course of the Debate, and I think to the

  1445
  surprise of many of us, that the Government had no intention whatever of appointing any Inspectors, their idea being to accept the services of Inspectors to be nominated and paid by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The House definitely rejected that suggestion and insisted—the appeals came from all quarters of the House—and I think rightly insisted, that the duty of inspection should be discharged by Government Inspectors paid by the Government and responsible to the Government. The Home Secretary resisted the proposal for some time, but eventually gave in to the general feeling of the House, and the result was that Clause 109 of the Bill as amended read thus:—
  "The Secretary of State shall appoint fit persons to be special persons for examining into the care of horses and other animals used in mines and enforcing the provisions of the Act relating thereto."
  There are two points to which I want to call attention. The first is the great and unexplained delay in appointing any Inspectors at all, and the second is the totally inadequate provision of Inspectors to ensure efficient inspection. Let me take the question of delay first. The Bill passed into law on the 16th December last year, but its operation was suspended until the 1st July to give time to bring the Act into operation. One would have expected that by the 1st July the Home Secretary would have been in a position to appoint the Inspectors which the House had insisted on being appointed. Nothing of the kind! No Inspectors were appointed by the 1st July to carry out this regulation, and to this day not a single Inspector has been appointed for the purpose of carrying out the express wishes of the House. The Home Secretary, in answer to a question yesterday, made an excuse for this. He said there were a large number of applicants for the posts. They were referred to the Board of Mines to examine and he had not got the recommendations of that body. That is, I venture to say, absolutely no excuse at all. I am informed that the list of applications was closed by July 1st. Five months have elapsed since the Act came into operation, yet the Home Secretary has appointed no Inspector though he has several times told us he hoped to be able to do so shortly. I hope he will, but I fancy that unless his energies had been
  1446
  stirred into activity by frequent questions an even longer and more deplorable delay would have occurred.
  That is not the only point. An even more serious question to my mind is the totally inadequate number of Inspectors for the work to be done. The regulations are stringent and rightly so, and in order to see that these regulations are enforced the Inspector would not only have to visit the stables where the ponies are kept, but they would have to pass through miles of underground workings and they would have to examine the reports of the horse-keepers. It is possible to imagine what number of Inspectors would be required when I tell the House that according to the latest official return there are no fewer than 3,325 coal mines in the United Kingdom, and there are to be six Inspectors and no more! I have calculated that to secure one annual inspection of each mine each of the six Inspectors will have to inspect more than two mines a day. There is I believe to be but one Inspector for the whole of Scotland, and experts tell me that the number of Inspectors proposed is grossly and ludicrously inadequate, and it will make these regulations so carefully drawn up a perfect sham unless there are more persons appointed to see that they are carried out. The Home Secretary said yesterday in his defence that it was announced by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the course of the Debate that there would be six horse Inspectors appointed, and that that was approved by Parliament at the time. I turned to the Debate to see what justification there was for that statement. I find that during the Debate the Financial Secretary, while resisting the appointment of Government Inspectors and while endeavouring to justify the employment of Inspectors nominated and paid by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said this:—
  "I have a communication from the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. George Greenwood) in which he says that the Society feel themselves competent, if this Clause goes through, to begin with to provide one Inspector for each of the divisions."
  So that the suggestion for providing six Inspectors for the United Kingdom was not for providing six Government Inspectors at all; it was a suggestion from the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals that to begin with they would be willing to provide and pay for six Inspectors. On that occasion the House

  1447
  definitely rejected the suggestion of employing private Inspectors, and insisted upon having an adequate number of Government Inspectors. When the Home Secretary was compelled to adopt the views of the House and appoint Government Inspectors, not a single syllable was said as to any limitation of the number of Government Inspectors to be appointed. On the contrary the Home Secretary clearly represented to the House that the number would hi adequate to perform the duties. I moved an Amendment shortly afterwards to the effect that there should be a periodical inspection at least once in every three months of every horse in the mines. What was the answer of the Home Secretary? He said:—
  "I quite agree with the arguments of the hon. Member that the inspection should be more frequently."—
  He deprecated any hard and fast rule, and went on to say:—
  "I think the hon. and learned Member may rely with confidence, now that we shall have Inspectors who will be Government, servants, that these Inspectors will perform their duties and will have nothing else to do but to inspect."
  I said that if the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that there would be proper periodic inspection in the case of these special Inspectors, I would accept his assurance and withdraw the Amendment, and I withdrew it. The result is this, the Home Secretary agreed to appoint Government Inspectors, and to a proper periodic inspection, and not a word was said limiting the number of Government Inspectors to be appointed, yet now, when we complain of the totally inadequate number, we are referred to some proposal of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to appoint six Inspectors to deal with the matter.
  Mr. BOOTH: How many do you want?
  Mr. BUTCHER: We want enough for proper inspection, and we are quite satisfied that six is not enough. I appeal to the Home Secretary to carry out the expressed wishes of the House, wishes expressed strongly in the course of the Debates and in Committee upstairs, and to see that there is a proper number of Inspectors to carry out these regulations. If he adheres to his view, all I can say is that there is a grave danger that the expressed views of this House on that Bill may be totally disregarded, and that the regulations which were carefully and anxiously framed for the protection of
  1448
  these unfortunate animals that are working in the mines will become absolutely nugatory.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The hon. and learned Gentleman has always taken a very great interest in the question of ponies in pits, and I quite sympathise with his natural anxiety upon the fact that the Inspectors, whose appointment was promised have not already been appointed. I do not therefore make any complaint of the fact of his raising the question now, but I think I am entitled to say, so far as I can pit my memory against his that his statement of what occurred on the Report stage of the Coal Mines Bill is in truth and substance a travesty of the facts. The history of the case is this. The Royal Commissioners not in their first or second, but in their third Report made recommendations with regard to pit ponies which were embodied in the Bill. It is part of the duty of the ordinary Inspectors, of whom of course there are large numbers, to inspect the ponies and to report any case in which they are not well treated. In the Committee there was an arrangement made by which the ordinary Inspectors of mines should be assisted in carrying out the work by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, who were prepared to place in each district a special Inspector whose whole time should be engaged in assisting the ordinary Inspectors in that branch of their work. That was accepted in Committee as a matter of arrangement between all the parties.
  When the Bill came to the House on Report the question was raised, not upon the number of the Inspectors nor upon the capacity of the men who would be employed by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, but upon the question who should pay for these Inspectors, and whether they should be appointed by the Home Office or whether they should be borrowed by the Home Office from the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Upon the question of numbers the point was made perfectly clear that it was proposed at the time to make use of the services of one Inspector lent to the Home Office by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—one Inspector in each district—and that appears quite clearly in the quotation from my right hon. Friend's answer, in which he says that the Society reporting

  1449
  to the House told my hon. Friend (Mr. G. Greenwood) that they were competent if the Clause went through, to begin with, to provide one Inspector for each of the divisions. There are six divisions into which the country is divided at present. In the second Debate later on I said:
  "Through the intervention of my hon. Friend (Mr. G. Greenwood) and of the Society, we are able to give the assurance to the House, that without involving a new charge on the Exchequer an Inspector will be appointed in each district."
  There is a direct limitation of the number to be appointed to six. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Butcher) spoke almost immediately after me in the same Debate, and he said not one word about numbers, but he made a long speech directed solely to the point as to whether these Inspectors should be paid for by the State or by the Society. The victory which he and his friends won was not against the Home Office, not, against my right hon. Friend and myself here, on the question whether we had power to make payment under the Financial Resolution passed in Committee, but the victory was that we agreed that these Inspectors should be public servants.
  Mr. BUTCHER: There was not a word said in the subsequent Debate about six or any other number.
  Mr. McKENNA: The discussion at the time was as to whether this arrangement with the society should be put aside as regards the question of payment. The House said that it was against the dignity of the public service that we should not pay the servants we employ, and we agreed to pay them. The hon. Member says there never was a, word said about the number being six. The hon. Member himself and the hon. Baronet opposite never raised the slighest objection to the number of six, and I would be exceeding the warrant I received from Parliament if, to begin with, I appointed more than six. So much for the number. I think I have satisfied hon. Members that we have carried out the intention of Parliament. As to the delay, no one deplores it more than I do. A promise was made by my right hon. Friend that in future appointments of mines inspectors the appointments should be made not by a Committee of Selection at the Home Office, but by a Board for Mining Examinations which was to be established. We did not find it in existence when the Act was passed. We had, first of all, to set up the Board for
  1450
  Mining Examinations. We had to constitute the Board and make the rules under which it should work. We had to make arrangements for the appointment of these Inspectors. All these proceedings took a certain amount of time.
  Eventually, when we were in a position to receive applications we had no less than 600 applications for these posts. It will be in the recollection of the House that among the charges which have been made against the Government is that they have made certain appointments without careful examination. In this case we had 600 candidates from whom we had to select six individuals. The first examination of the recommendations and qualifications of the candidates resulted in a reduction of the number to 240. A second scrutiny reduced the total to fifty-one candidates who were then each interviewed locally by arrangement with the District Inspectors of mines. On the reports thus obtained the candidates were further reduced, and a sub-committee of the Board has been appointed to interview a number of the candidates locally. That involves visits to the different local centres. These candidates are mainly poor men, and, as it would be unfair to name a particular day on which they were to come to London, members of the Board have gone down to certain local centres to interview them on the spot. There has been no avoidable delay whatever. When it is remembered that the whole machinery of the Board of Examination itself had to be set up, and that we had to deal with such a large number as 600 candidates, it is a most unfair charge to make against the Home Office or the Board that they have delayed in interviewing and testing the candidates. I am now in-informed that they will complete the whole of the work next month, and I hope then to be in a position on their recommendations to make the appointments.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman as to the general view of the House when the matter was last before it. I do not think he will find any record in the Debate that the Government were limited to any particular number, but undoubtedly the general view was that about a half-dozen would be appointed when the Government had power to carry the matter into effect. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that it does seem a very long time in view of the strong expressions of opinion in the House at the

  1451
  time as to the appointment of Inspectors. No doubt it has been necessary to set up a special board, as the right hon. Gentleman has had to bear in mind possible criticism in regard to these as well as other appointments, but the strong sentiment of the House at the time was—against the view of the Government—that these Inspectors should be Government Inspectors, controlled by the Government, and appointed as speedily as possible. There is really more feeling about this matter than the Government are possibly able to appreciate, and there is the feeling that it is absurd to leave it to any outside organisation. The Government have rightly adopted a view in accordance with the general sense of the House, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will not lose a single moment in having these Inspectors appointed. I would like to know does it require a special Resolution for these appointments? It was stated by the Financial Secretary that one might be necessary. Has the right hon. Gentleman financial resources at present to pay the Inspectors?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have now financial resources, because this year they have been put on the Home Office Estimates, which came into operation and became effective after the 1st of April.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: When will the first inspection be made?
  Mr. McKENNA: Immediately after the Inspectors are appointed—I hope next month.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The chief desire of the House was to have Inspectors appointed by the Government and not by a private society. One of the reasons actuating me in making the request was because I thought that the Government would be able to appoint a sufficient number of Inspectors, which would be more than six, as everybody looks on that number as insufficient. A small society like the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals could not appoint more than a very small number. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the last part of the Debate he will see that it was the intention of the House that a larger number of Inspectors should be appointed, and I think he will find he said that if the matter was left to the Government they would do it in an efficient
  1452
  manner. Everybody admits that six Inspectors are not enough.
  Mr. McKENNA: All the Inspectors will do this work.
  Sir F. BANBURY: To the best of my recollection we thought that these other Inspectors were not fitted to do the work. You want to have some knowledge of horses which these other Inspectors do not possess. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see that it is the desire of the House that there should be a sufficient number of Inspectors appointed and appointed quickly.
  Mr. GEORGE GREENWOOD: As the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has been mentioned, I may state that it was their offer to appoint a certain number of Inspectors; but I would like to make quite clear what their position really was. Their position all along was that they urged the Government to appoint Inspectors. They said that if the Government could not see their way to appoint Inspectors at any rate up to the number of six, one for each district, they would get nothing done. I quite agree that it was never said on behalf of the Government that they would appoint more than six; it was understood, I think, that would be the number to begin with. I do think, however, that it has been pretty clearly shown that six will be an inadequate number, and I hope that as time goes on the Government will see their way to increase the number, seeing what a large number of mines there are. I perfectly agree that nothing was said in the Debate to pledge the Government to appoint more than six. I hope in future the Government will see their way to double the number.
  Mr. BOOTH: I thought when the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) rose it would be in his usual capacity of custodian of the public purse, and I was rather astonished to hear him ask for an exaggerated number of appointments. I should have thought that the mine owners and men would be expected to see that the present Inspectors do their duty effectively. No hon. Member opposite has the courage to say how many Inspectors he wants, and hon. Gentlemen are always upbraiding the Government for multiplying officials. Except the hon. Baronet, who does not go to by

  1453
  elections, they go through the country blaming the Radical Government for appointing so many officials. I have no faith in the multiplication of officials, not even on this question of putting down cruelty to pit ponies, and that object can be accomplished by a full determination on the part of the masters and men to see
  1454
  that the present Inspectors effectively perform their duties, and to ask for more Inspectors is simply a sign of degeneration on the part of the community.
  Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.

  Cigars (Foreign and British).
  Cigars (Foreign and British).
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES.
  GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES.
  NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY COMPANY.
  NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY COMPANY.
  SOLDIERS' WIVES.
  SOLDIERS' WIVES.
  COURTS OF REFEREES.
  COURTS OF REFEREES.
  DEDUCTIONS FROM WAGES.
  DEDUCTIONS FROM WAGES.
  Irish Constabulary Force Fund.
  Irish Constabulary Force Fund.
GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  TAXATION IN IRELAND.
  TAXATION IN IRELAND.
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  Land Valuation (Ireland).
  Land Valuation (Ireland).
  Reinstatement Application (Ireland).
  Reinstatement Application (Ireland).
  Butter Manufacture (Ireland).
  Butter Manufacture (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
ROYAL NAVY.
  DOCKYARDS (SHIPWRIGHTS AND PATTERNMAKERS).
  DOCKYARDS (SHIPWRIGHTS AND PATTERNMAKERS).
  ELECTRICAL WORK ON BATTLESHIPS.
  ELECTRICAL WORK ON BATTLESHIPS.
  Greenwich School Accommodation.
  Greenwich School Accommodation.
  Greenwich Police Court (First Offender).
  Greenwich Police Court (First Offender).
  Flannelette (Deaths from Burns).
  Flannelette (Deaths from Burns).
  Motorists Fines.
  Motorists Fines.
  Criminal Offences (Convictions, England and Wales).
  Criminal Offences (Convictions, England and Wales).
  Metropolitan Police (Commissariat).
  Metropolitan Police (Commissariat).
  Carmarthen Prison.
  Carmarthen Prison.
  Purchases of Silver (India).
  Purchases of Silver (India).
  General Assembly (Egypt).
  General Assembly (Egypt).
  Tuberculosis.
  Tuberculosis.
  Housing Act (Closing Order).
  Housing Act (Closing Order).
  Accommodation for Tuberculosis Cases.
  Accommodation for Tuberculosis Cases.
  Doncaster Development.
  Doncaster Development.
  Foundling Hospital.
  Foundling Hospital.
  Vaccination Officers' Fees.
  Vaccination Officers' Fees.
  Strike Breakers (Blackburn).
  Strike Breakers (Blackburn).
  Census for Loudon.
  Census for Loudon.
  National Union of Free Workers.
  National Union of Free Workers.
  Foreign Grown Fruit.
  Foreign Grown Fruit.
  Fishery Board of Scotland (Scales of Fay).
  Fishery Board of Scotland (Scales of Fay).
  Road for Motor Traffic (Metropolis).
  Road for Motor Traffic (Metropolis).
  Marconi Masts.
  Marconi Masts.
  Irish Night Mail Trains.
  Irish Night Mail Trains.
  Members of Parliament (Free Postage).
  Members of Parliament (Free Postage).
  Western District Postal Staff.
  Western District Postal Staff.
  Postal Service (Time-Expired Men).
  Postal Service (Time-Expired Men).
RURAL HOUSING BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill for the provision of Houses for persons of the working class in Rural Districts—Was presented by the Marquess of Salisbury; read 1a to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday the 9th of December next. (No. 173.)
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
Provisional Regulations, dated 27th November, 1912, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee entitled The National Health Insurance (Time for joining an approved Society) Regulations (No. 2) 1912: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 174.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 15) BILL.
Moved, That the Order made on the 24th day of April last,"That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 4th clay of July next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection in regard to the Reading (Financial Adjustments) Order and the Bath (Financial Adjustments) Order.
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Moved, That the Order made on the 24th day of April last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 4th day of July next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed for Tuesday next.
PROTECTION OF ANIMALS ACT (1911) AMENDMENT BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House again in Committee (according to Order).
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 4:
Resolutions at further Polls.
4.—(1) Where a poll has been taken, and such poll, or the declared result thereof, has not been declared void in terms of this Act, a further poll shall not be taken before the month of November in the third year from the date of the last poll.
(2) Such further poll may be taken—

(a) if a no-change resolution is in force or a limiting resolution or no-licence resolution has been repealed, for the following options, that is to say, for a further no-change resolution or for a no-licence resolution or for a limiting resolution;

(b) if a limiting resolution is in force, for the following options, that is to say, for the repeal or continuance of any such resolution or for a further limiting resolution or for a no-licence resolution, provided that if the repeal of any such resolution is not carried, the votes in favour of such repeal shall be added to those recorded in favour of a continuance resolution and shall be deemed to have been recorded in favour thereof; and

(c) if a no-licence resolution is in force, for repealing the same.

(3) The provisions of section two of this Act, except as regards the questions to be submitted to the electors, shall apply to such further polls, provided that where a further poll is taken in any area where a limiting resolution or a no-licence resolution is in force and the majority of the votes recorded is not in favour of the repeal of such resolution, such repeal shall not be carried.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, in paragraph (a), after the words "or a limiting resolution," to insert "or disinterested management resolution."
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 37, after the first ("resolution") insert ("or disinterested management resolution")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to insert similar words before "a limiting resolution" at the end of paragraph (a).
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 40, after ("for") insert ("a disinterested management resolution or for").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, in paragraph (b), before the words "a no-licence resolution," to insert "a disinterested management resolution or for."
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 4, after ("for") insert ("a disinterested management resolution or for").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I move to leave out the proviso in paragraph (b), which runs, "Provided that if the repeal of any such resolution is not carried, the votes in favour of such repeal shall be added to those recorded in favour of a continuance resolution and shall be deemed to have been recorded in favour thereof." I am quite aware that this Amendment is not pleasing to His Majesty's Government, but it seems to me on the whole to be practically consequential to what was done yesterday.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, lines 4 and 5, leave out from ("resolution") to the end of paragraph (b).—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I agree that the Amendment is consequential, and in those circumstances I offer no opposition to its insertion.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved the insertion of a new paragraph.
Amendment moved—"
Page 4, line 10, after ("and") insert:
("(c) if a disinterested management resolution is in force for the following options, that is to say for the repeal or continuance of any such resolution, or for a limiting resolution, or for a no-licence resolution ").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Supplemental Provisions.
5.—(1) The requisition for a poll shall be in the form set out in Schedule 1 of this Act, and shall be signed by not less than one-tenth of the electors in the area; and the signatures to the said requisition shall be appended thereto with the full addresses of the signatories, on papers which shall be issued on demand of any elector by the clerk to the local authority, not earlier than the
1114
fifteenth day of August immediately preceding the month in which the requisition is to be lodged; and such papers shall bear on each sheet the date of issue. The requisition shall be lodged during the month of September in any year with the clerk to the local authority, who shall thereupon insert, in not less than two newspapers circulating in the area, a notice of t he receipt of such requisition, and shall allow inspection of the requisition by any elector, but, after the requisition has been so lodged, no signatures thereto may be withdrawn.
(2) On the day on which a poll under this Act is taken in any area, alt the certificated premises in such area in which exciseable liquors are sold by retail shall remain closed for the sale of such liquors until after the hour fixed for the close of the poll, but nothing in this subsection contained shall prohibit the sale of such liquors to lodgers or to bonâ fide travellers taking meals on the premises in any room usually set apart for that purpose, for consumption therein at the meal, or the sale, distribution, or delivery of exciseable liquors under the conditions prescribed by section sixty-three of the Licensing (Scotland) ) Act, 1903.
(3) A poll shall be taken on any day not being a market day which the local authority may fix in the month either of November or of December immediately following the lodging of the requisition: Provided that in a county a poll shall he taken only in the year of a triennial election of county councillors except in the case of a poll held in the year in which a resolution under this Act is first competent; and provided further, that if a poll, or the declared result thereof, is by a judgment of the Court of Session declared void, the Court may, if they think fit, order the local authority to cause a new poll to be taken, or one-tenth of the electors in the area may, by requisition lodged with the clerk to the local authority within one month of the date of the judgment, demand a new poll, and the local authority shall thereupon forthwith cause such poll to be taken.
(4) Polls under this et shall be by ballot, and the Secretary for Scotland shall make rules for regulating the procedure with respect to requisitions and the taking of polls, and providing for the re-counting or scrutiny of the votes recorded on any poll when a demand is made therefor, and, without prejudice to the generality of the power hereby conferred, may by those rules apply for the purpose with any necessary modifications any enactments relating to Parliamentary or local government elections and to the prevention of corrupt and illegal practices thereat (including the penal provisions thereof):
Provided that where a poll is taken for the first time in any area, the ballot papers shall be in the form contained in Schedule 11 of this Act, with any modifications thereof to meet the circumstances of the case which may be sanctioned by the Secretary for Scotland, and in case of polls other than the first poll or in cases where there are no certificates or not more than one certificate in force in the area, in such forms as may be prescribed by the Secretary for Scotland, who shall fix a maximum scale for the expenses of a poll, and any expenses incurred within such scale by the local authority in connection with this Act shall be defrayed out of the county general purposes rate in counties (excluding police burghs) and the burgh general or police assessment in burghs, but shall not be reckoned in any calculation as to the statutory limit of such assessment.
(5) If any returning officer, presiding officer, clerk or officer of the local authority is guilty of any wilful act or omission in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act, or of any of the rules made by the Secretary for Scotland under this Act, he shall on summary conviction, in cases where no penalty is otherwise provided, be liable to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds for the first and twenty pounds for every succeeding offence.
(6) Every person who forges or procures the forgery of any signature to a requisition, or alters or defaces a requisition, or delivers to the clerk to the local authority any requisition knowing it to contain signatures which have been forged, or to have been altered or defaced in any way, shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds, or, alternatively, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months with or without hard labour.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I move to leave out subsection (1) of this clause and to insert the new subsection standing in my name. I should like to call your Lordships' attention in the first instance to the words which now stand in the Bill. Under the clause, when any elector demands from the clerk to the local authority a requisition paper it has to be given to him, and then the requisition is to be lodged during the month of September and the clerk is to insert in not less than two newspapers a notice of the receipt of such requisition, and after that he is to allow inspection of the requisition by any elector, but the requisition having been so lodged no signatures thereto may be withdrawn. The first objection I have to the subsection as it now stands is this, that any one elector or any number of separate electors may call upon the clerk to issue a paper, and the clerk is bound apparently to issue a paper to any and all of them. Armed with these papers any electors may then sally forth and walk up and clown the street canvassing to an unlimited extent. It seems to me that canvassing ought as far as possible to be prohibited or at all events to be made difficult in this case, because, as we know, on this liquor question the persons who hold extreme opinions are very much given to canvassing. Then these persons come back with the papers, on one of which, perhaps, there may be a few names; on another a good many; and on a third some more. Those papers are to be handed to the clerk, who has no means whatever of knowing by what solicitations the signatures were obtained, nor, indeed, does he even know whether they are genuine. He has no means himself of testing the genuineness of any of the
1116
papers. Then it is proposed to be enacted that at the end of September he is to allow the inspection of these requisition papers by any elector. He must keep a large number of these papers because he cannot copy them. An elector who wishes to inspect them can only ascertain whether the signatures are genuine or not by seeing the originals, and as the original signatures may be on a number of papers it is quite clear that this is an inconvenient mode of proceeding. So much for the subsection as it stands.
I propose to substitute a subsection providing that on the demand of ten electors made on certain dates a requisition paper shall be prepared by the clerk to the local authority, who shall forthwith insert in the newspapers a notice that such paper is being publicly exhibited at his office, or at such fit and convenient place within the area to which the requisition applies as he shall in such notice specify, for signature and inspection, and that it will be removed on the 30th day of the month of September. Then it goes to the local authority, and if the local authority find that it has been signed by not less than one-tenth of the electors in the area the clerk to the local authority is thereupon to insert in not less than two newspapers circulating in the area a notice that such requisition has been duly made. These proposals of mine are, I think, reasonable and very moderate—at least I intend them to be so. With regard to the requirement that the demand should be made by ten electors, I would point out that it is not usual to provide that machinery such as this should be set in motion at the instance of one elector. Ten is a moderate number, because if there is any chance of the requisition being ultimately signed by one-tenth of the electors it stands to reason that it must be quite easy to get ten electors who will sign the paper in the fist instance. There seems to me another advantage, which is this. There will be only one requisition paper, and all the names will appear on the one paper. It will be in the office and any one can inspect it or sign the paper while it is hanging up. I have provided that this paper is to be exhibited in the office or in some such convenient place as the clerk shall specify.
The only objection it seems to me that there can be to my proposal is that under it an elector is made to walk to the

1117
convenient place and write down his name, and, of course, subsequently if a poll takes place he will also have to go to the poll to vote. I must say I think it is very much better that every one should be obliged to go to a place and write down his name, because there are a great many persons who, if a friend comes in with a paper and says "Will you sign this?" or, in the case of a shopkeeper, if some large customer comes in awl says "I wish you would sign this paper," would very likely sign it without taking any great interest in the matter. I think that a poll of this sort ought only to proceed on a requisition by persons who are really in, earnest about it. If any person really is in earnest—and I believe those who hold strong opinions in this matter are almost all in earnest—I do not think he will consider it a great hardship to be obliged to go and enter his name in an office instead of putting it on a paper brought round by somebody else. But if it be a hardship to these people to have to walk to this place to write down their names, think how much more trouble they are giving to all the persons who do not take any interest in the matter and whom they are going to put to the trouble of having a poll. Think what expense they are going to put the local authority to in holding this poll. For these reasons I think the subsection which I propose is better than the one now in the clause, and I hope that His Majesty's Government will give it favourable consideration.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 20, leave out subsection (1) and insert the following new subsection:
"(1) The requisition for a poll shall be made upon a requisition paper which shall be in the form set out in Schedule I of this Act and shall be signed by not less than one-tenth of the electors in the area who shall append their full addresses. On the demand of ten electors made not earlier than the fifteenth day of August or later than the twenty-fifth day of August next preceding the date on which a poll can be taken under this Act a requisition paper shall be prepared by the clerk to the local authority who shall forthwith insert in not less than two newspapers circulating in the district a notice that such paper is being publicly exhibited at his thee, or at such fit and convenient place within the area to which the requisition applies as he shall in such notice specify for signature and inspection until the thirtieth day of the next following month of September when it will be removed. If the requisition paper shall be found by the local authority to have been duly signed by not less than one-tenth of the electors in the area, the clerk to the local authority shall thereupon insert in not less than two newspapers
1118
circulating in the area a notice that such requisition has been duly made."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: As your Lordships will have realised from the explanation which the noble Earl gave of his Amendment, there are really two questions involved in it. One is whether the local authority shall be given the power of supervision, and the other is the question of the requisition. I think from what happened on Monday night when we first went into Committee on this Bill the noble Earl realises that we are quite willing to give way to him in regard to the local authority. We provide in Clause 5 that the Secretary for Scotland shall make rules for regulating the procedure with regard to requisitions and the taking of polls, but we are quite willing to meet the noble Earl on that point. Therefore we are prepared to agree to that part of this Amendment which deals with the local authority having supervision. We cannot, however, meet him on the other point. I agree that when it comes to a poll it is not unfair to ask electors to go to the polling place and there give their vote. What the noble Earl wishes is that a similar procedure should be gone through with regard to the requisition. That is not the view of His. Hajesty's Government. We think that the requisition might be brought to the electors and that it is unnecessary to force the electors to go to the requisition. That really is the point of difference between the noble Earl and ourselves. When the requisition has been signed, if it is signed by the right number, there is every opportunity for the voters who object to any of the schemes set forward to vote against it. If the promoters of the requisition are misguided in thinking there is a desire for a limiting resolution, then at the polling place the electors of the area will have an opportunity of expressing their opinion. In those circumstances, considering what full opportunity there is for them and what a large majority is necessary, I do not think it is an unfair thing to give those who are anxious for a reduction of licences this small favour, that the requisition should be taken to them rather than that they should be obliged to go to the place mentioned by the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Will the noble Earl deal with the question of canvassing which I mentioned?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The noble Earl referred to the question of canvassing, and this question was also referred to in another place. I have more respect for the electors of Scotland than to think that they would be willing, as the noble Earl imagines, to place their names to a requisition with which they did not agree. The noble Earl seems to think that the people of Scotland would willingly sign a requisition with which they did not agree. There I join issue with him. I think we may fairly trust the electors to put their names to the requisition if they think it desirable, but, if not, to refuse to do so.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I did not say that they would sign a paper with which they did not agree. What I said was that they might sign a paper in which they took no particular interest.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: It is satisfactory to observe that with regard to this Amendment the noble Earl in charge of the Bill has been able to meet my noble friend at any rate half way, but I would ask him to consider whether in regard to the other half of my noble friend's proposal there is any cause for the refusal which he has just given. The machinery provided by this clause really does seem to be contrived in the interest of a small number of busybodies and extremists who might desire to press this question of total prohibition upon the electorate. Under the clause one single elector can go to the clerk to the local authority, and, as I understand the Bill, the clerk has no right to refuse him a paper. He is obliged on request to issue these papers. Thereupon the single elector or the single elector and a few of his friends may go the round of the area, they may have a sort of house-to-house visitation, a sort of visitation which might very easily fade into something like persecution; and in time end they obtain a collection of signatures which nobody is able to verify at the moment, a number of which may be bogus signatures, and armed with these papers thus signed they are able to set the whole of the machinery of the Bill in motion. That seems to me a very untenable proposal. Take the counter proposal of my noble friend. Is there any hardship in asking people who feel strongly on this matter to go to the clerk's office and sign the papers there in circumstances which render it perfectly clear that the signature is a genuine one?
1120
I am bound to say that if my noble friend presses his Amendment I shall support him with a conviction of the soundness of his arguments.
LORD SALTOUN: I hope my noble friend will go to a Division on his Amendment. I do not wish to add anything to what has been already said, but it is obvious what would happen. A person taking a paper through a village or town would very easily get signatures from people who would not think what they were signing. To oblige a friend they would put their names down, and the whole thing would be clone without any thought. It is much better that, as suggested in the Amendment, the signing of the requisition should be done in the town clerk's office. I therefore hope my noble friend will press his Amendment.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): I fear, my Lords, it is impossible for His Majesty's Government to give way on this particular point. The noble Marquess opposite has stated that the procedure proposed in the Bill would give opportunities to a small number of busybodies to go round and either cajole or force the sufficient number of electors to join in a requisition for a poll. If that were so, those busybodies would entirely defeat their own object. The poll would take place, and ex hypothesi not sufficient interest would be taken by the voters to carry probably even a limiting resolution far less a no-licence resolution, and the only result of the busybodies' action would be that things would remain as they were until such period as a poll could be again taken—from their point of view a long interval. On the other hand, it undoubtedly will be held by a great number of people that the object of this Amendment being inserted in the Pill is to put a spoke in the wheel of taking a local option resolution at all. The idea will undoubtedly be held by many friends of temperance in Scotland that the object of the Amendment is to hamper the working of the Act by obliging people at some personal inconvenience to go in some cases possibly a considerable distance in order to make this preliminary inquiry whether they may not be allowed to exercise their local option right. I feel convinced that that would be taken by many to be the object of the noble Earl's Amendment, and for that reason it is impossible for His Majesty's Government to consent to it.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The noble Marquess who has just spoken has put to us the case of a certain few busybodies who succeed in getting a poll but discover at the poll that really they have no support. He said the busybodies would be acting against their own interests. But I put it to him that there is also the interest of the ratepayers. Here you will have an election for no purpose except to show that there are very few people in
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The next Amendment is consequential on the one just inserted.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 10, leave out from the second ("requisition") to ("shall") in line 13.—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I ask your Lordships to insert, after Clause 5, a new clause establishing a Scottish Licence Holders Central Insurance Board and also
favour of this proposal. I do not think the noble Marquess could have produced an instance which could tell more against himself than the one he has just produced. I shall venture to ask your Lordships to divide.
On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 44.

CONTENTS.

Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Sandhurst, L. (L. Chamberlain.)

Reay, L.

Crewe, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Rotherham, L.

Armitstead, L.

Rowallan, L.

Boston, L.

St. Davids, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Channing, L.

Shaw, L

Craven, E. [Teller.]

Colebrooke, L.

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

Russell, E.

Eversley, L.

Spencer, E.

Haversham, I..

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

Herschell, L. [Teller.]

MacDonnell, L.

Strachie, L.

Allendale, V.

Pontypridd, L.

Welby, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Devonshire, D.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Hindlip, L.

Marlborough, D.

Westmeath, E.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Kinnaird, L.

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Hampden, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Lansdowne, M.

Lawrence, L. [Teller.]

Linlithgow, M.

Ashbourne, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Salisbury, M.

Avebury, L.

Muskerry, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Oriel, L (V. Massereene.)

Camperdown, E. [Teller.]

Belper, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Cathcart, E.

Brave, L.

Plunket, L.

Cromer, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Redesdale, L.

Grey, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Lytton, E.

Colchester, L.

Saltoun, L.

Minto, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Sanderson, L.

Northesk, E.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.}

Shaftesbury, E.

Greville, L.

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

a mutual insurance association or associations. In explaining this clause it will be necessary for me to refer to Schedule III which stands in my name on the Order Paper, and if your Lordships will give me permission to do that you will be saved the trouble of a second speech from me. I wish, in the first place, to explain that this is a proposal for insurance and not one for compensation. Compensation, as we know, is frequent in the English Act, but the word "compensation" with reference to Scotland has been very much objected to, and I wish your Lordships to keep in mind that this is a clause absolutely for the purpose of insurance by the licence-holders for their own interests and in some degree to meet the loss which they may very probably incur under this Bill. This clause does not interfere in any way with the working of the Bill or the options

1123
given under it. In fact, it really may be almost said to be next to outside the Bill. That is common ground. It was admitted by the Government in another place, and I have no doubt the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will also admit it here.
This scheme, I may explain, is no proposal of mine. It is the joint product of the Scottish Licence Holders Mutual Insurance Association (the large mutual insurance association of the licensing trade and a voluntary association), and of the Scottish Licensing Trade Defence Association. I wish also to remind your Lordships that in this clause the Government are asked for no guarantee. Indeed, the Government are only once mentioned in the proposal, and that is when it is provided that the regulations made by tile central board are to be approved and confirmed by the Secretary for Scotland. The only thing that this clause does is to ask Parliament to place compulsion behind an insurance which is set up by the licence-holders themselves to meet the possible losses under the Act.
I may go at once, I think, to my proposed Schedule III, which contains the proposal of the clause. If your Lordships will look at Clause 1 of the schedule you will see that it provides that before May 28 after the passing of the Bill every holder of a certificate shall become a member of a mutual insurance association, and one of the objects of the association is to be the insuring of every member of the association against loss arising from the withdrawal of his certificate by reason of a resolution under this Bill. Then follows the numbers of the association according as the association consists of "on" or "off" licensees or the two combined. Then Clause 2 of the schedule provides that the application to become insured shall contain a declaration of the value (hereinafter called the "declared value") of the certificate to be insured and such further particulars as the association may require. I wish to say a word to your Lordships presently about declared value. The next point is the amount of the premium which is to be payable to the association by each of its members. The schedule standing in my name provides that the premium payable to an association in respect of the insurance of a certificate shall be an annual premium payable in advance and not exceeding ½ per centum
1124
of the declared value as the central board established under this schedule may determine. I call attention to these words because you will see that after the central board are called upon it will be their duty to lay down the principles upon which this declared value is to be based.
Clause 4 of the schedule establishes the central board, which is to consist of nine members, to be increased ultimately to a number not exceeding twenty-one. The first board is to hold office for not more than two years, and they are to be elected by certain trades and in a certain way. Then within three months of the passing of the Act the secretary of the Licensed Trade Defence Association shall receive nominations for membership and proceed to the election of a central board, and the way in which they are to be elected is set forth. Then we come to the duties of the central board. Clause 5 of the schedule provides that within twelve months of the passing of this Bill the central board are to make rules prescribing, among other things, (1) the principles on which the declared value of certificates is to be ascertained, and (2) the manner of subsequent election and the number of members of the board. That gives you the constitution of the central board and their duties. They are to make these rules, and every such rule is subject to the approval of the Secretary for Scotland. It is on this occasion, and on this occasion only, on which there is any mention of the Government in the scheme.
Then what is to be the income of the central board? Your Lordships will find that in Clause 6 of the schedule. It is there provided that on or before June 30 in each year every association shall pay to the central board 8s. 6d. per centum. That is 8s. 6d. out of the 10 s. which is the ½ per cent. they are allowed to levy for that purpose, and all this 8s. 6d. is to be paid by the association to the central board. Your Lordships will see, in subsection (2) of Clause 6 of the schedule, that the amounts received in respect of premiums paid by holders of certificates shall be carried by the central board to two separate accounts to be called respectively "The On-Licence Holders' Insurance Fund" and "The Off-Licence Holders' Insurance Fund." The central board will have the management of these funds and the investment thereof, and the whole of

1125
the said funds are to be applied to the payment of claims as provided by the Bill; and it is further provided that these two funds are to be kept separate, no portion of the on-licence holders' fund is to be applied to claims under the off-licence holders' fund, and vice versa.
Next comes the question of claims, and that is to be found in Clause 7 of the schedule, which provides that the claims payable by the central board to an association shall in no case exceed the declared values of certificates insured with such association; and then in the following subsection it is provided that if the available funds of the central board are insufficient the claims of the members of each association against each fund shall be proportionately abated. In Clause 8 you will find that where in any year the respective amounts paid over by the central board are insufficient, to enable an association to pay in full the respective claims of its "off" and "on" members, the directors of an association shall impose upon the on-licence holders or off-licence holders, as the case may require, a levy not exceeding 1½ per centum of the declared value in respect of which each member is insured; and if the proceeds of that levy are insufficient to pay in full the claims in respect of which it was made, the unpaid balance of the claims shall be carried forward for the two following years, and in each of those years, if necessary, the like levy shall be made. Then it is provided in Clause 8, subsection (3), that after the distribution in the third year all claims shall be deemed to have been discharged, so that a claim cannot run on for longer than three years. Those are the main features of the scheme, and that is all I think I need trouble your Lordships with on that subject at the present moment.
Your Lordships will see, first of all, that in this scheme compulsion is made universal, for a licence-holder must belong to an association. He must be liable in the first instance to a payment of ½ per cent., and he will be compulsorily liable. In order to justify compulsion I may mention to your Lordships that one of the two associations which is putting this scheme forward is a voluntary association which really conducts at the present time the whole voluntary insurance of the licensed trade in Scotland. When this scheme was first devised the Mutual was opposed
1126
to the scheme, but it has since come to see that it was impossible to work on any other than a compulsory system. The Mutual has therefore changed its mind and is now supporting this scheme, and is, in fact, the joint author of it, because it has been altered in several particulars to meet their wishes.
I now come to the question of declared value, about which said I would say a few words. In the first place, your Lordships must remember that this declared value—to which it is not at all unlikely that some persons may take exception because they may think that it may give rise to future claims—is only ad hoc. It is for the purpose of insurance, and is simply applied by the insured persons for their own benefit and for their own purposes only; it will have no force outside this insurance scheme, and also the principles upon which this declared value is to be fixed are to be settled by the central board subject to the approval of the Secretary for Scotland. It may reasonably be said that persons might be likely to put in a very high declared value for reasons of their own, but on the other hand your Lordships must remember that in the first instance they will have to pay on a high value their ½ per cent., and if subsequently further money is required they will be liable to a levy of a further 1½ per cent. by their own association. I am not going to trouble your Lordships with any detailed figures with regard to this scheme because I cannot give any, and, besides, I know your Lordships are not fond of having estimates as to probable results. But for the sake of argument let us suppose that the declared value of all the licences in Scotland is £10,000,000. A ½ per cent. on that will be £50,000, and that sum will be increased by the number of years of time limit which is inserted in this Bill. The time limit, of course, will not apply to the 1½ per cent. levy of the association. That is a matter entirely by itself. No doubt the noble Earl will tell me if I have omitted anything, but so far as I have been able to I think I have explained the scheme fairly fully to your Lordships.
Now what is the Government attitude with regard to this question of compulsory insurance? I have been at a loss to discover it. Hitherto they have behaved very much with regard to this question of compulsory insurance as the noble Earl

1127
in charge of the Bill did yesterday with regard to the case of disinterested management. They highly approve in words of compulsory insurance, but as soon as it comes to inserting it into the Bill they object to it altogether. Just let us see how the Lord Advocate treated this matter in the first instance. On the Second Reading of the Bill in the other House he said—
"The question of compulsory insurance has always presented itself to me in two aspects—first, as an indispensable act of justice to a dispossessed publican; and, secondly, as a method of smoothing the path to the passing of a no-licence resolution."
He could not speak more favourably than that. Yet afterwards in Committee he threw obstacles in the way of every proposal that was made. The Secretary for Scotland also opposed every scheme which was submitted, but on the Third Reading he stoutly maintained that he was not an enemy to compulsory insurance. He said—
"If the trade can prove to Parliament that compulsion is necessary, and that, if not the whole trade, a large majority are in favour of compulsory insurance, I not only would not view it with hostility but with a benevolent eye. It must not be said, therefore, that I am hostile to the trade insuring itself."
The trade is asking your Lordships to insert in the Bill this schedule which enables the trade to insure itself.
What have the Government's objections been in the other House to compulsory insurance? In the first place, it was said that this is not a complete or substantial indemnity. Those who have put forward this scheme have not pretended for a moment that it would furnish a complete indemnity; they do not even say that it will give a substantial indemnity; but what they do say is that whatever it amounts to, whether the amount of insurance be large or small, whatever the amount may be, to that extent it is an alleviation of the loss which the publicans will sustain if they are not insured. Then, in the next place, it has been said that if the Government allow this schedule to go into the Bill it will imply that the Government in some way or another guarantee the soundness or the solvency of the scheme. There is not one word said about the Government from beginning to end, and I venture to think that if the Government wish that it should be expressly stated that they have nothing to do with this, though I
1128
should think any such words entirely superfluous, I do not know that I should offer any objection to their insertion.
The third objection—and this really is the important one—was taken by the Lord Advocate. He said—
"Have we any figures to show that there really is a substantial majority of the trade in favour of this scheme?"
The two associations have done their best to ascertain what the feeling of the trade was. In the month of October, while the Bill was in the other House, they sent round a circular to the individuals in the trade. I may say that in Scotland there are 5,000 odd publicans, 1,600 odd hotel-keepers, and 3,600 odd grocers—in all there are 10,475 licensed persons in Scotland. A sort of plebiscite was addressed to the individual traders, and this was the circular—
"I am [or am not] in favour of a compulsory insurance scheme for the Scottish trade whereby licensees pay on their declared annual licence value a yearly premium for compensation, secured wholly or partly, as the fund will permit, to licensees losing their licences under the operation of this Bill."
In response to that plebiscite 3,778 publicans, hotel-keepers, and grocers—I can give your Lordships the relative numbers if you like—answered that they were in favour of such a scheme, and 436 said that they were not in favour. That was while the Bill was in the House of Commons. But after your Lordships had read the Bill a second time, on November 9 they issued another circular. This time they issued the circular to the associations, of which there are eighty-nine, and up to yesterday eighty-four replies had been received. The five associations from whom no reply was received have 140 members. Replies in favour of this scheme were received from seventy-nine associations with a membership of 7,575, and five associations with a membership of 535 replied that they were against it. Therefore these two bodies who are promoting this scheme have done their best to furnish to Parliament the information which Parliament desired. I must say it seems to me that so far as figures go, though we all know that figures are not always reliable, they have at all events proved this, that there really is a substantial majority of the trade in favour of this scheme. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause:
"Insurance of certificates.
"6.—(1) There shall be established in accordance with the provisions of the Third Schedule to this Act a Scottish Licence Holders Central Insurance Board and also a mutual insurance association or associations, and every holder of a certificate shall insure in one or other of such associations.
"(2) The insurance of certificates shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions set out in the Third Schedule to this Act, and the holder of any new certificate granted after the passing of this Act in respect of any premises which are not certificated at the time of the application for such grant, and not being premises in substitution for certificated premises from which a certificate is withdrawn, shall make the payments prescribed in the Third Schedule to this Act.
"(3) A person from whom a certificate is withdrawn in pursuance of a resolution under this Act may demand the declared value of the certificate insured by him in accordance with the scheme of insurance set forth in the Third Schedule to this Act, and may, subject to the provisions of such scheme, recover the moneys payable to him thereunder.
"(4) No excise licence for the sale by retail of excisable liquor shall be granted by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise or by any officer of Customs and Excise except upon the production by the person authorised to hold the licence of a receipt for the insurance of his certificate for the year to which the licence relates, and in the case of the holder of a new certificate, as described in Subsection (2) of this section, except upon the production also of a receipt for any payment then due from such person in accordance with the Third Schedule to this Act.
"(5) This section shall take effect as from the passing of this Act."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The noble Earl, in the course of the speech in which he has moved this Amendment, has, I think, fully explained to your Lordships the reasons which have led him to put it on the Notice Paper; and the researches which he has made in the debates in another place have also supplied him, I think, with most of the arguments with which I intended to reply. But there was one point on which I am disappointed he did not dilate. I had hoped to hear why in his opinion it was necessary that this insurance scheme should be a compulsory scheme, and why it should not have been a voluntary scheme. That was the point upon which His Majesty's Government laid very great stress, and upon which certainly, speaking for myself and I think for other members of your Lordships' House, we should have been glad to hear from the noble Earl a good deal more. That is really the point at issue between us.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I think I did say that the Mutual association, which is a voluntary association and was in the first instance opposed to the scheme, had found that it was impossible to proceed otherwise than by compulsion, and had conic round and was now actually promoting the scheme.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: That is the point. The noble Earl tells us they found it necessary, but he has not told us why they found it necessary.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I will tell you presently.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I do think that on this occasion, when the point at issue between us is just that point—whether or not this should be placed in the Bill as a compulsory insurance scheme—we should have been glad to hear more from the noble Earl on that particular point. In connection with this scheme I shall follow the example, which has been set on several occasions in discussing this Bill, of discussing at the same time the other Amendments connected with this Amendment and touch upon the schedule standing in the name of Lord Camperdown, which is an essential part of the noble Earl's scheme. There is an important point in that scheme to which I should like to draw attention in the first place, and that is that in Clause 9 the noble Earl proposes that the licence-hollers of new premises or those who get new certificates shall in future pay a capital sum equivalent to the capital value of the licence—that is to say, the monopoly value of the new licence. It is interesting to notice to whom the noble Earl says that this sum shall be paid. Under his scheme it is to be paid into the compensation fund, but in England the monopoly value of a new licence is payable to the Exchequer. The noble Earl, therefore, is asking your Lordships to agree to a step which I think is somewhat extreme so far as it goes and beyond anything which temperance reformers in England would agree to. He suggests that this monopoly value should go to the trade rather than to the Exchequer, as it does in England at the present time.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: No, no.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The noble Earl in Clause 9 of his proposed schedule says that the value of the new certificate is to be paid into the central assurance fund.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I omitted any reference to Clause 9 purposely, because that refers only to a particular case. The scheme itself is exclusive of Clause 9. And might I point out that owing to the change which your Lordships made yesterday this particular clause will have to be reconsidered, or rather there must be something put into the Bill to make Clause 9 harmonise with the rest of the Bill. Clause 9 of the schedule, to which the noble Earl is alluding, refers to a particular case—"the holder of a new certificate for premises not certified at the time of the application." It has nothing to do with the insurance fund, which is the real object of this scheme.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: There is no point of difference, as I understand, between us. It is perfectly clear that under Clause 9 this sum of money is to be paid into the insurance fund. That is all I was urging, and I was drawing the distinction between what he proposes should be done in Scotland and what is dome at the present moment in England. If the noble Earl thinks that some further Amendment is necessary in view of what was done in Committee last night, he will no doubt withdraw this particular clause when we come to the schedule and bring it up in a new form on Report.
There is a still more important point to which I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships. The insured person, as the noble Earl told us, may demand the declared value of the certificate insured by him, and the noble Earl explained that that was an ad hoc term which had no force outside this insurance scheme. I agree with the noble Earl, and I rather doubt whether it will have much force inside the insurance scheme either, because there is no provision that the insured person will receive either the declared value itself or anything like it. The noble Earl has himself recognised that, because at the end of Clause 3 he uses another term. He says there that the licence-holder may, subject to the provisions of the scheme, recover, not the declared value, but the moneys payable to him thereunder. Not only in the Bill itself but also in the plebiscite which was
1132
submitted to the licence-holders in Scotland it might have been made rather clearer that although they were to insure for the declared value there was no certainty of any sort or kind that they would receive anything like it under the noble Earl's scheme. I confess that after the last Amendment on which we voted I was rather shocked to hear of the plebiscite to which the noble Earl referred. He sent postcards round to the licence-holders. I should have expected after what he said on the last Amendment that he would have—
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: It was the association who did it, not I.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I should have thought, after what the noble Earl said on the last Amendment, that he would not have approved but would have disapproved of postcards being sent round to the individuals concerned, and would have expected that they should have been required to go and sign the plebiscite in some almost inaccessible place perhaps several miles away from their residence. But circumstances alter cases. What is good enough for licence-holders and convenient for them is not to be the system applied when it is a case of reducing licences under the Bill. Then we come to the quotation which the noble Earl has made from what was said by my right hon. friend on this question of insurance. His Majesty's Government have no objection to a scheme of voluntary insurance, and in view of the large numbers who, as the noble Earl tells us, are in favour of the scheme I cannot see any difficulty in getting a Private Bill which would secure the institution of such a fund as the noble Earl desires. If a Bill of that kind were promoted there would be every opportunity for those who objected to come forward, but as we understand from the noble Earl there would be exceedingly few, if any, objectors. I fail to see in these circumstances why the voluntary system should not be of equal value, at any rate, to the compulsory one. I would suggest to the noble Earl that it would then become more obvious that what they would be likely to receive under the insurance scheme would be nothing like the declared value of which he has already told us.
It is perfectly true, as the noble Earl himself said, that insurance is not compensation nor anything like compensation,

1133
and it would have been of very much greater service to all those concerned if, in suggesting a scheme of compulsory insurance, the association to which the noble Earl referred had also allowed the licence-holders to have some idea of the amount which they were likely to receive. His Majesty's Government cannot deny that if a compulsory scheme of this kind is put into the Act there would be at any rate a moral expectation on the part of those who insured under it that they would receive something like the full value of their licences. We do not believe that it is possible for them to get anything like it under the figures which have been suggested at various times, and in those circumstances His Majesty's Government feel that there would be, rightly or wrongly, an expectation on the part of the licence-holders that His Majesty's Government would come to their rescue and out of the funds at their disposal make up the difference between the two sums. That, of course, is a position which it is quite impossible for His Majesty's Government to accept.
There is another danger that I referred to yesterday, though the noble Marquess opposite, Lord Salisbury, did not seem to think it a serious matter—that is with reference to reduction. It is that reduction is to become conditional on there being an adequate amount of compensation in the funds. That was the point yesterday. I think it is not unfair to say that there would be a general unwillingness to further this scheme of reduction if expectations had been held out of a considerable sum being given under this insurance scheme, and that there was no prospect of a reasonable sum being received under the scheme itself. In those circumstances the mere fact that there was not enough money in the insurance fund to compensate might easily act as a deterrent to this matter of reduction. Then there is the influence of the scheme upon disinterested management, upon which, I hope, we may hear something from noble Lords who are well qualified to speak of the burden it would place on their funds. But so far as His Majesty's Government, are concerned, with their readiness to support the voluntary scheme they are unable to agree to this, because, in their opinion, it would not give such a real and substantial compensation as would be necessary if His Majesty's Government were concerned in the scheme at all.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: There is one question that I would like to ask my noble friend Lord Camperdown. It arises out of the speech we have heard from the noble Earl who has just spoken. He repeatedly stated that under this scheme the declared value of the licence would not be obtained by the licence-holder who resorted to this fund. I am not sure that I quite understand the noble Earl's Amendment. If your Lordships will turn to subsection (3) of Lord Camperdown's Amendment you will see it there stated—
"A person from whom a certificate is withdrawn in pursuance of a resolution under this Act may demand the declared value of the certificate."
Then if you turn s to the proposed Schedule III further on you will see in subsection (2) (if Clause 7—
"If the available fun is of the central board are insufficient, the claims of the members of each association against each fund shall be proportionately abated."
That bears out what was said by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill just now, that though the licence-holder may demand the full declared value of the licence, if the funds are insufficient he shall not receive the full amount. Then we pass on to Clause 8 of Lord Camperdown's proposed schedule, where provision is made for a special ad hoc levy in those cases where the main fund is not sufficient to supply the whole amount, and at the bottom of the page—subsection (2)—we are told, "If the proceeds of the levy"—I suppose this refers to the special ad hoc levy?
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Yes.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The subsection runs—
"If the proceeds of the levy are insufficient to pay in full the claims in respect of which it was made, the unpaid balance of the claims shall be carried forward for the two following years, and in each of these years, if necessary, the like levy shall be made and the proceeds thereof shall be applied to the payment of all outstanding claims."
I am afraid that under this arrangement you will be placing upon the funds in each year a lien in respect of unpaid funds of one or two years' standing in the past. It seems to me that this subsection of the noble Earl's schedule is designed to enable the holder of the certificate who loses his certificate under a reduction resolution to obtain his declared value, if not by the insurance fund, at any rate by the ad hoc fund which will be raised under Clause 8.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: So far as the special levy of the three years will do it.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: What I am afraid of is this, that if you place this burden, if I may call it so, upon the insurance fund in respect of claims of past years you will be approaching to the position we are in in England with regard to the Compensation Act—you will only be able to carry out the payments if the funds are forthcoming. As I understood the main object of the insurance scheme proposed by my noble friend, if the funds are not there the claim would have to be abated and the holder of the certificate would only receive what money was available. Therefore I should like some explanation of the meaning of this unpaid balance which is to run for two years, and which will apparently become rather a severe burden on the general insurance fund set up by the Amendment.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I do not know whether your Lordships wish me to answer the question of the noble Earl now or postpone it. Of course this is a question with regard to a matter of detail in the scheme and does not refer to the scheme as a whole. I think it would work in this way. The central fund, in the first place, would be possessed of 8s. 6d., which is divided among the on-licence holders' fund and the off-licence holders' fund, and, of course, the respective amount due to the associations under each. To that extent they would be able to call on their individual fund. Supposing the central fund to be insufficient to pay the whole, then there would be a special levy by the particular association of 1½ per cent. on its members. If that was not sufficient to pay the whole in the first year a similar levy would be made in the second, and if the same thing continued a similar assessment would be made in the third year. If by the third assessment the matter were not completely paid off then all liability would cease. But your Lordships will remember it had never been contended by the persons who put forward this scheme—speaking of the scheme as a whole—that it was a complete relief. All that they said was that so far as the money went it would be a relief. It is a matter, of course, affecting the whole trade, and the trade who put this forward are content with
1136
it, and if they are content with it I do not see that the fact that it is not sufficient to pay twenty shillings in the pound is any reason why your Lordships should not allow them to have that which they say they wish to have.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the confusion into which one or two members of your Lordships' House seem for a moment to have fallen has arisen through the mistake of drawing any analogy whatever between the scheme which has been submitted by my noble friend and the scheme in the English Act. They proceed from a totally different basis. I noticed that even the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, who is a master of this subject, fell into that very mistake. The system under the English Act is this. You have a certain sum of money, and you are only allowed to take away licences so far as that money goes. The amount of the money limits the number of licences that you can take away. That is the provision of the Act of Parliament with which those of us who sit on licensing committees are very familiar. Here it is directly the contrary. The authorities take away what licences they like up to any figure, and the insurance is made to go as far as the insurance will go. If there are a great many licences taken away then there will be less money paid by way of insurance. That necessarily must be so. If there are fewer licences taken away then there will be more money available.
But in any case those who take away the licences—that is the electors under the Bill we are discussing—will not be limited in any degree. They may take away under that very absurd limiting resolution, which is fixed at 25 per cent., the 25 per cent., or they may take away all the licences under a no-licence resolution, or under the decision of your Lordships yesterday they may hand over a certain number of licences to disinterested management. They may do anything they like. They have an absolutely free hand, and are not limited or hampered in the least degree by the amount of money there may be in the insurance fund. After that has been decided you say to the insurance fund, "To what extent can you pay the declared value of these particular licences?" and as far as that money will go so it will be used. That is the scheme

1137
of my noble friend. There is a provision that if the central fund is not sufficient then the claim must be abated. Then when you go to the local fund, if you find that the levy of 1½ per cent. in three successive years is not sufficient, in that case the unfortunate dispossessed licensee must do without the balance of his insurance. That is the provision. Of course it is an unfortunate and unjust position, but beggars cannot be choosers. Those whom my noble friend represents have not got the money for the full value of the licences, and therefore they have to go short.
I should have thought that the pitiful position in which the rejected licensees are placed would have moved the pity of the noble Earl. On the contrary, he did not seem to think that it mattered in the least whether they got any money or not. The noble Earl opposite used the word "compensation," but the insurance money imposed by my noble friend is not sufficient for these licensees. Therefore, say the Government, sitting comfortably on their Benches and enjoying their salaries, "These people shall have nothing at all, they can go without; or perhaps a Private Bill can be brought in a little later, and that may get through." That is, I think, a very ungenerous way of treating this matter. These licensees are really deserving of pity. It may be in the public interest in Scotland for the licences to be reduced, but I certainly think it is a great pity that these men who have been earning an honest living up till now should be rejected without any means of compensation. My noble friend comes forward and produces a scheme which provides perhaps half of what they might be expected to get, and yet the Government will not meet us. They have, on every Amendment proposed to meet this, found what they consider to be excellent reasons for doing nothing at all. I am sure that what the noble Earl has said does not represent his real sentiments; he has only been putting forward official sentiments. I hope that when he comes to consider this important point he will see that this is a matter that deserves consideration, and I trust that the Government may be able to find some scheme which will help these unfortunate people. It appears from my noble friend's statement that this scheme has the consent of the vast majority of the persons concerned. Therefore as regards the details as affecting them we
1138
have not a very grave responsibility as to their particular form. The persons interested have considered them and have come to a conclusion by a vast majority—70 per cent., I think, of the whole of the licence-holders in Scotland—that they are satisfied with this scheme; and as to the balance of 30 per cent., I think I am accurate in saying that a large number of them have not voted against the scheme but have merely refrained from voting at all. Therefore I think we are absolved from looking at the details too closely. As long as the interested persons are satisfied surely that ought to be sufficient.
I have only one word more to say, and that is about disinterested management. Undoubtedly if your Lordships think well to assent to this particular provision the Amendment concerning disinterested management to which we agreed last night will have to be to some extent modified, and I undertake myself to propose to your Lordships at a future stage as to how it should be modified. I do not think that it will want much, but it will want certain modification in order to bring it into line with this scheme, and if your Lordships will allow me I will produce that at the next stage of the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): The noble Marquess has made an appeal to the Government to consider this Amendment more favourably than they have done up to this point, and has based that appeal upon the suggestion that we are hard and flinty hearted and have not considered the position of the unfortunate licence-holder who would be benefited by this scheme. The ground upon which we object to this scheme is a totally different one from that which the noble Marquess has put. We object to it because we think it is a thoroughly unworkable proposition, and as wholly unprecedented a thing to introduce into a Bill of this kind as has ever come within our experience. In the course of this discussion nearly every speaker has stumbled from the expression "insurance" into "compensation." It is quite natural and proper that the stumble should have been made, because this is really an attempt, and a very inadequate attempt, at compensation. What is the position of the licence-holder if this Bill passes? He runs a risk which it is not possible to estimate on an ordinary insurance footing. There is and there can

1139
be no experience which will tell what the value of the risk he is running will be, and consequently there is no basis on which any premium can be calculated.
The noble Earl who introduced the scheme told us almost pathetically of the difficulties there were in getting any scheme from the licence-holders. At first the vast majority said nothing. That is what I would expect. Of those who did say anything a large majority were for the scheme. There were also a small number of dissentients. But the vast majority said nothing, and I gather that still a very large proportion have said nothing. And how could they say anything? How can any man tell whether it is or is not worth while from a business point of view going into this matter? There is one thing I can tell with great certainty, and it is a thing which weighs very much in the mind of the Government. When you have what has been called an insurance proposal, but what is not insurance at all, brought forward and put in the schedule of an Act of Parliament and made compulsory, then as surely as we are here to-night so surely will the unfortunate person who applies for it—and he will be unfortunate because we are told that there will very likely be no money available—reproach the Government for having put in an Act of Parliament guarantees which have not been fulfilled. The licence-holder is apt to say, "I never had time to look into your legal quibbles; all I know is that the Government thought fit to put a provision in this Act of Parliament giving compensation to me, and I am here expecting to have the guarantee of the State made good." It is no use saying, "If you look at the terms of the guarantee you will find on the face of them, although they are so confusing, that you could not expect you would be compensated." You will never get out of being told that you have taken upon yourselves the principle of compensating these unfortunate people, and if the fund is insufficient they will say, "That is not the fault of the insurers; they were compelled to come in, and if it was not a businesslike scheme you, the Government, ought to make it good, having passed it." That is why we object to it. I believe that it is thoroughly unworkable. I have never seen anything like it in any Act of Parliament of which I have had any experience, and so surely as you embark on this plan so surely in the days to come will you rue it. Speaking for
1140
myself and my colleagues we should be glad to see these licence-holders insuring themselves in some voluntary society, but we feel that the responsibility is too great, and too uncertain, to admit of our putting compulsory provisions into a Bill of this kind.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I wish to put a question to the noble Earl who has moved the Amendment. It seems to me that there are associations in the schedule which might amount possibly to ten for all Scotland, taking it roughly. It might be fewer; but so far as I can make out from the schedule these associations do not really control the expenditure of the money. If I understand it aright, the money when raised—first of all the 10 s., and afterwards the 30 s.—would be pooled and placed at the disposal of the central board for distribution.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: No.
LORD SHEFFIELD: Would the fund of each association belong to the association?
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Does the noble Lord wish me to explain at once?
LORD SHEFFIELD: Yes, I would be very glad if the noble Earl would do so.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The 8s. 6d. will be dispensed by the central board, but the levies which are subsequently found necessary by the associations will, of course, be expended by the associations in defraying the debts—I will call them by that word—which are still incumbent on the association.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I understand, then, that it will be a kind of dual fund?
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Yes.
LORD SHEFFIELD: First of all the 8s. 6d. will be in the control of the central board?
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Quite so.
LORD SHEFFIELD: But if a particular district or association had heavier calls because its houses were closed more than others the association would levy the 30 s. among its own members to meet the liabilities of its own group. I understand that now perfectly well. Really this scheme is not an insurance; it is a tax. It is not a voluntary association of people who come in of their own accord to make provision against risk. It is a statutory obligation imposed not only on people in the trade but on any one who may hereafter go into the trade. I say nothing about subsection (9) as to intercepting all the monopoly value of the new licence. It was dropped that would not affect the scheme, but possibly deprive the association of paying a large perquisite. I am speaking of the scheme excluding subsection (9). It seems to me reasonable that persons should associate themselves together to make provision against risk, but it is quite another thing for a group of existing holders who are the people most interested to ask Parliament that every one who hereafter comes into the trade shall be compelled to contribute. It is important to consider the case of disinterested management, which many of us are most anxious to see a success. Obviously the disinterested management managers are bound to make a very small dividend—4 per cent.—and if these houses are set up in accordance with a popular vote they probably would be popular in the district, and a district satisfied with disinterested management would not be likely to abolish it. But you are going to levy a tax which will fall unequally. It will fall on people who are running no risk in order to indemnify people who run a heavy risk. There are districts in Scotland where landowners hold large estates, some of them whole parishes and some even a whole county, where the conditions are totally different. Yet you are proposing to impose a compulsory tax on those places and on those public-houses which run no risk in order to guarantee towns like Glasgow and other towns such as Lord Balfour of Burleigh mentioned, where great risks are run. You are going to tax the well-conducted districts in order to compensate the badly-conducted districts. I can see no justification for this House imposing a tax not only on present holders but all future holders merely to enable people who have pushed their trade in a reckless way to compensate themselves
1142
against the risks they will run when the community can manage their own affairs.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Marquess opposite made a rather careful legal case at the beginning of his speech as to what this insurance scheme covered, but is he sure that he did not rather discount his case by the sentimental appeal with which he followed it? He said he wondered why the Government were not willing to assent to the scheme, and that they had no sympathy for the poor licence-holders who would be deprived of their living. That is exactly what the noble Earl in charge of the Bill informed the House that the Government feared might happen under these provisions. They were afraid, if once you put an insurance scheme in the Bill, that when you came to an election you would have the representatives of the trade up and down the country saying, "You are not going to take away our licences because there is not a sufficient insurance fund to meet the reduction." The noble Marquess put that very case.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Does not the noble Earl feel it too?
EARL RUSSELL: No, I say frankly I do not in the case of Scotland. I understand that in Scotland they merely have a yearly licence and therefore this five years notice is ample for them. The noble Marquess said at the beginning of his speech that this scheme does not profess to give full compensation. But I think he had to admit that there might be a sentimental feeling when you come to an election. Of course, the fund available will be known. People will be told that it is a compulsory insurance scheme imposed by an Act passed by His Majesty's Government. These men will say that a Government Act of Parliament has imposed upon them this compulsory levy and yet the Government do not guarantee the benefits under it. I should like to know what the noble Marquess will say about that. I think I am right in saying that it is perfectly true that under the Insurance Act the Government do not guarantee the benefits. I should like to hear something from the Benches opposite as to what in their view would happen if when that Act were to come into operation the Government were to repudiate all those benefits. Here you have a scheme under which a tax is levied upon everybody. How can any

1143
responsible Government take the responsibility of that scheme when it is admitted by its author that it is actuarily unsound? It seems to me if you were to put in the Act in capital letters, "This scheme does not give compensation and it will not pay 20 s. in the £," you would be stating what is the actual fact. You could not do that. I do not think the noble Marquess himself would like to issue a circular to the electors saying, "This is an insurance scheme but we cannot hold out any hope and you must not expect it to be realised."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Of course, they must be told the truth, and if they are told the truth we must stand by it.
EARL RUSSELL: I dare say the noble Marquess knows what has happened in the case of the Insurance Act about telling the people the truth, and I have no reason for thinking that the same thing would not occur in this case. There is one other point to which I should like to call the attention of the House, with regard to the flat rate, as it is called, in insurance. Everybody in this case has to pay 10 s. per cent., but it must be remembered that there are houses so conducted that they would be more likely to lose their licence than others. There are houses situated in certain quarters of the town which almost necessarily from their surroundings must be frequented by more or less undesirable people and their licences are consequently in greater danger than is the case in regard to houses situated in more favourable districts. I doubt, therefore, whether a voluntary insurance company would take in all public-houses at a flat rate, and if they refused to do that you would be inflicting a burden upon the better houses by imposing a flat rate and not taxing more heavily the houses that run a greater risk of losing their licence.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The speech of the noble and learned Viscount, who I notice has now left the House, served, if I may say so, to unmask the position of His Majesty's Government with regard to this important question. He objected to the proposal of my noble friend Lord Camperdown, and, so far as I was able to follow him, entirely on the ground that it would be difficult to work. No hint fell from him or from any of those who sit beside him that they would
1144
endeavour to make it workable. Why does the noble and learned Viscount tell us that the scheme is an unworkable scheme? Because he anticipates that if this insurance should prove to be insufficient to fully indemnify the licence-holder for his licence there will arise a general feeling of dissatisfaction and His Majesty's Government will be criticised for having touched the question of insurance at all and having failed to provide an adequate insurance. That, I think, was the argument of the noble and learned Viscount. It comes then to this, that sooner than attempt to make my noble friend's scheme a workable scheme His Majesty's Government are content to leave these dispossessed licence-holders face to face with the cruel injustice which we believe will be done to them under this Bill. That is a point on which we differ fundamentally from noble Lords opposite. They refuse to admit, because that is really what it comes to, the extent of the wrong which is done to these people who will lose their licences.
The noble Earl on the Back Bench repeated again just now the statement that all that these licence-holders possessed was a yearly licence. I am not going to labour that point again. It has been dealt with repeatedly. Every one with the slightest justice and fairness in his character must know that these men own something more than a mere yearly licence. I could quote to the House the sayings of Ministers and learned Judges in confirmation of that view. I will content myself by quoting a single sentence from a speech lately delivered by the Lord Advocate. The Lord Advocate, speaking of this question of insurance, said that it was in his view "an indispensable act of justice to the dispossessed publican." Does not that answer the suggestion that a voluntary scheme of insurance would be sufficient? If this amount of satisfaction is "indispensable," it will not do, surely, to leave the matter to chance. He went on to say that it was "a method of smoothing the path for a no-licence resolution." Therefore it comes to this, that in the view of the Lord Advocate justice required it and expediency required it. With regard to the criticism that the insurance will be an incomplete insurance, is it seriously contended that these dispossessed licensees who will really under this Bill lose almost everything they have in the world, will not prefer compensation—I call it that for

1145
want of a better word—to some extent rather than have no compensation at all when they lose their licences? As to the statement that the licensees will expect to receive the full value of their interest, surely we are justified in saying that these people are not so absolutely foolish and ill-informed as to the circumstances under which this legislation is taking place as to be led to believe that by the introduction of a scheme of this kind they are to receive 20 s. in the £.
My noble friend Lord Camperdown mentioned the fact that a kind of plebiscite had been had and a circular had been addressed to all the associations in Scotland. In that circular the position was fully explained. I will read the words again. The recipient of the paper which was sent out was asked to sign this document—
"I am in favour of a compulsory insurance scheme for the Scottish trade whereby licensees pay on their declared licence value a yearly premium for compensation secured wholly or partly as the fund will permit."
There is an explicit explanation to these associations that the amount of the insurance might not be sufficient to indemnify them fully. To my mind it is a remarkable thing that the representatives of the trade having been fully seized of the question and with this circular before them should, as your Lordships have been told this evening, by this immense majority have declared in favour of a scheme of compulsory insurance. I think we should greatly fail in our duty to those who will be affected by this Bill if we did not attempt at any rate to mitigate the great hardship that will be done to them by inserting in the Bill a clause of this kind.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I hope the House will allow me to say a word or two before a Division is taken with regard to this matter. I rise with very great diffidence because I cannot profess to have such information or knowledge as justifies me in expressing a very decided opinion on the matters in the schedule, which, of course, we are discussing along with this particular Amendment. In my opinion it would be extremely desirable that there should be an insurance scheme, but the difficulty I have in the matter is how it will work out under compulsion. I will endeavour in a word or two to explain my difficulty,
1146
and perhaps the noble Earl who has made himself responsible for the scheme will do what he can to answer the point which I shall endeavour to put to him. Everybody who knows anything about licences in Scotland knows that they are of very varying value. There are some of them high-class country houses which I do not believe even under a popular vote would be interfered with. There are others, mostly, I think, in the urban districts but also in some country districts, which are not so well managed and which do run a certain amount of risk of their licences being arbitrarily taken away in any circumstances. This is to be a compulsory scheme; everybody is to come into it, and, as far as I understand, the only test of the value which is to be put for any particular house is what the holder of the licence declares to be the value. As I understand, there is no check upon his declaration at all. The only check is the fear of having to pay too high a premium.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The central board is to lay down the principles on which the declared value is to be estimated.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: That may be so, but can they enforce those principles? The difficulty I have about it is that it is to be compulsory insurance, and the prime thing certainly is declared value. I have only been able to study it myself; I have not been able to take any advice on the subject; but as far as I read the schedule the only real test is the declaration of value by the holder of the licence. I do not see any provision for any authority to tell the holder of the licence that he has declared too high a value. I suggest to the House-and to the promoters of this scheme that that is not a sufficient test for the lowest class of house. I believe that the temptation of the owner of the worst class of house will be to declare a high value, and he will not mind paying a biggish premium for a year or two. Even though he will probably not cover the whole value of his licence he will stand to lose much less than the other man, because he will put on a very high value, and if the thing goes he will get either that value or a large proportion of it out of the insurance fund or out of the compulsory levy. If that

1147
is so, you are going to put by trade organisation a compulsory levy on the well-managed house for the benefit of the fellow who has brought the whole trade into disrepute. It is on that ground that I dislike the idea of compulsion. I should like to see an insurance scheme, but I am afraid it will have to be voluntary, and possibly that may, to a large extent, create greater difficulties in getting a sufficient area to pay an insurance fund. The idea, to my mind, of insurance is that the person who pays the premium should pay a sufficient premium to cover the risk which is run. My fear under this schedule as I read it is that the man who will run the risk of having his licence taken away will not be the man who will find the insurance which will have to he paid to him, and therefore as at present advised I should gravely doubt the wisdom of putting the scheme exactly as it stands in the Bill.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Perhaps I ought to say a few words in reply to what has been said on the other side of the House. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill said he rather expected me to have said more about the voluntary principle. In the first place I did say that the only voluntary association which there is, and which insures a considerable portion of the trade at the present time, had found that the voluntary system did not succeed, and that it had changed its mind and so far from upholding the voluntary principle had become part author of this scheme. All through this debate the main subject has been lost sight of, which is this—that this insurance scheme is an insurance by a trade for itself. It is not to receive any money from the public. It is simply a question of insuring members of the trade by themselves, and for their own benefit. As for saying it will not pay 20s. in the £, nobody has ever said that it would.
All that they ever said is that they, who are the only persons interested, are satisfied with the scheme to this extent, that they believe it will do them good. The Lord Chancellor said that the Government might be expected to make this scheme good. Of course, persons may expect, but when nothing is said in the scheme and no mention whatsoever of the Government is made is it likely that the Government could be expected to, or that they would, guarantee the scheme? The trade is only asking you to enable them to apply compulsion, and the reason for applying compulsion is surely tolerably obvious. I am certain if any of your Lordships said, "Here is a splendid principle," many would say, "Oh yes, the principle is all right"; but when you went round to collect subscriptions you would find that a great many persons who were particularly in favour of the principle were not very liberal with their subscriptions. That is the reason why compulsion is proposed in this case. With regard to what Lord Balfour said as to the levy, it is stated in the scheme that the central board is to make rules providing the principles on which the declared value of the certificates is to be ascertained. Those rules will be subject to the approval of the Secretary for Scotland. I imagine that in considering the declared values which are put in the association will, of course, require that those declared values are made in accordance with the principles which the central board lay down. I do not wish to occupy your Lordships' time further. I do not think that anything else has been said to which a reply is necessary.
On Question?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 31.

CONTENTS.

Devonshire, D.

Londesborough, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton)

Marlborough, D.

Minto, E.

Colchester, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Greville, L.

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Hindlip, L.

Camden, M.

St. Aldwyn, V.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Lansdowne, M.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Linlithgow, M.

Lawrence, L. [Teller.]

Salisbury, M.

Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

Bangor, L. Bp.

Saltoun, L.

Camperdown, E. [Teller.]

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

Cathcart, E.

Ashbourne, L.

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

Denbigh, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Allendale, V.

MacDonnell, L.

Crewe, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Monkswell, L.

Sandhurst, L. (L. Chamberlain.)

Pontypridd, L.

Reay, L.

Chesterfield, E. (L. Steward.)

Armitstead, L.

St. Davids, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Ashby St. Ledgers, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Chichester, E.

Boston, L.

Shaw, L.

Craven, E. [Teller.]

Channing, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L (L. Sheffield.)

Russell, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Haversham, L.

Strachie, L.

Spencer, E.

Herschell, L. [Teller.]

Tenterden, L.

Westmeath, E.

Lucas, L.

Weardale, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment rejected accordingly.
EARL GREY: I hope the noble Earl in charge of the Bill may be able to accept the Amendment that stands in my name. The object of my new clause is to compel the Licensing Court to give any new licence which it may think desirable should be created to an authorised society under conditions approved by the Secretary for Scotland. In other words, what this Amendment means is that where a Licensing Court think a new licence should be created it should, wherever possible, be given to a disinterested management company so that the licence may he managed in the interests of the public and not of the publican, or brewer, or distiller. I do not think I need occupy any time of the House in giving reasons for this Amendment. If you go to Scandinavia, Norway or Sweden, you will find that the people there regard with absolute horror the idea of any licence being handed over to a private owner to be rim for his own benefit. The objection that the advocates of disinterested management have to the present system is that these monopoly houses are allowed under the present licensing law to be conducted in the interests of the publican, the brewer, and the distiller, while the interests of the public are not sufficiently safeguarded or considered. This Amendment which I venture to submit to the attention of your Lordships would make it impossible for a Licensing Court, when it thinks a new licence should be granted in the interests of the public, to grant the new licence except upon the condition that it shall be managed not in the interests of the trade but in the interests of the people. I therefore hope that the noble Earl, as it does not interfere with the option part of his Bill at all, may be disposed to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause:
"New Licences.
"6. Where the licensing court is of opinion that a new licence is required in any area where neither a "no-licence" resolution nor a limiting resolution is in force and in the event of an authorised public company constituted for the purposes of this Act being prepared to apply for and manage the said new licence the licensing court shall (subject to such procedure and conditions as may be prescribed by the Secretary for Scotland) grant a certificate for such new licence to the said authorised public company, but to no other applicant."—(Earl Grey.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Although His Majesty's Government cannot accept this proposed new clause we shall certainly not put your Lordships to the trouble of dividing on the subject in view of the decision which was come to yesterday on the general question of disinterested management. I shall content myself, therefore, with pointing out sonic of the difficulties into which the noble Earl will place the authors of the disinterested management resolution by the adoption of this Amendment. The proposed clause, as your Lordships will see, is to operate in every case except where a no-licence or a limiting resolution is in force. It will therefore operate in an area which may have expressly refused to have disinterested management within its area. So far as the wording goes, the proposal will also operate in districts where a disinterested management resolution has been carried, and if so it is in our opinion inconsistent with the provisions of the clause of the noble Marquess opposite which was carried yesterday, to the effect that in that case no new licence can be granted except to an authorised public company. We are of opinion that even if your Lordships accept this Amendment to-night it will probably be necessary to make some revisions on Report.
Clause6:
Structural Alterations.
6. As from the passing of this Act, and until the first day of June nineteen hundred and seventeen, it shall not be competent for a licensing court to order any structural alterations of licensed premises under section forty-two, subsection (3), of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I think that my Amendment to this clause is consequential on what was done last night. As the words stand, it is from June 1, 1917. That was five years from June 1, 1912; but as the period has been altered from five to fourteen years I think the words which I propose become necessary.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, lines 18 and 19, leave out ("day of June nineteen hundred and seventeen") and insert ("earliest date when resolutions under the provisions of this Act Can come into operation").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: May I ask for some explanation of this clause? I do not understand the reason for the limiting words, "and until the first day of June nineteen hundred and seventeen," or the words proposed by the noble Earl below the Gangway. If I am right in supposing that the intention of the clause is to take away the power of a Licensing Court to order structural alterations during the five years because at the end of those five years the licence may be taken away from the licensed premises and therefore it would be unfair on the licence-holder that he should be required to make such alterations at perhaps considerable expense, why does not the same rule apply to similar orders after the five years have expired? Of course at any time after the five years are over it is possible for a no-licence resolution to be carried and for the licence to be taken away, and therefore the position would be still the same after the five years as during the five years. The licence-holder would be compelled by the Licensing Court to expend money in making alterations which would really be valueless. Why should there be any limitation of time?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The noble Viscount has quite accurately stated the object of the clause in this Bill. Surely the position would be this. If we did not allow the Licensing Court to order these structural alterations at the expiration of
1152
the five years they would not be able to do it at all, and then no structural alterations would ever be possible in any of these public-houses. That seems to me to place the Licensing Court in a position of difficulty such as obviously your Lordships would not wish them to be in. The Licensing Court should not, we think, have power to order structural alterations during the five years in which, under the scheme of the Bill, it was impossible for these resolutions to be put to local vote. It was thought fair that the trade should not be asked to make structural alterations during that period. Whether further alterations should not be made in the clause through postponing the operation of the Act for fourteen years is, I think, a matter for further consideration. But I would venture to say to the noble Earl that the phrase "earliest date" seems a very vague description, because it might mean the 28th day of May in the first year after the expiry of the postponed period. It might, on the other hand, mean the date on which the resolution in a particular area should come into operation, and if no resolution were ever passed the power to order structural alterations would in that case be indefinitely postponed, so you would once more have the Licensing Court in the position of being unable to order the alterations.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I do not think the noble Earl has met my case. There would be an injustice in the Licensing Court ordering expensive alterations if at the end of, say, five years the licence was taken away. That he admits by the clause. The injustice would be greater after thirteen years had expired because then the licence might be taken away the very next year after the Licensing Court had ordered expensive alterations. Surely the same rule of justice ought to apply to all time. I grant that it takes away the power from the Licensing Court of ordering alterations, but that seems to me necessary in a Bill which enables a licensing authority to take away the licence altogether.
LORD SHEFFIELD: Does not the law still keep alive the power of the present licensing authority to refuse a licence irrespective of the general body of the people every three years? I suppose if that is so it is more a matter of form than of substance, because if the justices or

1153
whoever the people are who sit in licensing Session find premises very bad they can say, "We recommend you to alter these premises," and if that is not done they can withhold the licence at the end of the year. You take away a paper power but they preserve an effective power. Just as the county council may say, "We do not like a particular performance in a music-hall," and if it is persisted in refuse the licence, so the licensing authority could refuse the licence in this case if the alterations were not carried out.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I think the noble Lord who has just spoken is quite right. There is no doubt the Licensing Court in Scotland can and does take away licences very frequently, and what the noble Lord pointed out is, as a matter of fact, what does actually occur. The Licensing Court would maintain their authority over the licensees quite irrespective of ordering alterations to be made. With regard to the words which I propose to omit, I think the words as they stand in the clause cannot remain—at least, they may remain but they are no longer applicable. Originally they were put in because it was five years from Arne 1, 1912. Your Lordships have now altered that by enlarging the period from five years to fourteen. Therefore these words "day of June nineteen hundred and seventeen" become no longer applicable. I do not want to press the Amendment, particularly at this moment, but I would point out to the noble Earl that he must make some change.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Later hour of opening.
7. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Licensing (Scotland) Act., 1903, the licensing court shall insert in all certificates granted from or after the twenty-eighth day of May nineteen hundred and thirteen the hour of ten o'clock in the morning in lieu of the hour of eight of the clock in the morning, and the forms of certificate contained in the Sixth Schedule to the said Act shall be construed accordingly: Provided that where sale of commodities other than exciseable liquors is otherwise lawful, such commodities may be sold before such hour, and provided further that exciseable liquors may be despatched before such hour in fulfilment of orders received as prescribed by section sixty-three of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, and that section fifty-six of that Act shall apply to this Act.
LORD SALTOUN:I move to leave out "the hour of" and to insert "an opening hour not being earlier than eight o'clock in the morning or later than." I think that if the hour of ten o'clock is made a hard-and-fast rule for the opening of public-houses it will be very hard both on the public and on the licensee, and the object of my Amendment is to give the Licensing Court discrimination in the various centres in which they work. They would surely know the conditions which surrounded each district, and they would be perfectly able to arrange the most convenient hours. I must trouble your Lordships for a few minutes because I want to show you what a really great hardship the opening hour now in the Bill would be to a very large portion of the public. Take the City of Glasgow. There is an enormous number of great industries all over that large city. There are markets in the east end and in the centre of the town and along the docks, which go all the way down the Clyde, to which hundreds of thousands of workmen go to their work. There are mechanics, labourers, artisans, firemen, and different classes of labourers who are at work all night as well as all day on different ships. The work time is not by any means confined to day hours. A man working all night finishes his work at or before eight o'clock in the morning, and it is only natural that he should require some refreshment before he goes away, probably a very long journey, to his home. Of course, in the residential part of Glasgow a later hour might suit. At the same time, I am very firmly of opinion that if a later hour of opening is given a later hour of closing should also be given as a compensation to the publican, because there is a great deal of business after concerts, theatres, and so forth. People who come back from such places require some refreshment before they go home, and I believe the last hour before closing is generally the most important one for the licensee. I think in that case some compensation should be given in the direction I indicate. That might easily be seen to by the Licensing Court.
If you turn to Edinburgh, or to Leith, exactly the same conditions apply there. There are the great docks at Leith where men are employed loading and unloading all through the night as well as the day, and they also have to go great distances in order to get home. After working all

1155
night they require refreshment before they start on their journey. Many of your Lordships, no doubt, have travelled to Edinburgh by a late train, and you know you arrive there at about seven o'clock or half-past seven in the morning. It will be very inconvenient for all the passengers if they find that the hotels and licensed places are not open until ten o'clock.
Then let us go to Aberdeen, another large city. There, I think, there are about a dozen public-houses all grouped together along the quay. I know myself that these public-houses are in great requisition at the time the steamers are coming in and going away, and the workmen who have been working on these ships require refreshment just the same before they go home. I have myself seen the way in which these public-houses are conducted. In fact, I have been in one of them and had refreshment there on an occasion when I went to the quay at an early hour to a steamer to see a motor car off. It was at eight o'clock in the morning, and I may say that I had an excellent breakfast there. In Aberdeen I believe women also are engaged working throughout the night. They go home in the early hours of the morning and require refreshment after their work just as much as do the men. I have been given figures—of course, I cannot vouch for them—by a licensee who has made a calculation that in Aberdeen the proposed hour of opening, ten o'clock, which takes off two hours in the morning, would cost the publicans nearly £1,000 a week. There are 125 licensees in the eleven wards in Aberdeen, and the change would, I am told, cost the licensees over £44,000 a year. I will not vouch for that, but I believe it is approximately what the loss would be.
Now let us go to the West of Scotland, and look at the town of Clydebank, a new town that has sprung up quite recently and has a population of 37,500 inhabitants. There are great works there; workmen come all the way from Glasgow, and the hour of breakfast is at nine o'clock. If the opening is kept over until ten o'clock some alteration will have to be made, and a great deal of discomfort will probably ensue. If the opening hour were as I suggest it would be perfectly easy to manage. Before the Act of 1862 the opening was at seven o'clock; it was afterwards changed to eight o'clock, and
1156
now it is proposed to make it ten o'clock. I think that is a long way to go. I believe if it were left in the hands of the Licensing Court to say at what hour the opening should be it would be perfectly safe, and there would be no abuse.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 26, leave out ("the hour of") and insert ("an opening hour not being earlier than eight o'clock in the morning or later than").—(Lord Saltoun.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I would make an earnest appeal to my noble friend behind me not to press his Amendment. I believe if this Amendment is carried it will do more to disappoint sensible moderate opinion in Scotland than anything your Lordships could do to the Bill. The noble Lord has mentioned Glasgow, Clydebank, and Aberdeen. My knowledge of Aberdeen is not so great as that of the noble Lord, but I know Clydebank because I happen to be trustee of the estate on which Clydebank is built. I know, therefore, every yard of it. So far as this Amendment is concerned, I would like to tell your Lordships that when I was Secretary for Scotland in 1903 I wanted to put this very Amendment into the Bill which consolidated the whole of the licensing law of Scotland. Circumstances were then too strong for me, and I was not able to do it. I went very fully into it at the time, and I went to see the place. All down the banks of the Clyde, especially in Partick and on the north bank., there are shipbuilding yards, immense centres of employment, and the pay in those yards is generally on Friday evening, hut sometimes on Saturday morning. I am sorry to say that many of those who are paid at that time spend part of their time on Saturday night and Sunday in consuming a considerable portion of their wages in intoxicating liquors. They are perfectly within their right and within their freedom in doing so if they wish to do so, but I am bound to say that it was represented to me as being carried to excess.
The case for this alteration of the law is this. Supposing men have done that on Saturday afternoon and on Sunday, and go back to their work on Monday morning. They go back without haying had breakfast and work for two or three hours in the morning, and when they come out at about eight o'clock and start to

1157
go home to breakfast they find outside the public-houses along the highway rows of tankards of ale and stout and whisky, and so on, ready for their consumption, and many of them have not the strength of mind to pass. They stop and have some, perhaps not too much, but taken on an empty stomach the result is that they are, as was represented to me, too often incapacitated for further work on the Monday, and their time of unwork is thereby prolonged over Monday arid in some cases on Tuesday as well, to the loss of themselves and their families and to the enormous inconvenience of their employers. I am speaking from representations made to me by employers and by agents of the workmen, and I do not think I can speak too strongly—at any rate for that area. I hope, therefore, that this Amendment will not be accepted. It is tempting to suggest that the Licensing Court should have an option over the country for hours between eight and ten o'clock in the morning. I am not prepared to say if the Bill passes as it stands there will not be in some country districts a certain amount of inconvenience, but I believe the advantage of having this later hour of opening will be so overwhelming in its nature that any disadvantages will be gladly submitted to. In my humble opinion if every clause of this Bill were deleted except this one I believe you would do as much as it is possible to do by legislation for the cause of temperance in Scotland. People have not been backward in writing to me in regard to this Bill since it came to this House, and although I have had hundreds of letters I do not think I have had one single protest against the particular provision now under discussion. With all the force and knowledge I can put to your Lordships I earnestly hope that this Amendment will not be passed.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: It only remains for me, after the very moving appeal to which we have just listened from the noble Lord opposite, to record my hope that your Lordships will agree to retain the provisions in the Bill as they stand and not accept the Amendment moved by Lord Saltoun, or, indeed, the other Amendment which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is purely a temperance provision in the Bill. I can only say for myself that I,
1158
like the noble Lord oho has just sat down, have received a number of resolutions in favour of the retention of the hour at ten o'clock, and I am quite sure it would be a disappointment to a great number of moderate minded men in Scotland if your Lordships were to make any alteration in this particular.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: After what has been said by Lord Balfour of Burleigh I have no intention of moving my Amendment to substitute nine o'clock for ten o'clock.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Amendment of Low relating to Clubs.
8.—(1) Section seventy-eight, subsection (1) of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903 (hereinafter in this section referred to as "the Act of 1903"), shall be amended (a) by substituting the words "and the names and addresses of the members" for the words "and the names of the members"; (b) by substituting the words "two justices of the peace who for the time being are members of the court of appeal for the county within which such premises are situate, or, where such premises are situate within a burgh, either by two justices of the peace who for the time being are members of the court of appeal front the burgh licensing court or by two magistrates of the burgh; or by one justice, as aforesaid, and one magistrate," for the words "two justices of the peace for the county within which such premises are situate, or, where such premises are situate within a burgh, either by two justices of the peace, as aforesaid, or by two magistrates of the burgh, or by one justice and one magistrate"; and (e) by adding the words "(1) any such justice of the peace, or magistrate may, within ten days from the date on which lie signed the certificate, withdraw his name from the certificate granted by him; and (2)," after the words "Provided that."
(2) Section seventy-nine, subsection (2), of the Act of 1903 shall be amended by including amongst those persons who may lodge objections to the grant or renewal of the certificate of registration the procurator fiscal and any person, or the agent of any person, owning or occupying property in the neighbourhood of the club, and by substituting the word "twenty-one" for the word "ten."
(3) Section seventy-nine, subsection (4), of the Act of 1903 shall have effect as if the power conferred thereby on the sheriff (to award expenses against the unsuccessful party where objection has been taken to the grant or renewal of a certificate) included the like power where a summary complaint has been lodged.
(4) Any person or council competent under the Act of 11903 to lodge objections to the grant or renewal of a certificate of registration may, within twenty-one days of the receipt of the notice of application for the grant or renewal of a certificate, lodge with die registrar objections to such grant or renewal of the certificate on one or more of the following grounds, and that in addition to the

1159
grounds specified in section eighty-one of the Act of 1903:—

(a) That the premises are, or the situation thereof is, not suitable or convenient for the purpose of a club; or

(b) That the club is to be used mainly as a drinking club; or

(c) That the officials and committee of management, or governing body or the manager, or a servant employed in or by the club have, or has, or will have, a personal interest in the purchase by the club or in the sale in the club of exciseable liquors, or in the profits arising therefrom; or

(d) That persons are habitually admitted or supplied as members without an interval of at least two weeks between their nomination and election as ordinary members; or

(e) That the officials and committee of management or governing body or the members are persons of 'hall character or who follow no lawful occupation and have no lawful means of subsistence; or

(f) That the club has been or will be used as the resort of criminals or persons of bad character; or

(g) That men or women of had fame assemble in or frequent the club.

(5) Section eighty-nine of the Act of 1903 shall be read as if the words "an application with the accompanying documents specified in section seventy-eight, subsection (1), of the Act of 1903, any one of" were substituted for the words "an application for registration."
(6) This section shall take effect as front the passing of this Act.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to amend (b), in subsection (1), so that it would read, "(b) by substituting the words two members either of the Licensing Court or of the Court of appeal,'" etc. The noble Lord said: This is a matter of machinery, and I will not press the Amendment if the noble Earl objects to it. The point is that the Bill proposes that only members of the Court of appeal shall be available for signing certificates for clubs, and there is something to be said against the present practice which is in the Act of 1903. I venture to suggest that the provision proposed to be substituted would be a little too strict in some districts, because members of the Court of appeal are very limited in number and might not be easily accessible. I am convinced that is so, but it is not a matter of much importance, and if the noble Earl has any objection to the Amendment I will not press it.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 42, leave out ("justices of the peace who for the time being are") and after ("members") insert ("either of the licensing court or").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: In the opinion of His Majesty's Government there is a real difficulty in the matter of getting a quorum in these cases of which the noble Lord has spoken, and in view of that we shall be glad to accept the Amendment.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 1, after ("situate") insert ("or one member of each of such courts not being the same member".—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I should like to make some suggestions to your Lordships with reference to subsection (4) of Clause 8 in order to stiffen up the new legislation with regard to clubs. But I have not been able to put my suggestions on the Paper, and I only wish to say that I propose to raise the subject on Report.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF KINTORE*THE EARL OF KINTORE moved to add after Clause 8 a new clause providing that in any area where a no-licence resolution is in force excisable liquors shall not be supplied or sold in any club except to persons lodging or residing in the club, or to persons taking a meal on the premises of the club for consumption with such meal.
The noble Earl said: I present this new clause to your Lordships certainly not front a wish to cast any reflection on the management of existing Scottish clubs, for indeed as far as my experience goes they might be taken as a model by some other clubs elsewhere that I have heard of. I submit it less from any settled intention of asking your Lordships to divide upon it than from a desire to point out a very noticeable omission in the Bill, which amounts, I think, to an anomaly, and to inquire the reason for it. This clause applies to clubs in no-licence areas only. Clubs in other areas are in no way affected by it. Although I bring this clause forward for the reasons I have stated, I am one who has little belief in the possibility of enforcing sobriety on a nation by any Act of Parliament, certainly in Scotland. I think that little permanent good

1161
will ever accrue to any cause from fanatical legislation. If temperance legislation is seriously demanded I believe that happier results might be looked for from enactments aimed at the improvement of the standard and quality of liquors retailed and the comfort and convenience of the places where they are consumed than from any other enactments however drastic.
But I recognise that this Bill is before us in response to a somewhat noisily voiced demand. It is true that that demand comes front a small section of the levelheaded people of Scotland, and I must say that the statement on Second Reading of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, that the Bill as it stood had the general support of the people of Scotland, was a statement characterised by such exaggeration that did it not come from the apologist of a Government who are seldom if ever their own masters I confess it would have taken my breath away. But still the Bill is here, and as it is in my poor country in which it is to operate I am anxious that your Lordships should do all you can to make it a workable and just measure. Your Lordships will have noticed that in Grand Committee of the House of Commons a clause was inserted—a very much more stringent one than my proposed clause—restricting the hours of the sale of liquor in clubs to those hours during which public-houses might be open. I was glad to see that on Third Reading the Government resisted that proposal and that it was struck out of the Bill.
It is a novel experience—not an unpleasant one—for me to find myself in agreement with the Parliamentary representative of Scottish Labour. I see that Mr. Barnes, the Member for the Blackfriars division of Glasgow, whose colleague in the St. Rollox division is Secretary for Scotland, said in regard to this matter, "After the Bill becomes operative"—and then he added, "Of that I am very doubtful. I think it will be a dead letter. Clubs will take the place of public-houses everywhere." Of course, my Lords, in no-licence areas they will; they will spring up and flourish independent of the law and untrammelled by it. I have endeavoured to ascertain on what grounds the Government hesitated to deal with clubs in this Bill, but the answers I have obtained are not very satisfactory. One answer was that they are reluctant to interfere with private liberty. As I think private liberty is
1162
interfered with in almost every line of this Bill and in many other Bills of His Majesty's Government I do not think that answer will do. But this, at any rate, I think, is clear, that if the common Radical contention that opportunity makes intemperance is correct, then this Bill, though it may be successful in catching votes, must fail to secure temperance, seeing that it leaves the question of the sale of drink in clubs absolutely unrestricted. That seems to me an illogical position and one with regard to which the House deserves some explanation, and it is in the hope of receiving an explanation that I move the insertion of the first subsection set out in my Amendment on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 8 insert the following new clause:
"9.—(1) In any area where a no-licence resolution is in force excisable liquors shall not be supplied or sold in any club except to persons lodging or residing in the club, or to persons taking a meal on the promises of the club for consumption with such meal."—(The Earl of Kintore.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: In view of the consistent hostility with which His Majesty's Government have regarded clauses of this nature proposed in another place you will not expect me to say that we can accept the Amendment which lots just been moved by the noble Earl. The noble Earl's proposed new clause is of a very far-reaching character, and I may say that I have received, as I dare say many of your Lordships have, deputations from a number of clubs against its being passed. The noble Earl's clause provides that no liquor shall be supplied in any club except to persons residing in the club or taking a meal on the club premises. We had some little discussion about what constituted a meal last night, and here again we have the same difficulty. As regards residents, they are only a small fraction of the membership of clubs, while many very good clubs have no residential qualification at all—that is to say, they have no bedrooms. As regards members taking meals, these again form only a very small proportion of the membership of clubs, and we should undoubtedly have those disputes arising concerning meals to which I have already referred. This Amendment is directly contrary to the theory of legislation in regard to clubs. In theory the position is that a club approaches as nearly as possible to the status of a private house. It was upon that theory that Clause 8 was proposed,

1163
and in our opinion it is preferable to try that method before attempting to put into force the drastic proposal of the noble Earl. If experience proves that our suggestion as embodied in Clause 8 is insufficient it might be necessary to proceed with further restrictions. As your Lordships know there are already certain provisions in this Bill which will have some effect upon clubs. Under the Licensing Act of 1903 we found that though clubs generally were not mismanaged there was room for amendment. Those amendments are embodied in the Bill, and in our opinion they are sufficient to deal with the difficulties which have arisen.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am sure the House cannot have been surprised that some member on this side should call attention to the manner in which the subject of clubs is treated in the Bill of His Majesty's Government. It seems to me beyond question that the Bill does discriminate, and in a very unfair manner, in favour of clubs as against licensed premises. That is particularly the case, of course, in a no-licence area where all licensed premises will disappear, and where consequently a great stimulus will be given to the consumption of liquor in clubs. The same result will no doubt follow, though not to the same extent, in areas where a limiting resolution has been adopted. It is, as my noble friend said a moment ago, an established axiom that restrictions upon the sale of liquor on licensed premises are always accompanied by a great increase in the consumption of liquor in clubs. It is quite clear that the mind of His Majesty's Government has undergone some change upon this point, because we know that at one moment they accepted a clause very much more drastic than that of my noble friend, under which not only in no-licence areas but universally clubs should be made subject to the same regulations as public-houses.
My noble friend deals, of course, only with no-licence areas. But I am afraid that even under his comparatively limited proposal a great amount of hardship and injustice might be occasioned. You would have under my noble friend's proposal, the case of a perfectly well-conducted club with, perhaps, no residential accommodation, and consequently not frequented by residents and a club in which there was really no demand for meals. A club of
1164
that kind would find itself under my noble friend's proposal placed under all the disabilities of this Bill, and its members would be denied the right of obtaining harmless refreshments when they required them. There is also the additional feature in the case, that I am informed—as I dare say most of your Lordships have been—that in a great mans- cases the frequenters of these high class and well-conducted clubs reside outside the area, and consequently are liable to have their clubs closed upon them by a vote in which they have no right to take part. I am bound also to say that I think there is some force in the argument suggested by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill when he told us that the adoption of this proposal would put a considerable premium upon evasion. There is the difficulty of the supply of liquor in connection with a meal. The noble Earl suggested that there would be great difficulty in obtaining a definition of a meal, and I own I am quite unable to supply one. I can conceive many ingenious forms of evasion: the same mutton chop might, for example, be served repeatedly each time accompanied by a different drink. You may have things of that kind which we would rather not give opportunities for.
Our position is this. His Majesty's Government place us in a dilemma. We have to accept this Bill with what I for one regard as unfair discrimination in favour of clubs as against public-houses. That is one horn of the dilemma. The other horn of the dilemma is a further invasion of personal liberty by imposing wholly unjustifiable restrictions upon well-conducted clubs. Having to choose between those alternatives I prefer the anomaly to the further invasion of personal liberty and I was rather glad when I heard my noble friend behind me, Lord St. Aldwyn, say a few moments ago that it was his intention with regard to the club clause in this Bill—which I am bound to say I regard as a substantial clause and one entitled to sonic consideration—to stiffen the provisions of that clause. In these circumstances I rather hope that my noble friend will be content with the discussion which he has originated and that he will not ask us to divide on his Amendment.
THE EARL OF KINTORE: In common with the noble Marquess I prefer the anomaly.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9:
Amendments of 3 Edw. 7. c. 25. ss. 16 and 31.
9.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section sixteen of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, it shall be lawful for the licensing court and the licensing appeal court, in any ease where there are more than one application for a certificate for the same premises, to hear and consider the said applications together.
(2) Section thirty-one, subsection (2), of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, shall be amended by substituting the words "until the twenty-eighth day of May or the twenty-eighth day of November following, as the case may be," for the words "until the next general half-yearly meeting of the licensing court."
(3) The section shall take effect as from the passing of this Act.
LORD BALFOUR, OF BURLEIGH: I move the insertion of a new subsection. This, again, is a matter of machinery, but it is one of some considerable importance. By the Licensing Act, 1903, it is necessary to have half the members both of the Licensing Court and the Court of appeal present to make a quorum. Since 1903, which was the first time that provision was made, serious difficulties have arisen. So far as the Court of appeal is concerned, they have power to make their own regulations, but so far as the Licensing Court is concerned they cannot make regulations and must go to Quarter Sessions if a quorum does not turn up on the day appointed. I am advised by the Association of Clerks of the Peace of Scotland that five or six times difficulties have occurred —once at Argyll, twice at Fife, and in one or two other cases. I believe that those who have to work the machinery in these Courts are desirous to have this Amendment, and I hope we shall find that the Government are prepared to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 25, after subsection (1) insert the following new subsection:
"(2) Section 5 subsection (9) of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, shall be amended (a) by substituting the words one third' for the words 'one half'; and (b) by adding the words provided that in the absence of a quorum the chairman of a licensing court or court of appeal or in the absence of the chairman the clerk may call a further meeting of such courts respectively' after the word 'quorum.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh)
EARL BEAUCHAMP:This Amendment divides itself obviously into two parts. One deals with the quorum and the other with the power of adjournment or calling another meeting. A moment when a very important additional duty is being imposed on the Court does not seem a good one to diminish the quorum. Nobody ought to
1166
accept election unless he really means to serve upon the Court. The Court only meets twice a year, the dates are well known, and therefore there should be no difficulty. With regard to the second part of the Amendment, if the noble Lord desires it we shall be glad to consider whether something cannot be done in that direction upon Report. In the circumstances the noble Lord, perhaps, will withdraw this Amendment and let us see whether the Amendment that I will suggest to him on Report meets his views.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am very glad to fall in with the noble Earl's suggestion, and I withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Sales on Order of Officials.
11.— (1) Section fifty-live of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, shall be amended by inserting after "officer of police," the words "including any constable in charge of any police station," and after "medical official" the words "or in case of sickness, accident or emergency by a qualified medical practitioner."
(2) This section shall take effect upon the passing of this Act.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Amendment in this clause is to omit from subsection (2) the word "upon" and to insert "as from." Your Lordships will see that this is only a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 11, leave out ("upon") and inser ("as front").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12:
Power to close Certificated Premises in Case of Riot.
12.—(1) Where any riot or tumult happens, or is expected to happen, the sheriff may order every holder of a certificate for the sale by retail of exciseable liquors in or near the place whore the riot or tumult happens, or is expected to happen, to close his premises during such time as the order shall require.
(2) If any person keeps open his premises for the sale of exciseable liquor during any time at which in pursuance of this section they are ordered to be closed, he shall be liable in respect of each offence to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds.
(3) This section shall take effect upon the passing of this Act.
EARL BEAUCHAMP:This is the same Amendment again, and it occurs in subsection (3).
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 21, leave out ("upon") and insert ("as from").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13:
Drunken Persons entering Public-house, 3 Edw. 7. c. 25.
13. Any person who is in a state of intoxication, and found attempting to enter any public-house, shall be subject to the same powers and procedure and penalty as provided in section seventy of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The Amendments which I have to move to this clause are really none of them of great importance. The history of the clause is this. It was inserted on Report by a private Member, and it is not thought to be sufficiently definite in its terms. The Amendments are not of any substance, but are simply to make more clear the object of the clause.
Amendments moved—
Page 9, line 23, after ("be") insert ("thereby guilty of an offence and shall be")
Page 9, line 24, after ("in") insert ("the first paragraph of Subsection (1) of")
Page 9, line 25, after ("1903") insert the following new subsection:
("(2) This section shall take effect as from the passing of this Act.").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Definitions.
15. The several words and expressions used in this Act shall unless otherwise provided or unless there be something in the subject or context repugnant to such construction have the same respective meanings as in the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903:
Provided that in this Act—
"Area" means—

(a) in the case of a burgh divided into wards the population of which burgh within the police boundaries thereof, according to the census for the time being last taken, is not less than ten thousand, any ward of such burgh, and in the case of other burghs, the whole burgh; and

1168

(b) in the case of a county, the parish, as defined in the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, excluding any burgh or part of a burgh therein, and where a parish is situated within two counties, the portion in each county shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be a separate parish:

"Burgh" means a royal, parliamentary, or police burgh:
"County" means a county exclusive of any burgh or part of a burgh comprised therein:
"Certificate" means any certificate for the sale by retail of exciseable liquors granted in terms of or under the provisions of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903: Provided that for the period during which a no-licence resolution is in force in any area, no dealer's licence for the sale of exciseable liquor by wholesale shall be granted therein by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise or by any officer of Customs and Excise, except to brewers of beer for sale, distillers, rectifiers, or compounders of spirits, makers of sweets, or wholesale dealers in spirits, wine, beer, or sweets for premises for which similar licences have been taken out for twelve months before the date of the poll, without the production of a certificate authorising such sale from the licensing court; which certificate shall be applied for, granted, confirmed, transferred, and renewed in the same manner as though it were a certificate authorising such sale by retail:
"Elector" means in the case of—

(a) a burgh, any person registered as entitled to vote at an election of town councillors for that burgh, and when used in relation to any area in a burgh means a person so registered as entitled to vote at an election for that area; and in the case of—

(b) a parish (excluding any burgh or part of a burgh therein), any person registered as entitled to vote at an election of parish councillors for that parish, excluding as aforesaid: Provided that the supplementary register made up in the year nineteen hundred and sixteen under section twenty-eight of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, shall continue in operation for the purposes of a poll under this Act in the year nineteen hundred and seventeen, and provided further that for the purposes of a requisition in the year of a triennial election of county councillors before the register of parish council electors is made up "elector" means any ratepayer within the parish, excluding as aforesaid:

The expression "grant" when used in relation to a certificate includes the grant of a certificate by way of renewal:
"Local authority" means in the case of—

(a) a burgh, the town council thereof; and

(b) a county, the county council thereof:

"No-change resolution" means a resolution that the powers and discretion of the licensing court in regard to the grant of certificates or otherwise shall remain unchanged, and in section two as applied to a further poll in any area where a limiting resolution is in force means a continuance resolution.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Clinton, I propose to move the Amendment that stands in his name, to leave out all words from the word "burgh" in the first line of paragraph (a) defining "area" to the end of the paragraph, and insert "the population of which within the police boundaries thereof according to the census for the time being last taken is less than thirty thousand, the whole burgh. "Then by a mistake of the printer the Amendment has not been put down in the words of Lord Clinton. His following words run thus, "And in the case of any other burgh any ward or any combination of wards of such burgh the population of which is not less than fifteen thousand in accordance with the scheme prepared by the town council and approved by the Secretary for Scotland." As the Bill stands the limitation is 10,000, and that is thought far too small. The Convention of Royal Burghs, I believe, proposed 40,000. That was not accepted by the Government, and in this case Lord Clinton proposes 30,000.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: At this late hour I will not detain your Lordships at any length by explaining the reasons which have decided His Majesty's Government to offer a substantial concession which will, I hope, meet the case. We will be willing to take the first part of this Amendment with this single exception, that instead of:30,000 we ask leave to insert the words "twenty-five thousand." With regard to the last words which the noble Earl read out and which are not upon the Paper, I think it will be of general convenience to your Lordships if we do not put them into the Bill at this stage, and perhaps the noble Earl will bring them up on Report when the House will have an opportunity of considering them. I am quite sure that that will be more convenient to all of us, as I did not even know what the words were until the noble Earl read them out.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN:I am quite content to accept the words "twenty-five thousand." With regard to the second part of the Amendment the only difference made is this, that the scheme should be prepared by the town council and approved by the Secretary for Scotland. But if the noble Earl wishes it I will put it off until Report.
EARL BEAUCHAMP:I have been so much with Scotsmen during the last few days that I have become cautious, and I would prefer to see the actual words before I say whether we can accept them or not.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The noble Earl will see that he has reduced his Bill to a most lopsided position. He deals with a burgh up to 25,000 but does not deal with anything beyond it apparently.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: We will deal with that on Report.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I quite recognise the justice of the noble Earl's claim, but is he not prepared to go any further at the present moment? The only change front the print on the Paper is that the proposal is to be prepared by the town council for the approval of the Secretary for Scotland. Everything is the same except that. It is merely the introduction of the words "prepared by the town council" before it goes before the Secretary for Scotland for approval. It would be better drafting if we could put the words in now, hut, of course, in the circumstances, we cannot press the noble Earl to accept them at this stage.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I think I must ask your Lordships to agree to the suggestion I made to accept the one Amendment as far as the words go to which I referred altering the number to "twenty-five thousand." There is no doubt about those words; but as to the second half I have not the words before me and I should prefer that your Lordships should give us an opportunity of considering them.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Very well.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 13, leave out front ("burgh") to the end of the paragraph, and insert ("the population of which within the police boundaries thereof according to the census for the time being last taken is less than twenty-five thousand, the whole burgh").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The Amendment which I propose to move now —to leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and

1171
insert a new paragraph—undoubtedly makes a somewhat drastic change in the areas proposed for the administration under this Bill. This I regard as one of the most important features of the Bill and absolutely vital to the success of the measure from whatever point of view you regard it. But, on the other hand, I venture to say it would not be in its nature so controversial either as the question of the time limit or as the question of compensation or of disinterested management or any of the other kindred subjects which we have been discussing. I am sure we will all agree, whether we regard this Bill with friendly eyes or not, that if it is to pass at all it ought to pass in a workable form. Now, my Lords, I venture to say that the areas suggested in this Bill are absolutely and supremely ridiculous. What you want is self-contained autonomous areas which will have one interest and one interest alone common over the whole area. I think that the areas suggested in this Bill offend against every canon and proper hope of success.
As I understand the Bill, you are dividing comparatively speaking small burghs of under 12,000 into wards. On the Second Reading I gave an instance of the case of Alloa near my own home, in which there are 12,000 inhabitants, which will be divided into four wards and each of those wards will have power to vote differently. I have had a good many complaints of a similar kind from Perth, from Lanark, and from a score of other places. It is obvious when you are making a change of this kind in regard to licences that you cannot proceed on the same principles as if you were dealing with things like education or public health or local government generally. If you are going to have a different law regarding licensed houses in two contiguous areas it is very desirable that the division between the areas should not be in the centre of the population. But in this Bill they have gone out of their way to make it certain that the division between the areas will always be in the most congested parts of the population with which they are concerned. I am told by the representatives of the Convention of Royal Burghs that what I pointed out in the case of Alloa is absolutely the same in almost all the other burghs concerned. The division of the wards proceeds from the centre of the burghs outwards, so that if there is different voting in two different
1172
wards you will have different regulations regarding public-houses on the opposite sides of the main streets in those burghs. Can anything be more senseless than to suppose that any individual will be prevented from getting drink if lie has only to walk across a narrow street for the purpose of entering an open door on the other side? and can there be anything more unfair upon owners of public-houses than to find them shut on one side of the main street and open on the other side?
I admit that the difficulties of getting a proper area are very great. Opinions differ not only as to the size but as to the kind of division which should be made. Some people have gone so far as to propose that the area should be as high as 40.000 of population. I do not go so far as that or nearly so far. But we have in Scotland, as in England, to deal with three different kinds of local authorities. We have the county, the burgh, and the parish. You have counties both large and small, you have parishes large and small, and you have burghs also varying very greatly in size. Speaking generally, there are three kinds of burghs in Scotland—the Royal burgh, the Parliamentary burgh, and the police burgh. For licensing purposes the different parts are regulated by the early clauses of the Licensing Act, 1903, and the proposal in the Amendment which I am moving now is that the licensing authority, whether a county or burgh, should be asked to put a scheme, either alone or in conjunction with the neighbouring area, before the Secretary for Scotland for the making of an area for the purposes of this Bill which will as far as possible get over the undoubted difficulties which exist. If you have an autonomous body, an urban area, surely common-sense suggests that it should be one for the purpose of licensing. We have to take care that we do not offend against the sentiment of the burghs which prize very greatly their separate existence from the counties. But even their interest in the matter seems to me to be less than the interest of the community at large. You should take care not to have more dividing areas than necessary, frontier lines as it were, in a matter of this kind, and certainly not frontier lines in the centre of population. If this Bill passes practically as it stands, as I read it, you might have a different area in every one of the 970 parishes in Scotland and in all of the 175 burghs. If you have a country

1173
district intervening between, what is the condition of licensing on one side and the other? You probably do less harm than if You have merely a stream or street boundary, but you are going out of your way in this Bill to make it absolutely certain that the immense majority of your frontier lines will not be in country districts but between different parts of the same town, or the same city, or the same police butgh.
The proposal which I have ventured to make is made a good deal as it now stands on the suggestion of the Convention of Royal Burghs. When I first drafted the Amendment it is quite possible that in my desire to have as few frontier lines as possible I put the limit of population rather too high. The Convention of Royal Burghs, which is as entitled to speak on this matter as any body I know—it is thoroughly representative of all the burghs of Scotland—paid me the compliment of sending a deputation of their number to see me last week, and it is largely in consequence of the representations then made to me that the Amendment I am now moving appears in the form in which it does upon the Paper of your Lordships' House. It preserves as far as we can the autonomy of the burgh, and yet enables the burgh authorities and the county authorities, with full knowledge of the necessities of their different localities, to propose a scheme for the acceptance of the Secretary for Scotland and of Parliament for the delimitation of different areas. I have provided in the Amendment that there shall not be a division between two parts of the same electoral area. That is a point on which there is a difference of opinion, I believe, between the representatives of the Convention of Royal Burghs and the Amendment which I have put on the Paper. They would desire to go further than I am proposing to do and for the sake of having good frontier lines would even divide electoral divisions to provide a good roll of electors. I look with the most undisguised alarm at the prospect of what will happen in Scotland if this Bill passes in anything like the form, so far as areas go, in which it has been brought to this House. I have given the outline of my case for my Amendment, and I shall best consult the convenience of the House if I wait to see what line is taken in answer to it before I say any more in its support. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, lines 13 to 24, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert the following new paragraph:
"It shall be the duty of the county council or of the town council, as the case may be, within two years from the passing of this Act, and from time to time thereafter as may be necessary, to frame a scheme delimiting the provisional area of areas which, taking into account the electoral divisions of such county or die wards of such burgh, constitute the most suitable area or areas for the purposes of this Act, but in every case with these provisos:(1) It shall he competent in any such scheme by agreement between the local authorities concerned to include one or more wards in such burgh or burghs within an area or areas of a county or counties, or to include one or more electoral divisions of a county or counties within an area or areas of a burgh or burghs; (2) In no case shall the number of electors in such provisional area, except when such provisional area is a county, he less than two thousand; (3) In no case shall an electoral division in a county or a ward in a burgh be subdivided so as to form the whole or part of a provisional area. Such scheme when framed shall be submit tad to the Secretary for Scotland who, after making such inquiry as lie may deem necessary, shall have power to approve thereof or to alter or vary the same. Thereafter the Secretary for Scotland shall cause the scheme as finally approved by him to be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and after it has lain two months before Parliament, then, unless within such two months an address has been presented by one or other of the said Houses, preying His Majesty to withhold his consent from such scheme or any part thereof, it shall be lawful for His Majesty, by Order in Council, to declare his approbation of such scheme or any part thereof to which such address does not relate. A scheme, when approved by His Majesty in Council, shall have full operation and effect front the date of such Order in Council in the same manner as if it had been enacted in this Act; and thereupon, every Act of Parliament, letters patent, statute, deed, instrument, trust, or direction relating to the subject matter of the scheme, so far as inconsistent with the provisions thereof, Shall be repealed and abrogated."— (Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP:I confess it was with a great deal of regret that, in spite of the concession made by His Majesty's Government on paragraph (a), I find that the noble Lord who has just spoken insists on putting his scheme for dealing with burghs before your Lordships' House. The increase we have made by the Amendment which we have accepted—namely, from 10,000 to 25,000—is so large that with regard to the burghs at any rate I had hoped that the noble Lord would have been satisfied and would not have asked us to adopt the suggestion which he has made. Of course, the acceptance of this Amendment now before us would sweep away the

1175
concession I have spoken of with regard to burghs, because the whole of paragraph (a) would go as well as paragraph (b), and we should substitute for the scheme to which this House has just agreed the new scheme of the noble Lord. I confess that that would be a matter of very considerable disappointment although it is technically possible.
The special point, in view of the fact that we have agreed to so large an amendment in the case of burghs, is really the question of counties. I think we are all agreed that country districts should be treated in a different way from towns. We all realise the difficulty mentioned by the noble Lord of having the public-houses shut up on one side of a street and open on the other, but it will be very difficult to avoid that in whatever scheme you adopt. It must happen in some places, and it really is inevitable. In the case of the counties, to which I specially wish to draw your Lordships' attention, I would say that it is with very real regret that we do not see our way to make any suggestions which would really meet the wishes of the noble Lord. The scheme suggested in his Amendment departs so entirely from the proposal of the Bill that we are unable to suggest any compromise which he is likely to accept. It is quite true that in some instances parishes have very small populations. It is thought, however, that the average population of the units under the Bill in the country districts to which I specially referred will be about 2,000, and it is to be borne in mind that although populations may be small the area of a great many parishes in Scotland is very large indeed, and the element of personal acquaintance with the needs of the district would be absent if many of them were combined together in the way the noble Lord suggests.
The suggestion that the noble Lord makes that the scheme should be first of all suggested by the council and then submitted by them to the Secretary for Scotland is not one that we think Secretaries for Scotland will be very grateful for when they are asked to agree to the suggestions as they reach them. It is dealing with very contentious and very delicate matters, and the present Secretary for Scotland, at any rate, would be most unwilling to accept the duty. But we are, perhaps, under some little disadvantage in discussing this somewhat big question at this hour of the evening, and I content
1176
myself with saying that if the noble Lord's Amendment is carried it will sweep away the conclusion at which your Lordships' House has arrived in the case of burghs.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I confess that it was with regret that I heard the noble Earl say just now that he looked upon it as inevitable under the Bill that on one side of a street you might have a nolicence area and a different state of things on the other side of the same street. That is so prodigiously absurd that I cannot believe that the Government will insist on it. The obvious fallacy of such a scheme to secure sobriety is quite evident. Instead of securing sobriety it will secure disorder, because there will be a flocking of all the drinking population of the no-licence area across the street to satisfy their wants, and it will produce, if not disorderliness, at any rate a certain amount of congestion. I am not sure that my noble friend has realised that we have already inserted an Amendment in paragraph (a) which I do not think reads with his Amendment. We have already prescribed that in burghs the limit is to be 25,000, and my noble friend goes on to say that the limit is to be prescribed by means of a scheme which is to be suggested by certain authorities.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Amendment, if it were carried, would clear away both paragraphs (a) and (b), and make a new scheme.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I thought my noble friend had not realised what happened in your Lordships' House just now. We have not really swept away paragraph (a), but have put something in its place, and the noble Lord would have to redraft his Amendment in order to make it fit in with the decision the House has already arrived at. We have settled that the limit of the burgh is to be 25,000, but the noble Lord does not want that; he wants a limit which is to vary according to a scheme. His may be the better plan of the two, but unfortunately it is inconsistent, as I read it, with what your Lordships have already decided. In those circumstances I am afraid your Lordships cannot proceed with an Amendment which does not read with what is already inserted in the Bill. I speak subject to correction, but I think that is so; and in the circumstances I do not know whether my noble friend desires to go on with his Amendment.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I would suggest that the noble Lord should postpone his Amendment until Report, seeing what we have already done. We have put in this limit of 25,000, and if the printers had not made a mistake my noble friend Lord Clinton's Amendment would have continued to run: "And in the case of any other burgh, any ward, or any combination of wards of such burgh, the population of which is not less than fifteen thousand, in accordance with the scheme prepared by the town council and approved by the Secretary for Scotland." I imagine that if the town councils were to deal with the matter they would do it in such a way that the two sides of a street should not be in different areas. But as we are not able to put in the words at this stage I suggest that I should put down Lord Clinton's Amendment for Report, and that Lord Balfour should withdraw his at the present time and decide, after he has the new print, what he proposes to do.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I rise at once to say that in the circumstances in which we are placed, and at this hour and having regard to the state of the House, I shall not proceed with the Amendment, and I am quite willing to withdraw it. I only wish to say this to the noble Marquess, that technically I am in order because you always amend a subsection before you strike it out. My proposal would be undoubtedly an alteration of the decision the House has come to, but it sweeps away the two subsections.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They are not subsections; they are paragraphs.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: They may be paragraphs; that is a small point. But I think on the whole it is much the better course and to the convenience of the House that the matter should be postponed until Report. I am bound, however, to say that I look with much alarm to the future of temperance in Scotland if the Bill, as far as areas are concerned, passes in anything like its present form. If it is allowed to pass in its present form you will do the worst stroke of business you have ever done for the cause of temperance in Scotland.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I have, in the definition of "certificate," an Amendment to which Lord Camperdown has a further Amendment which I shall be willing to accept. The Amendment is not one of any great substance, and I do not think I need waste your Lordships' time in explaining it.
Amendment movd—
Page 10, line 11, after ("poll") insert ("including any reconstruction of, addition to, or extension of such premises on tile seine or an adjoining site").—(Eurl Beauchamp.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My words are simply an addition.
Amendment moved—
After "site" in Earl Beauchamp's Amendment insert ("and any premises in substitution for such premises from which the holder of the licence removes.").—(The Earl of Calltprrdown).
EARL BEAUCHAMP: This is a drafting Amendment to make clear the intention of subsection (3) of Clause 3. The words are to follow at the end of the definition of "certificate."
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 5, after ("retail") insert ("and provided, further, that subject to the variation of conditions prescribed by this Act the form of certificate for an inn and hotel or for a restaurant granted under section throe of this Act shall be, respectively, the first and second form prescribed by the Sixth Schedule of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903").—(Earl Beauchomp).
LORD SALTOUN: I move on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lovat. The Amendments that stand in his name are the result of the Division on the Amendment as to the five and fourteen years.
Amendments moved—
Page 11, line 16, after ("the") insert ("last preceding") line 11, leave out from "up"), to ("under") in line 18.
Page 11, lines 21 and 22, leave out ("under this Act in the year nineteen hundred and seventeen") and insert ("taken in the first year in which a poll can be taken under the provisions of this Act").(Lord Saltoun).
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 30, after ("renewal") insert ("or transfer").—(Earl Beauchamp).
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedule I agreed to.

SCHEDULE II.

  FORM OF BALLOT PAPER.
  (Ballot Paper for [here insert name of area].)
  Counterfoil No.

  NO-CHANGE RESOLUTLON

  1

  (means that the powers and discretion of the licensing court shall remain unchanged).

  LIMITING RESOLUTION

  2

  (means that the mumber of certificates for the sale of exciseable liquors shall be reduced by one quarter in accordance with the provisions of the Act).

  NO LICENCE RESOLUTION

  3

  (means that no certificate for the sale of exciseable liquors shall be granted).

  Indicate your vote by making a X in the right-hand space opposite the resolution for which you rote. You have one vote, and may vote for one resolution only. If you vote for the no-licence resolution and that resolution is not carried your vote will then be counted as a vote in favour of the limiting resolution.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 12, line 15, after ("unchanged") insert:

  DISINTERESTED MANAGEMENT RESOLUTION.

  (means that all new certificates for the sale of exciseable liquors shall be granted only to an authorised public

  2

  company whose surplus profits are to be devoted to works of public utility in the area; and that existing certificates may be so granted in accordance with the provisions of this Act.)

  —(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: The next is a drafting Amendment following on changes made on Report stage in another place.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 12, line 23, after ("granted") insert ("except for inns and hotels or restaurants in special eases in accordance with the provisions of this Act.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  LORD SALTOUN: This is also a consequential Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 12, line 26, leave out from ("only") to the end of the Schedule.—(Lord Saltoun.)
  Schedule II, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 175.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I do not know whether I am entitled to ask when the noble Earl proposes to take the Report stage?
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am in no hurry about the Report stage. Any day convenient to noble Lords opposite will suit me, so there is no need to settle it to-day.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I trust that an announcement of when the Report stage is to be taken will be given a sufficient length of time beforehand to enable us to make the necessary arrangements.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: Certainly. At the same time I hope that noble Lords who have Amendments to make will not delay unduly in considering them.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am out of order in speaking again, and I am sorry to be insistent. It is all very well to leave the thing to be settled between the Front Benches, but we do not all hear what takes place and some of us do not happen to be in London. I should like to know at least a week beforehand when the Report stage will be taken.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: I will take care that the noble Lord is informed.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 15) BILL.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bill so far as regards the Reading (Financial Adjustments) Order and the Bath (Financial Adjustments) Order; (viz.),

  E. Lytton (Chairman),

  L. Berwick,

  L. Colchester,

  L. Monk Bretton,

  L. Glantawe;

  agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday next, at Twelve o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Orders to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Orders.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.