Sitting of 15 April 1913

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Petition for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely,
Metropolitan Water Board Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Crowborough District Gas and Electricity Bill,
Dundee Corporation (Improvements and Tramways) Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Humber Commercial Railway and Dock Bill (by Order).
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
Liverpool Corporation Bill,
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: There is a Blocking Motion standing in my name, and a similar Motion stands in the name of several other Members of the House, against this Bill. I desire to ask leave to withdraw that Blocking Motion for the purpose of making a very short statement to the House on the subject. These Motions were put down by Members of the House who were in no way hostile to the proposals of the Bill or in any way anxious to prevent the Bill being passed by the House. They were put down for a special purpose in order that, if possible, an Instruction might be taken from this House to the Committee to which the Bill is referred, to hear before that Committee the representatives of the shipping
1786
interests of the Port of Liverpool for the purpose of discussing an important issue that has arisen between the shipping interest of the Port of Liverpool and the City Corporation in regard to the prices charged for water to the ships. We understand that by the Rules of the House such Instruction would be out of order, and under these circumstances I, on behalf of the shipping interest, desire to say this, by the leave of the House, that we wish well to the Bill; that we only hope that this dispute on an important matter may be settled between two such great interests at a very early date, and with these few words, I ask leave to withdraw the Blocking Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Objection taken to further Proceeding. Second Reading deferred till Thursday, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill.
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Brynmawr, Cambridge, Chiswick, Croydon, Doncaster, Nelson, Rhondda, Willesden, and Wood Green." Presented by Mr. HERBERT LEWIS; supported by Mr. Burns; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.
Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill.
"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Land Drainage Act, 1861, in the matter of a proposed drainage district in the parishes of Holme St. Cuthbert, Allonby, and West Newton, in the county of Cumberland." Presented by Mr. RUNCIMAN; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.
London County Council (Money) Bill.
"To regulate the expenditure on capital account and lending of money by the London County Council during the financial period from the first day of April, one thousand nine hundred and thirteen, to the thirtieth day of September, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen." Presented, and read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

NEW WRIT.
For the Borough of Shrewsbury, in the Room of Sir Clement Lloyd Hill, K.C.B., K.C.M.G., deceased. — [Lord Edmund Talbot.]
WINES IMPORTED.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 11th April; Sir Frederick Banbury]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 66.]
ARMY (MILITARY WORKS).
Copy presented of approximate Estimate of Expenditure for the year 1913–14 under the Military Works Acts of 1897, 1899, 1901, and 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, ETC., ACT, 1909.
Copy presented of Draft Order of the Local Government Board approving, with modifications, the Quinton Harborne and Edgbaston Town Planning Scheme [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
POLICE (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Fifty-fifth Annual Report of His Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland for the year ended 31st December, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

BANKRUPTCY BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 67.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 100.]

RURAL CREDIT BANKS BILL.
Second Reading deferred from To-morrow till Wednesday, 21st May.
TOWN TENANTS BILL.
Second Reading deferred from Monday next till Monday, 28th April.

RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 1).
Sir Ivor Herbert reported from the Committee on Group 1 of Railway Bills: That Mr. Parkes, one of the Members of the said Committee, was not present during the sitting of the Committee this day.
Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  FORGERY BILL [Lords].
  That they have appointed a Committee consisting of Five Lords to join with a Committee of this House to consider the Forgery Bill [Lords], and request this House to appoint an equal number of their Members to be joined with the said Lords.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  War in Balkans (Albanian Mussulmen and Catholic Minorities).
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Powers consider it essential that there should be some guarantees for the protection of Albanian Musselmen and Catholic minorities in the territory ceded to Servia and Montenegro; and whether the same guarantees for religious and racial minorities will be insisted on in the case of territory ceded to Bulgaria?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): The question of some guarantees for minorities in certain places on the frontier of Albania has been considered, but it has not yet been settled what form these should take, and I cannot add to what has been said by the Secretary of State on the subject.
  Mr. W. GUINNESS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the first part of my question is simply taken from the speech of the Secretary of State on the Consolidated Fund Bill? And are we to understand that the Powers propose to institute

  1789
  a protectorate over those parts of Macedonia which have been ceded to Servia and Montenegro?
  Mr. ACLAND: No. I do not think there is any question of a protectorate of that nature.
  Sir J. D. REES: Has the Secretary of State declined to accept the evidence of the terrible ill-treatment of Albanian Mahomedans and Christians by the Bulgarian Allies?
  Mr. ACLAND: That arises on a question which the hon. Member has on the Paper for to-morrow.
  Mr. W. GUINNESS: If there is no protectorate to be imposed upon Servia and Montenegro, surely it is possible to exact the same guarantees for those parts of Macedonia to be ceded to Bulgaria.
  Mr. ACLAND: That is a matter of opinion.

  Indian Police.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether in connection with the Poona police torture case, one of the policemen who took part in torturing these peasants had been previously sentenced to a long term of imprisonment for inflicting gross torture on other persons; if so, whether he will explain how this man came to be in a position to join in the Poona crime; and whether it is the intention of the Government of India to make any amendment in the existing law which permits confessions obtained by the police from accused persons to be used against them at their trial after having been recorded as voluntary by a magistrate?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The police sub-inspector to whom my hon. Friend refers, was sentenced in September, 1911, to eight years rigorous imprisonment for a crime committed on the 27th March, 1911. Subsequently he was found to have been implicated in another crime committed on the 4th March, 1911. The facts of this case was not brought to light for some time and a conviction was not obtained till February of this year. As regards an alteration of the law, the Government of India are considering the views of local governments and hope soon to arrive at a decision.
  Mr. MORRELL: May I ask how long the Government of India have been en-
  1790
  gaged in the revision of the Criminal Code, and when it is likely to be completed?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I think when a question was last asked in this House the Government had submitted the proposal to the local governments, and were awaiting the reply of the local governments. Now the local governments have answered, and their reply is under the consideration of the Government of India. It is necessarily a long matter to consult the local councils, and I hope a decision will be shortly arrived at.
  Mr. MORRELL: In the last five years were there not fifty-seven cases in which police officers have been found guilty up to the present of torturing prisoners, and in one year eight persons died?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I am sorry to say cases of torture do occur in India. I am glad also to say they have been diminishing.
  Sir J. D. REES: Have not the cases brought home to the police been exceedingly small in number? And is there not general evidence of great improvement in the Indian police?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The cases brought home to the Indian police are a very small number indeed. Cases of torture do still occur, and the only satisfaction we can find, and it is not much satisfaction, is that they are diminishing.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Under-Secretary whether he has official information with regard to the Poona police torture case recently tried before the additional Sessions judge and an Indian jury, in which four policemen were convicted of torturing three respectable Indian peasants for the purpose of extorting a confession of robbery from them; whether he is aware that it was proved to the satisfaction of the judge and jury that the charge was deliberately concocted by the police, and that the stolen property was found afterwards on the real thieves, who were convicted in Bombay; whether the torture inflicted on these peasants was described by the Crown Prosecutor as revolting to humanity, and included stringing up one peasant by a rope passed through his fingers to a beam and lashing him till he became unconscious, and in the case of the others forcing their arms through their legs to their toes and keeping them for hours in that position, and in depriving them of sleep for four days and

  1791
  four nights, and compelling them to dig in a field for the alleged stolen property which was proved in fact to have been buried there by the police for the express purpose of bolstering up the extorted confession; whether the confessions extorted by these tortures were recorded as voluntary confessions by a third class honorary magistrate, who questioned the accused in the presence of the policemen who had inflicted the tortures without making any adequate examination of the bodies of the accused, and who then remanded the accused to the custody of the same policemen; and, if so, what steps have been taken by the Government of India to prevent the repetition of such occurrences, and what compensation has been awarded to the three British subjects who suffered such wrongs at the hands of the magistrate and the police?
  Mr. MONTAGU: My hon. Friend's recital of the facts is, I regret to say, substantially correct. The victims of ill-treatment have been awarded pecuniary compensation of Rs. 100 each and the prisoners sentenced to heavy terms of rigorous imprisonment. The anxiety of the Government to prevent such cases has been shown by their continuous efforts to raise the status of the police and improve the supervising staff, to disallow the judging of police work by statistics of convictions, to make the supervision of lockups and the examination of prisoners' condition more rigorous, to insist on extra precautions (which in this case an Indian honorary magistrate disregarded) in recording confessions, and to publish widely all cases in which policemen are convicted of ill-treatment. We are inquiring of the Government of India what steps they propose to take with regard to the conduct of the honorary magistrate.
  Sir W. BYLES: Will the magistrate be removed from his office, and also whether in future no evidence of confession will be taken except by the tribunal which tries the case?
  Mr. MONTAGU: In regard to the first part of the question, all I am in a position to say now is that we are inquiring from the Government of India what steps they propose to take. With regard to the second part of the question I answered it in the last part of my answer just now.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is it not a fact that the Government have been advised by the
  1792
  Inspector-General of police in Bombay that the only effective means of stopping torture would be the means suggested by my hon. Friend, namely, that no confession should be permitted except when made in open Court before the judge who tries the case?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I am not aware of that.
  Colonel YATE: Are not the police all native Indians?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Yes; the police concerned are native Indians.
  Sir J. D. REES: Have not the provincial Governments reported favourably of the police as a body?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I have not seen the reports of the local governments; at present they are under the consideration of the Government.

  Punitive Expedition (Naga Hills).
  Sir W. BYLESasked whether the hon. Member will give the House information as to the punitive expedition to the Naga Hills; will he say why the expedition was undertaken, when it occurred, and what were its results; whether groups of villages were first struck at and the Nagas subsequently harried by small compact detachments; whether 120 Nagas or more were killed: how many were wounded; and what was the number of casualties to the punitive force?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The inhabitants of Chinlong, a village in unadministered territory between Assam and Burma, having treacherously murdered three British subjects, inhabitants of a village in administered territory who had visited Chinlong by invitation, the Deputy-Commissioner, Naga Hills, was dispatched in February with 150 military police, to exact reparation. His instructions were to make every endeavour to negotiate with the villagers before resorting to force. But his advance was strongly opposed, and on 5th February his transport was attacked and four police and nine coolies were killed, and five police and twenty-seven coolies wounded. Chinlong was occupied and destroyed by the Deputy-Commissioner, but his force not being strong enough to punish the group of villages concerned in organising the resistance the Secretary of State approved

  1793
  the dispatch of 200 Regulars and 240 military police for the purpose. Details have not yet been received, but the Government of India reported on 27th March that the purpose had been achieved and that the force was being withdrawn. The British casualties were four men wounded; the Naga casualties approximately 130.
  Sir W. BYLES: Does the hon. Member not think that 120 of these natives having been killed is sufficient atonement for the slaughter of three of our visitors?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I would ask my hon. Friend to consider carefully the facts as I have recited them, and then see whether he does not think the Government of India have taken the only course which was open to them.
  Colonel YATE: Will the Government of India take every step to put a stop to these raids?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Yes, the Government of India is making every effort to preserve order.

  Waziri Frontier (Disturbances).
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked whether the hon. Gentleman has any information with regard to disturbances on the Waziri frontier; and whether any military action is in contemplation?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Government of India reported that on the 5th inst., during the distribution of tribal allowances by the political agent outside Spinwam Post, a quarrel broke out among some young Waziris, and a general fight ensued. At night the post was attacked, but the attack was repulsed. Up to date of report no further disturbance had occurred. The post has been reinforced and other precautionary measures taken; but the outbreak appears to have been unpremeditated, and serious consequences are not anticipated.

  Hoffman Manufacturing Company.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked whether the hon. Member's Department have any contract with the Hoffman Manufacturing Company, Limited, Chelmsford; and, if so, whether he will make inquiries into the wages and conditions of labour, in order to ascertain whether this firm are observing the Fair-Wages Clause in their contract?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Hoffman Manufacturing Company, Limited, of Chelmsford, hold no contract with the India Office at the present time.
  Mr. BARNES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this firm heads their notepaper "Contractors to the Admiralty, the War Office, and the India Office"?
  Mr. MONTAGU: They have had contracts with the India Office, but the question was whether they have any contracts now, and they have not.
  Mr. BARNES: That question was dated the 20th of March.
  Mr. MONTAGU: I have made inquiries since the question was put down, and they are not doing anything for the India Office at the moment.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    REGISTERED HORSES (VETERINARY EXAMINATION).
    Captain FABERasked the Secretary of State for War whether the horses registered for service are examined by a veterinary surgeon before registration; and whether he is aware that many of the registered horses are totally unfit for service from lameness and other causes.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): It is not clear whether the question refers to registered horses, for which a registration fee is paid, or to classified horses. The former are inspected by a remount officer, and the owner is liable to pay a fine in respect of each horse which is not delivered up fit and up to the standard required. In the case of classified horses, we rely upon the judgment of the military censusing officer as to fitness, but a margin of 25 per cent. for failures is allowed in allotting horses for our mobilisation requirements.
    Captain FABER: Are officers with any special knowledge appointed for this duty or have they no special knowledge?
    Colonel SEELY: We endeavour to get the best officers we can, and I am satisfied that on the whole the work has been well done.
    Colonel YATE: Are the Infantry Territorial adjutants qualified to do these duties?
    Colonel SEELY: Some of the Infantry Territorial adjutants are as qualified as any men can be.

    KING'S SHROPSHIRE LIGHT INFANTRY.
    Captain CLIVEasked if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Herefordshire County Council and the Hereford Town Council have passed resolutions in favour of changing the name of the King's Shropshire Light Infantry to the King's Shropshire and Herefordshire Light Infantry; and whether, seeing that this regiment obtains a large number of their recruits from Herefordshire, and that no other regiment bears the name of the county, he can see his way to comply with the request contained in the Resolution?
    Colonel SEELY: The matter is under consideration.

    REDFORD BARRACKS.
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked when the Redford barracks will be opened for use and how soon thereafter the military authorities will vacate Edinburgh Castle; whether the War Office contemplate making any military use of the castle when the Redford barracks are completed; and whether they would favourably consider handing the castle over to the First Commissioner of Works for some national use?
    Colonel SEELY: The Redford barracks will probably be ready for use towards the end of 1915. As at present proposed, it is intended to utilise Edinburgh Castle for an Infantry depot and for other military purposes when the barracks are vacated by the Infantry battalion quartered there.

    ENGLISH SOLDIERS (WEARING OF THE ROSE).
    Mr. HUNTasked whether in view of the fact that Irish soldiers are allowed to wear the shamrock on St. Patrick's day, he can say whether English soldiers are allowed to wear the rose on St. George's day?
    Colonel SEELY: Under paragraph 1692 King's Regulations special emblems may be worn on the head-dress on anniversaries provided authority has been obtained. The Northumberland Fusiliers are permitted to wear the rose on St. George's day. No other regiments have asked for permission to do so.
    Mr. HUNT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether English soldiers have leave from him to wear the rose on St. George's day?
    Colonel SEELY: I have already said that we have received no applications from
    1796
    regiments for permission to wear the rose on St. George's Day, except in the case of the Northumberland Fusiliers, who, for a long time, have made a practice of wearing it with the full consent of the War Office.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Is it not a fact that every Irish soldier knows on what date St. Patrick's Day falls, but not even the hon. Member for the Ludlow Division knows on what date St. George's Day falls?
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Will the right, hon. Gentleman say in what form permission is given, whether it is in the Orders, or is it given to individuals?
    Colonel SEELY: Of course, if permission was asked for, it would be for the regiment as a whole, but no case has arisen in recent years.
    Sir J. D. REES: Would Welsh Regiments be given leave to wear the daffodil?

    ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
    Major M'CALMONTasked whether all and, if not, how many of the 101 aeroplanes in the possession of the military wing of the Royal Flying Corps on 19th March last had been flown outside aerodromes and across country since the previous 1st September?
    Colonel SEELY: With the exception of two instructional machines at the Central Flying School, all the biplanes of the Royal Flying Corps have been flown across country since 1st September, 1912. None of the monoplanes have been flown since the accidents which occurred in the early part of September. A certain number of them were flown across country between 1st September and that date, but there are no detailed records.

    OFFICERS (RETIRED PAY DEDUCTIONS).
    Captain CLIVEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been called to the dissatisfaction among officers on retired pay from the Army who, on appointment to any other Department of the State or declared on public funds, find deductions made from their pay under the Superannuation Act, 1887; if he is aware that retired Indian officers doing the same service have no such deduction made, nor do English officers entering civilian service abroad, although often not available for Reserve service if required; if he will state what is the total saving to the Treasury

    1797
    by this action under the Superannuation Act, 1887; and if he will consider the desirability of at any rate allowing retired officers the option of continuing their liability to Reserve service in return for the full pension which they have earned?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): The deductions are prescribed by No. 4 of the statutory rules under Section 6 of the Superannuation Act, 1887. That rule does not apply to retired Indian officers, whose retired pay is not paid from Imperial funds, nor to retired officers re-employed abroad unless the profits of their employment are derived from a public fund within the meaning of Rule 1 (b). A detailed Return showing the deductions made is presented annually to Parliament (see House of Commons Paper 272, of 1912). With reference to the last paragraph of the question, I understand that these officers are not at present exempt from liability to recall to military service. The deduction (which is made from the profits of the civil employment and not from the pension) is statutory and cannot therefore be waived.
    Captain CLIVE: The substantial part of my question was whether attention has been called to the dissatisfaction of Army officers when they find these deductions made?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: It is known that there is some dissatisfaction, but, as the hon. and gallant Member knows, no change can be made without legislation.

    Increment Value Duty.
    Captain FABERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he contemplates amending legislation to the Finance Act to the effect that Increment Value Duty shall be levied only on an increase in the value of the site?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I can at present add nothing to the reply which I gave on the 26th March last to the hon. Baronet the Member for Mid-Armagh.
    Captain FABER: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a protest from auctioneers on this subject from all over the country?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: From some of them.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether Mr. Claud Schuster has been appointed legal member of the Health Insurance Commission; and, if so, what charge is thereby laid upon the taxpayer?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Mr. Schuster will be appointed legal member of the National Health Insurance Commission as from 13th May next without extra remuneration. The separation of the posts of secretary and legal adviser to the Commission will entail the addition of £1,000 a year on the administrative side in respect of the salary of the new secretary, and a saving of about the same amount on the legal side in view of the additional time which Mr. Schuster will be able to devote to that side of the work.

    SCOTTISH CLERKS' ASSOCIATION.
    Mr. WATTasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his Department wrote in the name of the head of that Department on 31st October, 1911, to the Scottish Clerks' Association to the effect that members of an approved society who were desirous of making their own arrangements for paying their doctors could do so, and that the committee would contribute from the funds out of which medical benefit is payable towards the cost of such medical attendance and treatment?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: As I stated in answer to my hon. Friend yesterday, it is proposed to issue a full statement with regard to the position of the Scottish Clerks' Association which will deal with the letter referred to in the question in relation to other communications with the association as to their position under the Insurance Act.
    Mr. WATT: Do the Department admit that they have been wrong?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: No, my hon. Friend is mistaken. He has read the phrase that "certain arrangements would be possible" to the effect that they would be made, which is quite a different thing.
    Mr. J. HOGGE: Is it the case that this recognition depends upon the local insurance committee; and, if so, is it further the case that the Glasgow Insurance Committee have admitted the system, while the Edinburgh Insurance Committee have not?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Obviously I must ask the hon. Member for notice of that question.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the statement to which he referred will be ready?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: In a few days I hope, but I cannot give a date.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: May I ask whether the granting of permission to persons to make their own arrangements is not primarily a matter for the discretion of the insurance committees and not of the Commission?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The point arises on the next question.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Mr. WATTasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether it is necessary for an approved society under the Insurance Act to themselves employ and pay the medical attendants, and whether it is possible for the individual members to employ and pay, being refunded by the society; and when his Department came clearly to this view?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; medical benefit is administered by insurance committees and not by approved societies. With regard to the second part, persons who are allowed by insurance committees to make their own arrangements for medical attendance and treatment will receive contributions from the committees towards the cost of such attendance and treatment. These are definite provisions of the Act, about which there has never, so far as I am aware, been any such doubt as is suggested in the third part of the question. I am not sure, however, that I fully understand from the terms of the question what form of arrangements my hon. Friend has in mind, and perhaps he would furnish me with further details.

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been called to the case of Frank Humphreys, of 55, Richmond Road, an insured person suffering from phthisis, who was recommended for treatment in hospital in October, 1912; is he aware that on 30th October he was offered a bed at Mount Vernon Hospital at twenty-four hours'
    1800
    notice; that he was unable to accept the offer because he found it impossible to make any arrangements for his wife and child; that early in November his employer offered to allow £1 weekly to enable him to go to hospital; that Dr. Latham immediately notified the London Insurance Committee and the local medical adviser, and made an appeal for instant admission to hospital; that on 10th December Dr. Latham was asked by the local medical adviser of the London Insurance Committee to forward suggestions as to treatment, and at once replied, urging, for the good of the patient and the prevention of infection of the wife and child, an immediate removal to hospital; that on 2nd January the local medical adviser replied that Dr. Latham's report was being considered, and that in the meantime the home treatment was to continue; and that, in the second week of January, the patient died at home; and can he give any assurance that there will be no repetition of the delays which have characterised the attitude of the authorities in this and other cases?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The insured person in question applied for sanatorium benefit, as stated, in October last. He was examined by the medical adviser to the committee, who reported that the case was "too advanced for probability of cure or arrest." The committee, however, decided to recommend him for sanatorium benefit, and, although institutions are usually unwilling to accept cases so advanced as this had already been reported to be, made arrangements for his admission to Mount Vernon Sanatorium. He was sent an order of admission accordingly on 29th October. It is not the case that he was required to enter within twenty-four hours. The insurance committee were informed four days later that the patient refused to enter the institution, and they thereupon arranged for him to be treated at home. On a further communication from the doctor the committee consulted with the authorities of both Mount Vernon Sanatorium and the City Road Hospital, but both institutions decided that the case was too advanced to be suitable for admission. The hon. Member will therefore see that so far from there being any foundation for the suggestion in the last part of his question, the insurance committee took every possible step to provide the best form of treatment for a patient

    1801
    who was reported when he first applied for the benefit to be already in so advanced a stage of the disease that there was no probability of cure or arrest.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I ask whether the attitude of the authorities is due to the fact that sanatorium benefit is practically non-existent in London?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Obviously, the first part of the answer shows that that is not so.

    SICKNESS AND MATERNITY BENEFITS.
    Mr. LUNDONasked what percentage of the funds available for distribution under the National Insurance Act has been paid out in sickness and maternity benefits in England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, respectively; and will the percentage for each month up to 1st April in each country be given separately?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The information asked for in the question could not be obtained without calling for a special return from about 23,500 societies and 233 insurance committees, through which the benefits referred to are administered; and in view of the fact that these benefits have only been in operation three months, and of the heavy initial work falling upon societies and committees in their administration, I think it would be premature to require them to furnish such a return.
    Mr. BOOTH: May I ask whether, with a view to dealing with this problem, they are considering the question of the reinsurance of the maternity benefit?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I should require notice of the question.

    MEDICAL PANEL (SOUTH SHIELDS).
    Mr. WARDLEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to a resolution of the medical men for South Shields limiting the number of patients to 800, and allocating those insured persons who had not selected their medical adviser on 22nd March, 1913, to those doctors who had less than 800 persons on their list; whether such practice is contrary to the provision of the National Insurance Act guaranteeing free choice of doctor on the panel; and what he proposes to do in the matter in face of the local dissatisfaction which has been caused by this resolution?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I understand that the method of allocation referred to in the
    1802
    question has been recommended by the local medical committee, and by a majority of the practitioners on the panel present at a meeting held to consider the question, but, as I stated in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne on Thursday last, the insurance committee have not yet arrived at any decision. With regard to the second part of the question, I may point out that the proposed allocation only applies to those insured persons who have failed to exercise their right of choosing a doctor or have been refused by the doctors whom they had selected. Even if it were adopted, therefore, it could not have the result of preventing more than 800 insured persons choosing a particular doctor.

    Children Act, 1908 (Scotland).
    Sir HENRY DALZIELasked the Secretary for Scotland whether it is intended to issue any rules under Section 98, Sub-section (3), of the Children Act, 1908, with a view to enforcing the attendance at the Police Courts of parents or guardians of children charged with offences in Police Courts on lines similar to those issued in England on 27th May, 1909, providing for parents being summoned along with their children.
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): In Scotland the making of rules under the Section referred to in my right hon. Friend's question is a matter for the High Court of Justiciary. No Act of Adjournal dealing with the special point mentioned has so far been made by the Court. I am not aware that difficulty has been experienced by Courts in Scotland in enforcing the attendance of parents and guardians.

    Prisons.
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is now in a position to state the method of filling the posts of second-class clerkships under the Prison Commissioners; and, if not, whether he can say that they will be filled by competition?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have not as yet anything to add to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend last Tuesday.
    Mr. J. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of these posts will be filled by nomination, and, if so, on whose nomination?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, Sir. I cannot add anything to the answer I gave. It is a matter upon which I have to consult the President.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Home Secretary what are the duties of the clerk and draftsman in the office of the surveyor to the Commission of Prisons, and what are the reasons which induced His Majesty's present Government to remove this position from the list of situations in the Civil Service open to public competitive examination by the Civil Service Commissioners; and why it was considered necessary to place this position amongst those which can be filled by the patronage and nomination of a Minister of the Crown or by the head of a Department, and what is the salary attached to this position?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The duties are to supervise the work of the draftsmen and all details in the drawing office. The qualifications for the post are technical, and when a vacancy occurred in October, 1905, arrangements were made by which it was filled by one of the technical officers already serving in the Prison Department in an unestablished position. This arrangement has worked well, and, as it was proposed to continue it, the post was in 1909 removed from Schedule A. The salary is £5 a week.
    Major HOPEasked what was the result of the inquiry held by the Scottish Prison Commissioners with regard to the speech delivered at the New Café, St. Andrew Square, Edinburgh, on 29th January, by the Medical Officer of the Duke Street Prison, Glasgow; and what finding, if any, the Scottish Prison Commissioners arrived at?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have nothing to add to my previous answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the 17th March.
    Major HOPE: Is it not in the public interest to know whether the inquiry acquitted this officer of having publicly ridiculed the Borstal system or of having contravened the rules of the Civil Service, especially as he has since been appointed a Prison Commissioner to administer the Crimes Act in Scotland?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: In my previous answer I gave the hon. and gallant
    1804
    Member all the information I had about the inquiry, and I have no further information.
    Major HOPE: No answer was given as to the result of the inquiry.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes, there was. The answer was that the Prison Commissioners had held an inquiry, and the doctor in question denied that the short report in the papers adequately or practically represented the views he expressed.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Was that the only report?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I believe so. I do not know of any other.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Is there anything improper in the official in question discussing ordinary social problems?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: There is nothing improper in discussing ordinary social problems.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: May we take it from that answer that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with these statements?
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked whether, in advertising prison clerkships, the age was confined to between eighteen and thirty; whether this precludes existing store warders from applying on account of the age barrier; whether the existing store warders will have the training of any new appointments; and whether these men will ultimately be promoted over the heads of their instructors?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the negative. I am informed that the clerks will be trained under the prison stewards, and that store warders and clerks will be equally eligible for promotion.
    Mr. J. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the disparity in remuneration of Scottish store warders who are performing the same work as English clerks and schoolmasters; whether, in addition to the same work, Scottish store warders work twenty-nine hours per fortnight more than English clerks; and whether he is prepared to consider these circumstances with a view to remedying the disparity?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am not in a position to institute precise comparisons between the two services. The hours of store warders in Scotland do not exceed nine a day. There was an improvement in their position as recently as 1910, and I am in communication with the Treasury on the subject.
    Mr. J. HOGGE: Is it a fact that the Scottish storekeepers actually work twenty-nine hours more in the fortnight?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not know. I cannot answer that question myself, because I do not exactly know what the differences in their work are, but I believe they do work nine hours a day, and, if the English storekeepers work seven, then they do work more hours.
    Mr. J. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries?

    Diseases of Animals Act, 1894.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, under Section 19 (3) of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, in the event of the sum received by the local authority on the sale of the carcase of a bovine animal after slaughter under the Tuberculosis Order of 1913, exceeding the amount paid for compensation to the owner of the slaughtered animal, the excess will be paid to the owner of such animal; and, if so, whether he will amend the circular referring to the Order and issued to the local authorities on the 25th March, in which they are informed that sums received by them from the sale of the carcases of slaughtered animals should be shown in the account rendered to the Board and deducted from the total expenditure incurred by such authority instead of being, as provided by the Act, added to the compensation paid to the stock-owner?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): Any amount received from salvage in excess of the compensation received by the owner is payable to him in accordance with the provisions of Section 20 (3) of the Act, after deducting reasonable expenses. The clerks of local authorities, to whom the circular letter of 25th March is addressed, are well aware of this provision in the Act, and it does not appear to me to be necessary to call their special attention to it.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is it not the fact that the circular addressed to these authorities is itself misleading in view of the Section of the Act to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have looked into the circular again, and it does not appear to me to be inconsistent with Section 20, Sub-section (3), of the Act itself.

    Corn Returns Act, 1882 (Tithe).
    Captain CLIVEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if the average weight of the imperial bushel, as deduced from the table on page 121 of the latest agricultural statistics, is for wheat 61.74 pounds, barley 53.6 pounds, and oats 39.33 pounds, as compared with 60 pounds, 50 pounds, and 39 pounds, the figures laid down in Section 8 of the Corn Returns Act, 1882; whether this causes an appreciable error in the calculations of the annual value of tithe, besides rendering the official prices of corn misleading; and, seeing that, though Select Committees inquired into this subject in 1888, 1891, and 1893, none has been appointed since, he will consider the desirability of appointing such a Committee?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The mean estimated natural weights of wheat, barley, and oats in England and Wales during the last seven years are as stated in the first part of the question. As the basis of conversion laid down by the Act is always published as a note to the Corn Averages in the "London Gazette," I do not think that the prices can be regarded as misleading, although they necessarily differ from the quotations at markets where different weights per bushel are used in the sale of corn. The question of instituting an inquiry into the sale of corn by weight or otherwise is under consideration.
    Captain CLIVE: Does the right hon. Gentleman admit that the calculations of tithe are inaccurate?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Oh no, I do not admit that at all.
    Captain CLIVE: Seeing the differences mentioned in my question, they surely must be inaccurate?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, our figures are given in accordance with the Corn Returns Act, and they have been given in that form for the last thirty years.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is it not the fact that, owing to the steady improvement in the breeds of wheat, the weight of the bushel is steadily increasing every year?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I admit that there is ground for considering the starting of some uniform system of measuring the corn, and that is one of the points under consideration.

    Farm Schools and Institutes.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the definition of a farm school contained in the printed circular of the Board dated March, 1913, and headed Agricultural Education in connection with Farm Schools and Farm Institutes, is intended to convey the meaning that winter short courses in agriculture will be restricted to those who have attended elementary schools; and, if so, seeing that in Wiltshire, Gloucestershire, and many other counties the proportion of farmers' sons attending elementary schools is small, he will amend this definition so as to include those who have received their education through other channels?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part therefore does not arise.

    British Colonies (Indian Indentured Labour).
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the terms of the reference under which Mr. James M'Neill, of the Bombay Civil Service, and Mr. Chimman Lal, an honorary magistrate in the United Provinces, are now making a visit of inquiry and inspection to those Colonies in which there are Indian immigrants employed under the indentured labour system; what Colonies these gentlemen are visiting or proposing to visit; and whether they are empowered to take evidence; and, if so, from whom and of what character?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The general object of the inquiry is to report upon the conditions of life of the Indian immigrants in the Colonies, and the officers concerned are instructed to submit recommendations as to any arrangements that may be desirable to promote the welfare of those Indians. They are to visit British Guiana, Trinidad, Jamaica, Fiji, and the Dutch
    1808
    colony of Surinam. Their instructions do not contemplate the formal taking of evidence, but, so far as the British Colonies are concerned, the Colonial Governments would doubtless give further facilities of this kind if needed.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I ask why it is necessary to have this inquiry so soon after that of Lord Sanderson, who reported that all was well in regard to this matter?
    Mr. MONTAGU: It was considered that it might be possible to get arrangements made in these places which would be more suitable to Indian immigrants, and the attempt is being made.

    Workmen's Compensation Act.
    Mr. GILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the many inequalities in connection with the administration of the Workmen's Compensation Act, he is now prepared to introduce an amending Bill or institute an inquiry as to what amendments to the law are necessary?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am afraid I can only repeat what I said in reply to a question of my hon. Friend on this subject on the 12th February, that for the reasons then stated an inquiry would be premature at the present time.

    Mine Rescue Work.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Home Secretary whether any decision has yet been reached concerning the memorandum of the education committee of the Glamorgan County Council asking that certificates issued by that body for competency in first-aid and rescue work, which are already recognised by the Board of Trade and the War Office, should also be recognised by his Department for the requirements of the Mines Act; and, if no decision has been reached, whether he will expedite the consideration of the matter in order to enable working men students who desire to sit for their certificates as mine managers at the forthcoming examination in May next, and who already hold the Glamorgan qualification, to do so without further delay or waste of time?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am considering the matter, and I am afraid I cannot add anything at present to the answers which I gave the hon. Member last week.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Was not this matter first brought before the Home Office twelve months ago? How much longer is the Glamorgan County Council to wait for a decision?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am afraid I cannot answer that.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: But cannot the right hon. Gentleman say if twelve months have elapsed since the matter was brought before the Home Office?
    Mr. McKENNA: I will inquire as to the date.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    DOCKYARDS (VISITING REGULATIONS).
    Captain FABERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what are the latest regulations governing the admission of male and female visitors to the Royal dockyards and arsenals; are foreigners of all or any nationalities excluded; are cameras permitted or the use of them prohibited; and are the latest definite rules invariably complied with?
    The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Lambert): All British subjects are permitted to view His Majesty's dockyards on making application to the police at the gates. Visitors are usually conducted round the dockyards by a police constable, but in special cases, where not so escorted and subject to his discretion, a pass ticket is given by the inspector of police which has to be produced by the visitor on being challenged by any member of the police force on duty in the yard. This pass does not admit to workshops or to any place where confidential matters are dealt with. Foreigners, of all nationalities, are not allowed to enter the yards without the sanction of the Admiralty, and when such sanction is given they must be accompanied by specially authorised officials. Visitors are only allowed to take cameras into the dockyards with Admiralty permission. There is no reason to suppose that the Admiralty regulations are not fully complied with by the superintendents of the dockyards, with the loyal support of the officers of the Metropolitan police.

    ROYAL MARINES (LIEUTENANT'S PAY).
    Captain FABERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will explain why at the present time there are two officers, Royal Marines, who have entered the service through Osborne and
    1810
    are serving as probationers and drawing 7s. 6d. per day, which is the new scale of pay, whilst the remainder of the lientenants, Royal Marines, are only drawing 7s. a day on the old scale of pay; and whether he is aware that these probationers on 7s. 6d. a day are several years junior to those on 7s.?
    Mr. LAMBERT: The rates of pay are as stated. The two probationary lieutenants, Royal Marines, have been trained as naval officers, and are now undergoing their military training as Royal Marine officers. The pay of such officers was fixed at 7s. 6d. per diem in consideration of their naval training in addition to their duties as Royal Marine officers.
    Captain FABER: Are lieutenants of Marines the only lieutenants who have not got an increase of pay either in the Army or Navy?
    Mr. LAMBERT: I must ask for notice of that question.

    IMPROVED LABOUR CONDITIONS.
    Mr. FREDERICK HALLasked if any, and, if so, what provision is made in the Navy Estimates for 1913–14 to cover the cost of improving the conditions of labour of workers in the Government dockyards?
    Mr. LAMBERT: The usual financial arrangements would be made for giving effect to any decision that may be arrived at on this matter.

    Batlock's Heath School Dispute.
    Captain FABERasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to a meeting of ratepayers and parents of Hound parish on 3rd April, at which they agreed immediately to withdraw the children from Batlock's Heath school and to keep them out until the date is fixed for a public inquiry; and will he say what proportion of children have been present daily between 7th and 11th April, inclusive?
    The SECRETARY to the BOARD of BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Seventy children were withdrawn from the school, the average attendance at which for the last school year was 259, between the dates mentioned in the question.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the trouble has arisen out of the dismissal of the school teacher, and do not the facts mentioned show that in the opinion of the people of the locality there is cause for an inquiry, which the local authority refuses to grant?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: I understand that the cause of the trouble is the dismissal of the school teacher. The Board of Education have no power to intervene in that matter, but I have just learned that the local authority are taking steps to settle the matter amicably, and if another question is asked in a few days I hope I may be able to give a satisfactory reply.
    Captain FABER: Were not 100 children absent yesterday instead of seventy, and are not things getting worse and worse?

    Labour Exchanges (Domestic Servants).
    Sir HENRY DALZIELasked the President of the Board of Trade whether be can see his way to take such steps as may be necessary to enable domestic servants to obtain situations through Labour Exchanges?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Managers of Labour Exchanges have been instructed from the outset not accept notifications of vacancies for resident domestic servants in private houses. Recently the juvenile departments of a limited number of Exchanges have been allowed, on the advice and subject to the supervision of juvenile advisory committees, or in co-operation with education authorities exercising powers under the Choice of Employment Act, to deal with vacancies of this nature in the case of boys and girls under seventeen. Except to this extent and in this direction I do not, as at present advised, think it would be desirable to alter the general instructions. Vacancies for service in hotels and business houses are, of course, dealt with by the Exchanges.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some Exchanges offer facilities for domestic servants to obtain situations at large hotels and at the same time refuse to assist them in getting them in private houses?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: That is so, and it is done for general reasons, of which the right hon. Gentleman is aware.
    Mr. R. HARCOURT: What difference in principle is there between juveniles in private houses and adults?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Juveniles are kept under very careful supervision. With regard to adults, the policy of the Board from the start has been not to compete with the large number of registry offices.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Is not the hon. Member confusing the issue by introducing the question of juveniles? We are dealing with adults who wish to get into private employment, which, in my opinion, is better than hotel service, yet the local Exchanges offer them no facilities, but recommend them to go into large hotels. Is it not the fact that the officials in many districts desire to arrange for private service?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I quite understood the right hon. Gentleman's question. I mentioned the case of the juveniles in order to show that we had all the facts before us and so that it should not be supposed I was suppressing anything. There have been certain difficulties in regard to the matter of domestic service, and as at present advised we do not propose to alter our policy.
    Mr. WATT: Has the attention of the Department been called to the exorbitant charges made by private registry agencies?

    Railway Returns.
    Mr. WARDLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the interest now taken in railway affairs, he will expedite the preparation and publication of a summary of Railway Returns for 1912 and have the same issued as a White Paper?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: In accordance with the usual practice, a Return giving preliminary figures respecting railway working in 1912 will be issued at the earliest possible moment.

    Telephone Service.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Postmaster-General how many rural party line telephones will the additional Treasury Grant of £20,000 provide, estimated on the basis of those already provided with the original Grant?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The additional Grant will probably admit of the provision of about 1,300 additional rural party line telephones, assuming that the cost of their construction does not exceed to any material extent the cost of those provided

    1813
    out of the original Grant. I hope, however, that the experience obtained will enable the arrangements to be put on a settled basis before the additional experimental Grant is exhausted.

    China (Parcels Post).
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Postmaster-General whether he realises that Great Britain is the only country which has no parcels post service with China viâ Siberia, and that all trade samples and other goods suitable for transmission by parcels post have now to be sent from China through the German or other foreign post office, and that all like goods dispatched from Great Britain to China have first to be sent to either Germany or Russia and thence reconsigned, at the cost of delay and expense, to China; and whether, in justice to British traders, he will afford them the same parcels post facilities as those enjoyed by the competing traders of other countries?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I hope to be able to make a statement on this subject shortly. Parcels for this country viâ Siberia can be posted at the British Post Office agencies in China as well as at agencies of other nationalities and at Chinese post offices, but the service is little used. Parcels are transmitted viâ Siberia more slowly than letters.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Does the right hon. Gentleman admit that there is unfair preference in favour of foreign traders?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Not that I am aware of, so far as the service from China to England, to which the hon. Member's question relates, is concerned.

    Wireless Telegraph Installation (St. Kilda).
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked when the wireless telegraph installation provided by a London newspaper for St. Kilda will be set up?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have not been informed of the date on which the proposed wireless telegraph station at St. Kilda will be established. The necessary licence was issued in January.
    Mr. HOGGE: Do I understand that as soon as possible this installation will be erected?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It does not depend upon me at all. It is erected by private enterprise. My task was to issue
    1814
    a licence, and that was done some months ago.

    Weyhill Commons Enclosure Act, 1812.
    Mr. JOHN WARDasked the hon. Member for the Doncaster Division, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, whether they have any funds under their control derived from the lands apportioned to the Church by the Weyhill Commons Enclosure Act of 1812; whether they have a map describing the apportionments under the Act; and, if so, will they supply the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent with a copy of the same?
    Sir CHARLES NICHOLSON: The Ecclesiastical Commissioners have no such funds, nor have they the map to which the hon. Member refers. The map may be in the custody of the Clerk of the Peace at Winchester.

    Royal Veterinary College (Ireland).
    Mr. LARDNERasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) when the Royal Veterinary College of Ireland was founded; whether it is intended to transfer the control and management of the same from the board of governors to his Department, the reasons for and terms of the proposed transfer, and when the same will take effect; the present staff of the college and how their status will be affected; and whether he is willing to lay Papers upon the Table to enable Members to consider the propriety of the proposed transfer?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): The Royal Veterinary College of Ireland was founded by Letters Patent bearing date 27th May, 1895, but no funds were made available until the establishment of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland. From the money placed at the disposal of the Department by the Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899, a, sum of £15,000 was allocated for buildings, fittings, and equipment, in connection with the Veterinary College. The Department subsequently, with the concurrence of the Agricultural Board, made additional capital Grants for these purposes, bringing the total to £27,350, and gave further assistance in the form of annual Grants. The Department have offered to take over the financial and administrative control of the college, and this offer has been accepted

    1815
    by the board of governors. The Department have had recently under review the situation in Ireland as regards the future of veterinary administration and education, and have resolved that it is desirable to make certain important advances in this respect. The corps of veterinary surgeons for the Department's service, and that of the local authorities under the Diseases of Animals Acts, as well as for general practice in Ireland, are now mainly trained in this college. At present the college is in an insecure financial position—depending mainly on the fluctuating item of students' fees—and is inadequately staffed and equipped. The Department are convinced that in these circumstances to take charge of the college and to put it in a state of thorough efficiency and permanent security is a matter of real and urgent necessity. This course has accordingly been decided on, the Department's intention being: (a) To become entirely responsible for the maintenance of the college, the payment of its staff, the necessary upkeep and development of its equipment and buildings, and to do all that might be practicable to bring the college up to the highest degree of efficiency in every respect, and to maintain it at that level; (b) to establish the college research laboratory on a basis of adequate efficiency, both for the educational requirements of the college and for the purposes of independent investigations, and to facilitate its co-ordination, in regard both to work and to opportunities, with all other work in connection with veterinary research done under the auspices of the Department. The present board of governors have consented to be constituted as an advisory council for the purpose of advising the Department on matters connected with the educational policy of the college. The transfer will be effected as soon as the necessary legal formalities can be completed. The present staff of the college consists of the principal, who also acts as professor of pathology and bacteriology, two whole-time professors, one of medicine and anatomy and the other of surgery, and one whole-time demonstrator. The other subjects of the curriculum are dealt with by part-time teachers, i.e., teachers whose time is not solely at the disposal of the college. Steps will be taken, both by the governors and by the Department, to see that the interests of the existing staff are adequately safeguarded.

    Irish Education Committee.
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the question of admitting the Press to its sittings has been considered by the Irish Education Committee, and, if so, what is the result; and, if, in face of the public demand for the Press, they still refuse to admit it, will he immediately take steps to dissolve the Committee as no longer carrying out in a satisfactory manner the task entrusted to it by Parliament?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I am in communication with the Committee on the subject of admitting the Press, and the Press only, to their proceedings.

    Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
    Mr. DELANYasked whether the Estates Commissioners have received a resolution passed by the Abbeyleix branch of the United Irish League, drawing their attention to the case of Michael Delany, late of Ballymaddock, on the De Vesci estate, Abbeyleix, Queen's County, whose father was evicted from a farm of thirty acres on the De Vesci estate, in July, 1882, under most cruel and heartless circumstances, and urging the Commissioners to provide him with an allotment on the first available land that comes into their hands; and what action the Commissioners propose taking in this case?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have received the resolution referred to. The holding on the De Vesci estate, Queen's County, formerly occupied by Delany's father is now in the possession of another tenant. The Commissioners have decided to take no action in the matter.
    Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked whether the Estates Commissioners have considered the application of Mary Connolly, of Eden, Rossinver, county Leitrim, for reinstatement in the farm from which she and her family were evicted on the estate of James Johnston, Kinlough, on the 13th May, 1899; and whether, having regard to the fact that the occupying tenant is willing to give up possession, she will be reinstated or supplied with a suitable farm elsewhere?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are unable to trace the receipt of any application from Mary Connolly for reinstatement in a holding on the estate referred to.

    United Irish League.
    Mr. O'DOWDasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he has received a resolution from the Sooey, Ballintogher, county Sligo, branch of the United Irish League, praying that their flag, which was captured by the police in Dromahaire in 1903, be returned to them; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have received the resolution referred to. The police authorities inform me that no flag was seized at Dromahaire in 1903, but that in September, 1899, on the occasion of an attempt to hold a meeting which had been proclaimed at that place, a band was dispersed by force and their flag seized. In the struggle to obtain possession of the flag it was torn to pieces and nothing of it remains.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked whether John Short, of Corracloone, Kiltyclogher, county Leitrim, was deprived of his old age pension on the ground of means; and whether, having regard to the fact that he has no means of support but is living with his son, who is the owner of a small farm, the yearly annuity of which is £1 19s. 10d., the Local Government Board would reconsider his case and grant him the pension?
    Mr. BIRRELL: This claim is at present being investigated by the Local Government Board.
    Mr. O'DOWDasked whether the local pension committee of Collooney, county Sligo, at its meeting held on the 27th December, 1912, granted a pension of 5s. weekly to Patrick Gilmore, of Tully-beg, parish of Kilross, pension district of Collooney, county Sligo; whether the pension officer, in appealing against the committee's decision, recommended a weekly pension of 3s.; whether the Local Government Board have thrown overboard both the pension committee and the pension officer by refusing the applicant any pension whatever; and, if so, on whose information the Local Government Board acted; and what redress there is for the applicant?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The facts are as stated. The Local Government Board formed their own estimate of the claimant's means from the admitted facts as to the
    1818
    stock and crops on the farm, and as to his circumstances generally. The decision of the Board in respect of this claim is final, but in the event of there being hereafter any change in circumstances, or new facts, it is open to claimant to make a fresh claim.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked whether Mrs. Mary Harte, of Cooladonnel, Ballaghameehan, county Leitrim, a tenant on the Wynne estate, was compelled to purchase her holding through being threatened by the agent for recovery of all arrears of rent; that, as a result of her signing the purchase agreement, a large number of tenants have a right to turbary on her land, contrary to her knowledge or desire; and that she has not a suitable pass to her farm; and whether the Estates Commissioners would consider these facts previous to vesting the estate?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have no information as to the circumstances in which Mrs. Hart signed an agreement to purchase her holding on this estate. When the estate is being dealt with by the Commissioners in order of priority, the question of the disposal of the turbary on her holding will be considered.

    Committee on Irish Finance.
    Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the impression now prevailing that the evidence of the Irish official witnesses before the Primrose Committee is favourable to the financial demands of Ireland, and of his own statement that these officials have no personal objection, he will represent to them the desirability in the public interest of their formally consenting to the publication of their evidence, with a view to suggestions for the amendment of the Government of Ireland Bill being sent up to the House of Lords on the next presentation of the Bill?
    Mr. BIRRELL: As I have already stated, the greater number of the Irish official witnesses have a strong objection on principle to the publication of evidence given on the understanding that it would be treated as confidential. I cannot ask them to waive that objection, which I fully appreciate. I having been in some sense responsible for the giving of that undertaking cannot be the person to ask them to waive that objection.
    Mr. W. O'BRIEN: If not the right hon. Gentleman, could not some other Member of the Government approach them, instead of standing upon punctilio, so as to let us know once and for all the evidence on which this secret Committee came to the recommendation of fiscal autonomy, and the reasons for which the Government rejected that view?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have already said that although I fully appreciate the reasons why the Civil servants, who were told that their evidence would be confidential, think it is very undesirable in the interests of the service that it should be published, I personally would be very glad if it could be published, were it only to destroy once and for ever the false impressions which I am afraid otherwise will always exist as to what they did say.
    Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the interests of the country are superior to the interests of the Civil Service? Are we never to get to the end of the mystery about this inquiry?
    Mr. BIRRELL: If hon. Members will make a mystery, nothing will destroy it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Can the Prime Minister make any statement about business, particularly with regard to the Budget?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): To-morrow we shall take the Committee stage of the Army (Annual) Bill, and I hope also the Third Reading before 8.15.
  On Thursday, we shall first take the Report of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Bill, followed by the Committee on the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-health) Bill.
  On Monday, we hope to take the Third Reading of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Bill, followed by the later stages of the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-health) Bill.
  On Tuesday, we shall take the Budget.

  BILLS PRESENTED.

    EDUCATION (ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS) BILL.
    "To amend the provisions of the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1907, and the Education (Provision of Meals) Act, 1906." Presented by Mr. WARDLE; supported by Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Clynes, Mr. Charles Duncan, Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. Jowett, Mr.
    Crooks, Mr. Tyson Wilson, Mr. George Roberts, and Mr. Parker; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 30th April, and to be printed. [Bill 101.]

    RAILWAY OFFICES BILL.
    "To regulate Railway Offices and the hours of labour therein; and for other purposes connected therewith." Presented by Mr. WARDLE; supported by Mr. George Roberts, Mr. Hudson, Mr. James Thomas, Sir James Yoxall, Mr. MacVeagh, Mr. Alden, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Crooks, Mr. Snowden, and Mr. Pointer; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 30th April, and to be printed. [Bill 102.]
    CHARACTER NOTE BILL.
    "To make compulsory the giving of Character Notes." Presented by Mr. WARDLE; supported by Mr. James Thomas, Mr. Hudson, Mr. Fenwick, Sir Herbert Raphael, and Mr. Stephen Walsh; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 30th April, and to be printed. [Bill 103.]

    PROVISIONAL COLLECTION OF TAXES BILL.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Proceedings on the Provisional Collection of Taxes Bill, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]
    The House divided: Ayes, 279; Noes, 132.

    Division No. 46.]

    AYES.

    [3.41 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

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

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

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Dawes, J. A.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Delany, William

    Alden, Percy

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

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

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Dillon, John

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Doris, William

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Duffy, William J.

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Clough, William

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Cotton, William Francis

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

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

    Cowan, W. H.

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Bentham, G. J.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Falconer, James

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Crooks, William

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Black, Arthur W.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Boland, John Plus

    Cullinan, John

    Ffrench, Peter

    Booth, Frederick Handel

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

    Field, William

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Furness, Stephen

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Robinson, Sidney

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

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

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Gill, A. H.

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

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Ginnell, Laurence

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Manfield, Harry

    Rowlands, James

    Glanville, H. J.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Martin, Joseph

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Goldstone, Frank

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Meagher, Michael

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

    Greig, Col. J. W.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Middlebrook, William

    Scanlan, Thomas

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

    Molloy, Michael

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Hackett, John

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

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

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Sheehy, David

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Mooney, John J.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Morgan, George Hay

    Shortt, Edward

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Morrell, Philip

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Morison, Hector

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Snowden, Philip

    Hayward, Evan

    Munro, R.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Hazleton, Richard

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

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Sutherland, John E.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Sutton, John E.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Neilson, Francis

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Hinds, John

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Hodge, John

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Hogge, James Myles

    Nuttall, Harry

    Thomas, James Henry

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Johnson, W.

    O'Dowd, John

    Verney, Sir Harry

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

    O'Grady, James

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Wardle, George J.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Malley, William

    Waring, Walter

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

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

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    O'Shee, James John

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Jowett, F. W.

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    Joyce, Michael

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Webb, H.

    Keating, Matthew

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Parry, Thomas H.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Kelly, Edward

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Pointer, Joseph

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    King, J.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

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

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Leach, Charles

    Radford, G. H.

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

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

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Lundon, Thomas

    Reddy, M.

    Wing, Thomas

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

    Lynch, A. A.

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Rendall, Atheistan

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    McGhee, Richard

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Maclean, Donald

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

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

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    1828

    NOES.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Boyton, James

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

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

    Croft, H. P.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Campion, W. R.

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Barnston, Harry

    Cassel, Felix

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Cater, John

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

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

    Bigland, Alfred

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Bird, Alfred

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Fell, Arthur

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    1829

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Rawson, Colonel R. H.

    Fleming, Valentine

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Forster, Henry William

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Gilmour, Captain John

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

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Goldman, C. S.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Stanier, Beville

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Grant, J. A.

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

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

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich)

    Stewart, Gershom

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

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Harris, Henry Percy

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

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

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Thynne, Lord A.

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

    Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

    Valentia, Viscount

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Welgall, Captain A. G.

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

    Hoare, S. J. G.

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

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

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

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

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

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

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Younger, Sir George

    Hunt, Rowland

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Nicholson and Capt. Tryon.

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Bill further considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

    CLAUSE 1.—(Resolutions Imposing, Varying, or Renewing, Tax to have Statutory Effect for a Limited Period).
    (1) Where a Resolution is passed by the Committee of Ways and Means of the House of Commons providing for the imposition of any new tax, or for the variation of any existing tax, or for the renewal for a further period of any temporary tax, whether at the same or a different rate, and whether with or without modifications, and the Resolution contains a declaration that it is expedient, in order to safeguard the interests of the public revenue, that the Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of this Act, the Resolution shall, for the period limited by this Section, and subject to the provisions of this Act, have statutory effect as if contained in an Act of Parliament, and where the Resolution provides for the renewal of a temporary tax all enactments which were in force with reference to that tax as last imposed by Act of Parliament shall, during the said period, and subject to the provisions of this Act, have full force and effect with respect to the tax as renewed by the Resolution.
    Provided that—

    (a) The Resolution shall cease to have statutory effect if during the said period Parliament is dissolved or
    1830
    prorogued, or an Act comes into operation imposing, varying, or renewing the tax under the authority of the Resolution, or the Resolution is rejected by the House when considered on Report; and

    (b) Where the Resolution so ceases to have statutory effect, or the said period terminates, before an Act comes into operation imposing, varying, or renewing the tax under the authority of the Resolution, any money paid in pursuance of the Resolution shall be repaid or made, good, and any deduction made in pursuance of the Resolution shall be deemed to be an unauthorised deduction; and

    (c) Where the tax as imposed, varied, or renewed by the Resolution is modified, either when considered by the House on the report of the Resolution, or by the Act imposing, varying or renewing the tax under the authority of the Resolution, any money which has been paid in pursuance of the Resolution, which would not have been payable under the new conditions affecting the tax shall be repaid or made good, and any deduction made in pursuance of the Resolution shall, so far as it would not have been authorised under the new conditions affecting the tax, be deemed to be an unauthorised deduction; and

    1831

    (d) When during any Session a Resolution has had statutory effect under this Act, statutory effect shall not be again given under this Act in the same Session to the same Resolution or to a Resolution having the same effect; and

    (e) This Act shall apply only to duties of Customs and Excise and to Income Tax.

    (2) The period for which a Resolution shall have statutory force under this Section shall be a period expiring at the end of four months after the date on which the Resolution is expressed to take effect, or, if no such date is expressed, after the date on which the Resolution is passed by the Committee:

    In this Act the expression "temporary tax" means a tax which has been imposed or renewed for a limited period not exceeding eighteen months.
    Amendment proposed [14th April]: In Sub-section (1), after the word "shall" ["shall for the period limited by this Section"], to insert the words "within the same financial year and."—[Mr. James Hope.]
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted." Debate resumed.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I have discovered, rather to my chagrin, that there is in the proposal I made last night a serious flaw, which, if greater consideration had been given to the subject, might have been avoided. I will very briefly recall to the Committee the nature of my proposal. The object of my Amendment was that the Resolution contemplated in the Bill should not have effect beyond the limit of the financial year, namely, 31st March. I gave reasons, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer quite handsomely acknowledged, why that should be so. He pointed out that in the same year there might be a necessity, as there was thirteen or fourteen years ago, to get new taxes levied before the end of the financial year, and he asked how I would meet that case. I said I would allow the Resolution to be renewed from the beginning of the next financial year, or within three days before its commencement. But, on looking into the matter, I quite see that that leaves a gap. If it has to be renewed in the next financial year, there would be at least one day in which the collection would lapse. If it
    1832
    is possible, I should like to make a fresh proposal. I know that my Amendment has been moved, but I would suggest that it might read thus:—
    "by consent within the said financial year or fourteen days from the expiration thereof."
    In regard to the second, or what is in a sense a consequential, Amendment, it would not be necessary to put in the words,
    "or within three days of the beginning of the next financial year,"
    because the former Amendment would have covered that. My proposal now would be that the Resolution shall run, subject, of course, to the four months' period, to the end of the financial year and fourteen days afterwards, so as to admit of renewal. I submit that the renewal of the Resolution might be done within fourteen days after the beginning of the financial year. My great object in making this proposal is that a Chancellor of the Exchequer shall not divide the Budget and make proposals for fresh taxation until he is able to disclose the financial situation at the end of the financial year, and disclose also the proposals for the next year. I therefore ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider this proposal.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I will deal with the proposal as if it had been moved in the form now proposed by the hon. Gentleman, and therefore I will raise no point such as he indicated with respect to the Amendment he moved last night. When the hon. Gentleman made his statement last night I certainly thought there was something that required consideration. I have given the matter very careful consideration, and in my position as Chancellor of the Exchequer I have had the advice of all those concerned. The Amendment, if moved in this form, does not put serious obstacles in the way of an emergency Budget brought in under extraordinary pressure—the pressure, for example, of a great war, when you have to introduce a Budget before the end of the financial year in order to get taxation as soon as possible. The latest case cited by the hon. Gentleman was one of that kind when Sir Michael Hicks-Beach (now Lord St. Aldwyn) introduced his Budget some time in the month of March. If this Amendment had been in operation then, what would have happened would have

    1833
    been that Lord St. Aldwyn, within fourteen days after the end of the financial year, would have had to renew the Resolution, inasmuch as he had to get his Budget through. I think he got it through in a short time, but if he had had taxes like the Corn Tax, the Sugar Tax, or the Coal Tax, he would not have had it through so speedily.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: He would have had the Resolution.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: He would have had to get a second Resolution renewing it. That seems to me rather a waste of Parliamentary time, because if he had had second Budget proposals in 1900, that would have added, I think, six Parliamentary days to the discussion of the taxing proposals, because these were quite novel proposals. The Coal Tax was imposed in 1901, and the Corn Tax in 1902. Suppose these taxes had been proposed in 1900, Lord St. Aldwyn would have had to renew his Resolution, and the House of Commons would have had Debates on the Report stage. From my recollection of that time I very much doubt whether he could have had the Resolution through in four or five days of Parliamentary time. What is the hon. Gentleman afraid of? He is afraid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will, before he really knows what his position is, before he can possibly know, will come down to the House of Commons and say, "I think I shall be confronted with a great deficit; I shall be short of £5,000,000 or £10,000,000, and I shall require to propose new taxes."
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Or get some new principle established.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not see that it is easier to establish it before 31st March than after that date. This conspiracy is so deep that I cannot quite fathom what the hon. Member is thinking. I cannot see what possible gain would be derived from bringing in a Resolution before 31st March, which could not be got in another way. The hon. Gentleman seems to be afraid of Land Taxes, but these are outside the scope of the proposal. Tariff Reform is, I believe, the other danger of conspiracy, but the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) pointed out yesterday that it was not proposed that taxes under a new fiscal system should come into operation on a Resolution. Will the hon. Gentleman unfold the conspiracy?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Very often in the month of March—it is not so this year, but in other years—there is rather a slack time, because the Government have not had time to get their legislation ready, and on the other hand, there may be a throng time after the beginning of the financial year. Therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might like to get the controversial parts of his proposals through in February or March with a view of clearing the ground for legislation afterwards.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I thought that the complaint was that Radical Governments postponed their Budgets until too late in the year. This proposal is for a guarantee that they shall not be introduced too early. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman need have any fear on that score. I have never seen Governments so slack before the 31st of March that they would bring in a Budget in order to occupy time. Quite the reverse is the fact. Just as much as any Government which I can recall ever could do was to get their financial business through by the 31st of March. The pressure has always been before that date. So I do not see how a Government is likely to have so much time on its hands that it will introduce a Budget involving great fiscal novelties merely in order to occupy time before the 31st of March. The danger which the hon. Gentleman is guarding against is rather an imaginary one, and while he is guarding against an imaginary danger he is creating a real one. No Budget has ever been introduced before the 31st of March, except when there was some urgent need for money and all ordinary business was suspended, and in such an emergency it would be a great mistake if we were to have introduced artificial obstacles in the way of getting through the business in the most expeditious manner possible. Therefore I have come to the conclusion, after the most careful consideration which it was possible to give, that we cannot possibly accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his attention and in view of what he says I will not put the Committee to the trouble of a Division. The case which I contemplate is not a very likely case, but I think it possible that a Chancellor of the Exchequer with some new proposal in his mind, seeing in

    1835
    front of him the whole time for legislation rather congested, might think it expedient to get part of his Budget through before the end of the financial year. If he did I think it would be wrong and inexpedient, and in view of the possible inconvenience on the one hand and the possible slight danger on the other I think that my proposal does hold good. But as there is no strong feeling on the subject, and I admit that I am only dealing with a supposition, I will not trouble the Committee with a Division.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON had given notice of the following Amendment:—To leave out the words, "and where the Resolution provides for the renewal of a temporary tax all enactments which were in force with reference to that tax as last imposed by Act of Parliament shall, during the said period, and subject to the provisions of this Act, have full force and effect with respect to the tax as renewed by the Resolution."
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. Member for North Down I think is consequential on an Amendment disposed of yesterday. If that is not the case what would be the effect of leaving out these words? We cannot take an Amendment which would make absurd the earlier words with which the Committee have dealt already.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I doubt very much whether these words are necessary at all in view of the provisions of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act. The reason I put down the Amendment was to get from the Chancellor of the Exchequer the reason for the insertion of these words. If they do confer any additional power over and above existing provisions they confer on a Committee of the House power to interfere with legislation already on the Statute Book.
    Mr. CASSEL: The same Amendment stands in my name. I want to find out the reason for the insertion of these words: they appear to me to be surplusage.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is quite entitled to move in order to draw any explanation from the Government in that way, but not to argue on the merits as to whether it is or is not necessary to insert these words.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to move the Amendment. As far as I understand the Clause it is drawn as follows: that the Committee of Ways and Means may have power to renew a temporary tax at the same or a different rate with or without modification, and if they renew a tax at the same rate and in exactly the same form in which it was proposed the year before there can be no question of the meaning or effect of these subsequent words. If, on the other hand, the Committee of Ways and Means decides to renew a tax at a different rate with modifications, for instance, if it decides to reduce the Income Tax or extend the limit of exemption, I would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman what effect have these words on the Clause? As far as I can understand the effect would be, if any modification were necessary, in consequence of that Resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means, in previous Acts of Parliament, that it would automatically be made by the Resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means. If that be so, I would also like to know whether this power does or does not extend to the Irish Parliament which it is proposed to set up under the Government of Ireland Bill. This is a very important and a very difficult point. I confess that I do not know whether the provisions of this Bill would extend, and this point would very materially affect the view which I take of this Clause. Clause 12 of the Government of Ireland Bill extends all the powers, privileges, and immunities of Committees of this House, including Committees of Ways and Means, to Committees of the Irish Parliament. If these powers are not to be extended to the Irish Parliament the very difficulty of forestalment which will occur in this country will occur there, but if they are to be extended, then all your provisions as to the power of Veto by this House over Acts of the Irish Parliament are entirely illusory, because by mere Resolution the Irish Parliament could alter a British Statute.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think that the hon. Gentleman has given a much wider application to these words than they possibly would bear. They have been introduced in order to enable us to utilise the machinery of the Income Tax Act to carry out the collection of the tax until the Finance Act has received the Royal Assent. Without this there would be no machinery at all for collection. It does not affect the Irish Parliament. I do not see

    1837
    where the Irish Parliament comes in at all, even in the smallest degree. Without this we would have no method of collection which we could utilise by any Statute, and to provide for a method is the only object of these words.
    Mr. CASSEL: I think the explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is unnecessary, because, even without these words, he gets all the machinery under Section 30 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1890, which has also been decided to extend the Super-tax. It provides that, in order to ensure the collection in due time of any duties of Income Tax which may be granted in any year commencing on 6th April, all such provisions in any Act which was in force on the preceding day shall have full force and effect and so on, so that, as far as Income Tax is concerned, the Section gives all the machinery which the right hon. Gentleman requires. The right hon. Gentleman does not dispute that it applies to Super-tax.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have taken the legal advice at the disposal of the Government, and I am informed that in the very decision to which the hon. Gentleman has referred there were some words which left a loophole which render it absolutely necessary to have these words. If all that the hon. Member says is that they are unnecessary, I think he will agree with me that if there is any doubt about it it is much more desirable that the words should be inserted.
    Mr. CASSEL: I am very much afraid of general words in a Statute, because when they come to be construed they are often given a meaning which nobody ever intended them to have. I would like to know what the necessity is for inserting them here. The explanation of the right hon. Gentleman does not apply so far as Customs are concerned, so I need not trouble about Customs. So far as Income Tax is concerned, he said that this will preserve all the machinery. All that it did not do was that it did not continue any rate, and although you could get all the machinery and your collection return, which you could enforce at once, you could not really collect money and make deductions until the rate had been imposed. The rate would be imposed by Resolution, and the machinery then would all be in force under Section 30 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act. Although somebody else may have arrived at a different opinion as to the interpretation of these words, I
    1838
    should like a little snore explanation before committing myself to such wide terms, which seem to me so far beyond the necessities of the case.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have the words of Lord Justice Parker here, and they were to the effect that he was led to the conclusion that the proper interpretation of the Act was that, although it kept alive the machinery of the Income Tax Act for the purpose of the preliminary work necessary for the collection of the Income Tax which might be imposed for any financial year, it should not authorise any assessment or collection of a tax not yet imposed by Parliament. Inasmuch as this Bill is for the collection of Income Tax, it cannot take advantage of machinery for assessment, and I am advised that it is necessary that these words, which it is proposed to omit, should be retained.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman quite appreciates the point of my hon. Friend. The point is this: Take a tax imposed by the Irish Parliament, and which tax is expiring. It is found to be very burdensome to a certain section of the taxpayers in…
    The CHAIRMAN: I was very doubtful about that point when it was first raised, but I have come to the conclusion that I could not permit a debate upon it.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: On the point of Order. This is a Bill which will become an Imperial Statute, and will apply to Ireland, both under present conditions and under possible future conditions.
    The CHAIRMAN: You must take things as they are; we are dealing with the Bill here and now, and with the law as it now stands.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I take your opinion to be that it is a very remote hypothesis.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member may take it as he pleases.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I should really like the Government to give us some more information on this point. I do not quite follow the argument of the right hon. Gentleman as to the decision which was given. It is very delicate ground for a layman to tread, especially as I have no legal adviser sitting beside me, as the right hon. Gentleman has. There is a Law Officer beside me at the present moment. Surely the distinction

    1839
    that Lord Justice Parker drew was that the authority for the preparatory steps was a continuing authority; that you had not any authority to levy a tax, and therefore no authority for collection; but that, if you had authority for assessment, you at once have authority for collection, and the absence of authority for assessment carried with it the absence of authority for collection. The words of the Clause will in future give you authority for the collection of the Income Tax, and it is these words that it is proposed to omit under the present Amendment.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: Might I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, as it is entirely a new question, it would be as well to put in as few words as possible, so that we do not create difficulties? Words may be put into the Bill which, when it becomes law, might convey a meaning and confer a power which was never intended by the House. In this case it would matter very much indeed, and I would rather that the words should be left out, even if it necessitated further legislation to attain the objects of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, than that they should be inserted while not well understood by the Committee. I myself do not quite follow either the argument of my right hon. Friend or the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. BOOTH: Hear, hear.
    Sir F. BANBURY: And I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman has followed them either.
    Mr. BOOTH: I have listened very patiently to what has been said, but I do not profess to have the capacity to convey information to the hon. Baronet.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not want to run the risk of having words put into the Clause which, when the Bill becomes an Act, will do something which it is not intended at the present moment should be done. It would be very much better if the words were left out when we are not perfectly certain of what we are doing.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I see the Attorney-General now in his place, and I shall try to summarise for him the point which I wish to make. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not really deal with it. To put it as shortly as I possibly can, the point is this: Either these words confer some additional authority over what is
    1840
    enjoyed at the present moment as regards collecting or they do not. If they confer no additional authority, then they are merely surplusage. If they do confer additional authority, while I should be quite ready to grant that additional authority to the Committee of this House, I am not ready to accept blindfold and beforehand the grant of that additional authority to the Committee of the Irish Parliament. Therefore I wanted to ask the learned Attorney-General whether the provisions of this particular Clause of the Bill would extend to the Irish Parliament or not?
    Mr. CASSEL: I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman the point which I raised, that the words of the Clause are already covered as far as Income Tax is concerned, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer only requires them for Income Tax. I wish to ask the Attorney-General whether the case is not already covered by Section 30 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1890. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his reply, said that the Section only dealt with preliminary matters, for the purpose of assessment, and was quite distinct from collection. But the Section begins with the words, "In order to ensure the collection." It seems undesirable to have on the Statute Book two provisions which are identical. Either they are identical or they are not. If they are identical, we ought not to have the same provisions in two different Statutes.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I may explain that it is desirable to have the words proposed to be omitted in the Clause. The argument in the case before Lord Justice Parker was that Section 30 of the Act of 1890 was sufficient, because it did give the power both with regard to assessment and collection. That was the argument set up in the case raised by Mr. Gibson Bowles. It was admitted that there was no argument to be put forward by the Law Officers of the Crown in answer to the general proposition advanced by Mr. Gibson Bowles, that Section 30 of the Act of 1890 was sufficient for the purpose of giving the right of deduction of Income Tax by the Bank. Lord Justice Parker took the view, which certainly I accept, that this Section was merely machinery, and limited the meaning of the words to "assessment," which was contrary at any rate to the view which had been taken before as to the meaning of "assessment" in another Act

    1841
    of Parliament also relating to income Tax. I do not think it would be safe, therefore, to pass this Bill without putting those words in. Those words make the matter quite plain, and we do not want another action with reference to it. What we desire henceforth is that there should be no doubt, not only as to the machinery for the purpose of assessment, but also for the purpose of collecting the Income Tax, once the Resolution has been put in force. I should be very sorry indeed if the words were taken out.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON:I am sorry the learned Attorney-General has not answered my question with regard to the Irish Parliament. Perhaps it is not convenient as this moment to do so. I wish to give notice that in order to raise this question I shall put down a new Clause.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I wish to direct the attention of the learned Attorney-General to another question, on which I do not wish to express an opinion, and in regard to which I hesitate in doubt. I happen to have the Budget of 1909–10, in which you find that Section 65 provides that the Income Tax for the year has to be charged at a certain rate. It goes on:
    "(2) All such enactments relating to Income Tax as were in force on the 5th April, 1909 … shall have full force and effect with respect to any duties of Income Tax hereby granted. (3) The annual value of any property which has been adopted for the purpose either of Income Tax under Schedules A and B … or of Inhabited House Duty during the year ending the 5th April, 1909, shall be taken as the annual value of such property, but (b) shall not apply to the Metropolis as defined by the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869."
    There is a kind of quinquennial valuation in the Metropolis, and whenever the quinquennial valuation takes place the new valuation is adopted in the place of the old one. The words we are now discussing as they stand in the Bill, therefore, causes you to collect your Income Tax on the wrong valuation, just when you are changing from one valuation to another—that is to say, that the words we are now discussing would cause you to collect under the Resolution on the expiring quinquennial valuation, and the words of the Act, as subsequently passed, would direct you to assess on the new quinquennial valuation which has just come into force.
    1842
    I do not wish to do more than direct the attention of the Attorney-General to the point and ask him to look into it.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The provision as to the valuation of the Metropolis has reference to Schedule A of the Income Tax Act. I will look into the point however.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "temporary" ["renewal of a temporary tax"].
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: What is the meaning of this Amendment?
    The CHAIRMAN: It is consequential on a decision arrived at yesterday. The merits of the point were then argued, when the original word was left out, and therefore we treat this as consequential.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment on the Paper, in the name of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil), appertains to Sub-section (2) and not at this point.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: On the point of Order. In my view, my drafting is very much better than the drafting of the Bill. I am speaking merely from the point of view of where the Amendment ought to be moved, and I think I put it in the right place. An Act of Parliament should convey an intelligible meaning, and when the public read an Act of Parliament it is much more convenient for them to have the essential points put early in the Clause. I submit that my Amendment, therefore, putting the period earlier in the Bill, makes it much more intelligible.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am not sure that on the point of taste and convenience the Noble Lord is not right, but, according to our Rules, we must take the Clause as presented by the Government. In the other form, in which I understand the Noble Lord is prepared to move Ins Amendment, it does come in at this stage.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the words "Provided that…," to insert the following new paragraph:—

    "(a). The Resolution shall cease to have statutory effect if during the said period it is not agreed to by the House

    1843
    when considered on Report within the next ten days on which the House sits after the Resolution is passed by the Committee of Ways and Means, and if a Bill varying or renewing the tax under the authority of the Resolution is not read a second time by the House within the next twenty days on which the House sits after the Resolution is agreed to, and."

    As I understand, the Government are prepared to accept this proposal, except that I do not quite agree with the periods which they suggest. I will only address myself to the point as to the period which should be allowed to elapse. In the form suggested by the Government the periods are given as twenty-one days in each case. The important change which they suggest, and which I think is a very reasonable one, is that the days should be reckoned as sitting days of Parliament instead of calendar days. That is reasonable, because at this time of year very often Easter intervenes and the House is not sitting. Ten sitting days are as long as fourteen calendar days, and twenty sitting days are as long as four calendar weeks. In a list of the days occupied by previous Budgets, supplied to me by the Government, except the great controversial Budget of 1909, which was a very exceptional case, I believe every single tax would fall easily within the periods I suggest of ten days and twenty sitting days. The only place where there is any doubt is in the case of 1905. The original Resolutions for tobacco, beer and spirits were agreed to on 10th April by the Commitee and on 3rd May by the House. The Tea Duty was agreed to on 11th April by the Committee and on 3rd May by the House. The Income Tax Resolution was agreed to on 12th April by the Committee and on 3rd May by the House. I believe those were so long delayed only because of the intervention of the Easter holidays. In that case I can see they would easily fall within the limits of ten sitting days—that is to say, fourteen calendar days' continuous sittings. I think it is very desirable to keep the first period as short as it can be kept without inconvenience.
    Many Members on this side feel, I am sure, and the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones), that to allow a single Resolution the force of law is a most abusive process. Even those who think it a convenient process and who desire the passage of this Bill do not deny
    1844
    that it is a very great and formidable innovation. Therefore it is desirable to keep that period of statutory effect of a single decision of this House in Committee of the Whole House as short as it can possibly be kept. I believe you can easily take the Report stage within seven sitting days. Even in the case of so long and so very controversial a Budget like that of 1909 nothing is easier than to pass the Customs and Excise Duty, which probably do not fall within the controversial ambit of the Budget, before the more controversial taxes had been completely disposed of. Even in 1909 it would have been perfectly easy to pass all the duties to which the Bill related within ten sitting days. Of course it would have been necessary to postpone the further discussion of the Land Taxes till the Report stage of the other taxes would have been agreed to, but there would have been no difficulty about that. I do think the trivial inconvenience of taking the Report stage of some of the Budget Resolutions before the Committee stage of others has been completed in the rare case of a very controversial Budget is not to be weighed against the general consideration, that the period in which a Resolution passed in Committee should have statutory powers should be made as short as possible. I hope the Government will endeavour to make their innovation fall within the existing usage. The list of Budgets shows that in every case, except 1909, these days were sufficient. I think it is unreasonable that we should assume that the usage of the House means the extreme case of a very controversial Budget. It is much better to modify the practice in respect of a controversial Budget by taking the Report stage after the Committee stage of some Resolutions, and then resume the Committee stage of other Resolutions, than to extend beyond necessity the period giving statutory effect to the Resolution.
    Observe that once the Report stage has been agreed to there is this great security that the House of Commons cannot have been taken by surprise. Under our procedure in Ways and Means a Minister may come down, and habitually does come down, without disclosing what he is going to move, and in a few hours a decision is taken. That really is not deliberation, though no one is to blame for it. After six or seven days the Resolution comes up again on Report, and then there really is the deliberate judgment of the House, so that the short time for the operation of

    1845
    the Committee Resolution is a point of very great substance. It is of much more importance than the second part of the Amendment, which relates to the interval to the Second Reading of the Bill. I gather that the Government will adhere to their four months for the full term before the Royal Assent. The Amendment, I suggest, would be a period of ten sitting days after the Committee stage, and there would be twenty sitting days between the Report stage and the Second Reading, a very ample time really, because you ought easily to be able to dispose of the Second Reading of the Bill in a month. If holidays intervened there would then be about two and a half months to dispose of the remainder of the Bill. The only difficulty arises as to whether you could get through the Committee stage of a controversial Budget in two and a half Months, and it might necessitate dividing the Budget into two Bills. I do press the Government to consider whether the dates they suggest, which are double as long in the first instance as mine, and one longer in the second instance, are not unreasonably long. If you are dealing with sitting days it is better to deal in multiples of five as the House of Commons sits five days per week. Therefore twenty days is a more natural figure. I do not attach any importance to the question of twenty or twenty-one, but I do attach great importance to the earlier difference as between ten and twenty.
    Mr. McKENNA: There can be no question as to the importance of the general argument put forward by the Noble Lord. It is admitted on all hands that it is undesirable under this Bill to go one inch beyond what is necessary, and beyond what has been the custom and practice for so many years. The Noble Lord has given figures which show that in practice no difficulty would in fact have arisen if such a limitation as he proposes by this Amendment were inserted in the Bill. The only question which arises is whether the figures which he proposes should be accepted. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already stated to the Noble Lord that he would be willing to accept the Amendment if twenty-one days were allowed between the Committee stage and the Report stage, and twenty-one clays between the Report stage and the Second Reading. My right hon. Friend and myself have both been struck by the fact mentioned by the Noble Lord
    1846
    that for a great many years past there never has been any such interval as twenty-one working days between the Committee stage and the Report stage, and never anything like as long between the Report stage and the Second Reading. Under those circumstances the Government are prepared to accept the Amendment of the Noble Lord in the form in which he has moved it, taking note of the fact that the days must be Parliamentary working days.
    Sir F. BANBURY: This is the first time that I have ever known a speech by my Noble Friend to have such an extraordinary effect on the Treasury Bench, and I am very much afraid that there must have been some collusion beforehand. I hope my Noble Friend will take care that he is not ensnared by Members on the Treasury Bench. There is to the Amendment one objection which strikes me as being rather forcible. Are we not now, as a matter of fact, forging for ourselves a time-table? Is it not possible that when, say, nine days have expired, the Chancellor of the Exchequer may put down the Report stage of a Resolution, and then say to the House, "This is the tenth day; therefore, it is absolutely necessary in the interests of the country that the Resolution should be passed at once. We are very sorry; we should have liked it to be discussed; but we feel sure that Members on both sides will recognise the necessity of getting the Resolution through at once." We on this side, being patriotic people, would probably be convinced by this argument, and consequently the discussion and consideration which is the essence of financial arrangements, would be avoided. In the same way, if the Second Reading of the Bill has to take place within twenty days from the Report of the Resolution, I can imagine an astute Chancellor of the Exchequer who has to get the Second Reading of a Bill which he knows is very unpopular, not only on this side, but on his own side of the House, discussing the matter with the Law Officers of the Crown, or with the Prime Minister, and saying, "This Bill is very unpopular. How can I best get the Second Reading? I had better put it down for the twentieth day." He would then repeat the same argument as before, and we should find it very difficult to resist an appeal of that kind. There is a good deal to be said for this Amendment, inasmuch as it prevents long delays between the different stages, but it might possibly

    1847
    be made use of in the way I have suggested. This is not at all a party question, and I should be glad if the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones), who takes a very great interest in these matters, would tell us what he thinks upon this point.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: I agree rather with the Noble Lord (Lord H. Cecil) than with the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), but I should like to put this question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Would the right hon. Gentleman consider it an abuse of a procedure of this character if he used it so as to bring on the different stages at the last possible moment, and then said they must be passed on that particular day? Subject to that consideration, I think it is an admirable Amendment that we should lay down the time within which each successive stage should be taken.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE (who was very indistinctly heard): I quite agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. To do what he has described would be such an obvious abuse on the face of it that I do not think the House would stand it. When you have an arrangement fixing the time within which these different stages should be taken, for the Government to put a particular stage down for the last available day and then say to the House, "You must pass it to-night, otherwise the whole thing will fall through," would, on the face of it, be a gross abuse. There is only one conceivable occasion when such a thing might happen, and that would be in Committee, in regard to which I confess that I thought the suggested limits of time were a little severe. The Noble Lord has introduced a severe limitation upon the original practice, which might possibly be a little embarrassing to the Government of the day. The procedure will, however, insure that the Budget is debated during a period of the Session when Members are fresh. It will prevent the Government from putting off the Budget until a late period of the Session, and from subordinating the finance of the year to Parliamentary exigencies.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. and learned Friend put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a form which admitted of only one reply. Of course, if you ask either a present or a possible Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he deliberately contemplated, when passing legislation of this kind, that
    1848
    he would use a limitation, to which he consented on the ground that it would give the House a better opportunity for discussion, in order to deprive the House of its usual opportunities for discussion he would repudiate any such an an intention. But does the question ever arise in that way? When the rights and liberties of Members are curtailed, does the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer ever say: "This is a proposition so distasteful to many of my own party that I do not think we can stand an ordinary full discussion upon it. I shall therefore postpone it to the last moment, when I cannot comply with the law unless it is passed in a single sitting?" That is not what happens, nor do I think that any Minister consciously adopts that method. What he comes and says is: "We have been very busy with very important matters; the business has taken up more time than we expected it would, and, in order to comply with the law, we are hound to ask the House to pass this particular business to-night or to-morrow." That is the way it is done, and that is the way it would be done. The hon. Baronet is perfectly right as to what will happen. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that action of that kind would be an abuse so great that no House of Commons would stand it. May I say that five years ago, if he or any of his predecessors had been asked whether he did not think that to postpone the Budget until the month of December would be a gross abuse of Parliamentary procedure such as no Chancellor of the Exchequer would contemplate, he would have replied at once in the affirmative, and he would have given my hon. and learned Friend all the satisfaction that he has got to-day. I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer says now that it was not an abuse. He takes the line that it was forced upon him by the exigencies of other business, which prevented him from dealing with the matter at the usual date. We, on this side, thought that the other business was not as urgent as the financial business, and that the Budget ought to have come first. There will always be that division between the two sides of the House. The Opposition will say: "You ought to have made time for the proper consideration of the business"; while the Government of the day will say, "We had no opportunity. We could not multiply the days in the week. We made the best use of our time, and we are now obliged to ask the House to curtail its liberties."

    1849
    5.0 P.M.
    I rather wash my hands of the effect which this Bill is going to have on our Parliamentary procedure. I think it is quite probable that if you pass this Bill you will not be able to rest here. I do not know whether, in discussing such an Amendment as this, Members try to cast their minds forward to what will be the position of a Chancellor of the Exchequer or of the House itself, if it is necessary to deal with such a situation as that with which Lord St. Aldwyn had to deal in three successive years. Under this limiting Amendment he must get through the Committee stage of a Budget dealing with the temporary taxes by a certain time. Ex hypothesi he has got to impose certain new taxes, as Sir Michael Hicks-Beach did in those three years. He will not have the advantage which Sir Michael Hicks-Beach had, of collecting money derived from his new taxes on the strength of the new Resolution. Of that the House deprived him yesterday. But that makes it only more urgent that the Bill in which the taxes are embodied should be hurried through the House as rapidly as possible. What is going to happen? He is going to take one Bill for the two. In that case are you really by this limiting Amendment securing full consideration for the renewed old taxes? I think they will be crowded out, because urgency will have arisen, and will force the Chancellor of the Exchequer into the position foreshadowed by my hon. Friend behind me and deprecated by my hon. and learned Friend. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will be forced to give first place to the new taxes as being most contentious, and that will crowd out the old taxes, and the newer temporary taxes, into the last moment allowed by this Amendment. Then the right hon. Gentleman will come down—will be forced to come down—under any such circumstances with a Guillotine Resolution, apportioning the time within this Amendment regardless of whether the Resolutions are properly discussed or not. If he tries to get over his difficulty by dividing his proposals between two Bills, still the most urgent of these would be the Bill containing the new taxes, because they do not have the benefit of this Bill. Again, therefore, if there are two Bills, the Bill which continues the old taxes will be driven off by the urgency of getting early authority for collecting the new taxes, and so you come up against the time-table of my Noble Friend. Even then, that busi-
    1850
    ness will be carried on satisfactorily from the point of view of the public I do not believe! That the real interests of the country in a time of emergency can be served by any proposal of the sort I do not believe! But what I do urge upon the House at the present time is the effect that their decision of yesterday has upon the proposals to-day: there is good foundation for the apprehension expressed by my hon. Friend behind me. This time-table will in effect, in grave emergency, when there are what the Chancellor of the Exchequer calls large Budgets, with many or contentious proposals in them, be at once a measure of coercion for the Government, and through the Government a coercion of the House of Commons, and will limit discussion. I am quite convinced that that will be so. I think it is unavoidable after the decision the House has given, and I confess I am very much afraid of the time-table that the right hon. Gentleman has accepted.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Just one word of reply to my right hon. Friend and the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. I do not at all dispute that the Government, any Government, are likely to abuse the provisions of this Amendment when the time comes. I think it is probable they will abuse it. But I do not think it is possible to pass this Bill in any form which would not make it liable to abuse, for it gives the Government an increased power for treating the House of Commons with indifference and neglect. The choice really is a choice of evils. If you do not have some provision of this kind you certainly will have a Budget at the end of the Session. I confess that I think that the greater danger. The Budget will be taken in the last days of the Session, and it will come, in process of time, to be regarded as a matter of course. It is no exaggeration to say that the control of the ordinary finances would be but little. Of course it would not happen with a measure—with a great controversial Budget—but the ordinary Budget of the year would be passed very much as the Appropriation Bill or the Indian Budget passes, as a matter of form, during the days when we are winding up the business of the Session, and when the less industrious Members have gone away to various health or pleasure resorts. I believe, therefore, that unless you have an Amendment of the kind, you are exposed to that great danger. What is the counter-balancing consideration? I quite agree,

    1851
    I think it is very likely, that the Bill, as suggested, will be crowded unduly towards the day appointed by Statute, but if anyone will look at the record of the past he will see that the margin is really a very ample one. Take, for example, the controversial Budget of 1902. It came to the Committee on 14th April, and was reported on 22nd April—that is eight calendar days.
    The Government have in any case great control over these early stages by the ordinary Closure, as, of course, there is only a single question in Committee. Report and Second Reading are not the stages in which it is possible for the Opposition to prolong the discussion beyond what the majority think reasonable, because the ordinary Closure operates. Therefore the Government, having control, are less likely to abuse the matter by any exceptional procedure. They will always be able to propound the proposition that they must get on with the business. The true opportunity for dissection of the Budget is in the Committee stage, and I think the speeches directed to that point to-day are much more likely to cause alarm in the minds of students of Parliamentary procedure in respect of less devotion of time than any responsibility which arises in the Bill itself, which fixes four months for the general operation of the Resolution. I do not think that it is very likely to be the case that when the Committee stage of the Budget is being entered upon that the Government will say, "What a position we will be in if at the end of the four months we cannot get the Royal Assent!" and that they will on that ground make a strong appeal for curtailing Debates in the Committee stages of the Bill. At any rate, that is not an evil that arises out of this Amendment. It is an evil inherent in the Bill. Before I sit down I just want to try and clear my Parliamentary character from the imputations that the hon. Baronet the Member for the City has thrown upon it. He appears in the character as a sort of Parliamentary King's Proctor protesting against connivance in the same way as the King's Proctor protests against certain divorces. I can only say that in this case that it is I who have seduced the Government; the Government have not seduced me. My proposition has been agreed to, but the hon. Baronet the Member for the City is really in these matters a hypocrite. He is down upon illicit negotiations with the Government.
    1852
    The difference between us is that he practises his vices in secret behind the Speaker's Chair, whereas I declare the whole truth of the matter across the floor of the House. I express my gratitude to the Government for accepting the Amendment.
    Mr. CASSEL: Before this Amendment is passed—I certainly am not going to oppose it—I should like to urge what is happening now in support of a new Clause which I am going to move later, that this should be a temporary measure. Look at the way in which you are dealing with this particular measure. How unsatisfactory it is when we have to deal with this Amendment, a manuscript Amendment, the words of which I myself have not been able to get down! We are settling the whole procedure of Budgets, and I think it is unsatisfactory to settle this whole procedure on a manuscript Amendment, some words of which I caught which appear to me to be most dangerous words. It does seem to me most unsatisfactory to permanently settle the whole future procedure of the Budget on a manuscript Amendment, the effect of which, I think, the majority of Members of the Committee have not apprehended. We do not even know what consequential Amendments are going to be made as a result of this. We ought to have had some explanation; for instance, whether the Government still maintain the four months' provision. I did not catch any statement to that effect. In support of what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire said, I should just like to draw attention to those years when there were statutory periods fixed for the date of the Budget, and the Supply Vote had to be got by 31st March. What happened? We had a Guillotine Resolution. The Prime Minister came down and told us that we could only allow so many days for discussion as, by law, he could not give us more. That was a most excellent illustration of what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire said. It is important, no doubt, if you have a Statute of this kind, that the period should be reduced to as narrow a limit as possible, for this reason: If you once begin to collect these duties when they ultimately pass, you can never repay them to the right person so far as the Customs Duties are concerned. There are a number of Members on both sides who think we are dealing with this matter in a burry, and in a very unsatisfactory manner, and while I am not going

    1853
    to oppose this Amendment at all—I would rather give it my support—I do submit this i3 a reason for treating this Bill as a temporary measure.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I want to make an appeal to the Government to consider the mere matter of verbiage in this Amendment before the Report stage is finally disposed of. If the Committee will notice, the words in the Amendment read:
    "The Resolution shall cease to have statutory effect if during the said period it is not agreed to by the House when considered on Report within the next ten days."
    I cannot really help feeling that the words "when considered on Report"—which appear also in the Bill—are unnecessary, and I want to ask the Government whether they will consider before the Report stage whether these words are really necessary and whether it is not merely enough to say, "if the Resolution is not agreed to by the House"? My reason for the appeal is simply this, that I have a very strong objection to including any of the internal procedure of this House in an Act of Parliament. I believe there are precedents for including it. I do not know that there is any precedent for including the Report stage. I rather think not. If there is, I do not think it ought to be extended; if not, I do not think it ought to be begun.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We will consider the matter.
    Amendment put, and agreed to.
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I beg to move, at the beginning of paragraph (a), to insert the words, "Provided that no such Resolution shall have statutory effect unless passed not later than four weeks after the close of the financial year."
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Steel-Maitland) seems to me to cover a good deal, if not the whole, of the points settled yesterday by the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell), and subsequently amended by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Bucks. He doubtless remembers it.
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I do not want to press the Amendment or to take up time if the real point is covered. I remember the Amendment of yesterday, and although I have not got it before me
    1854
    at this moment, I do not think it had the effect which I wish to convey in this Amendment, which is to ensure that the Budget should be brought in within the period mentioned in my Amendment. My Amendment is that such Resolutions shall not have statutory effect unless passed not less than four weeks after the close of the financial year. I may be wrong in my conclusion, but I think no such effect would be obtained by the Amendment moved yesterday. If I am wrong I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment, but I am under the impression that that point was not covered by the Amendment yesterday.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think there is a different point in effect, although the Debate covered a good deal of the terms and form of this Amendment. I think, under the circumstances, the hon. Gentleman is entitled to place his views before the Committee.
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: Then I shall be exceedingly brief. The whole point of my Amendment is really to do what the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University has been trying to do, but which from my point of view he was not successful in, in regard to the period when the Resolution is brought in, and that is to prevent the Government from lapsing from their own easy financial virtue. His Amendment is merely to ensure that the Budget shall be brought in earlier; it does not safeguard any other provision. To my mind, my Amendment is an infinitely safer provision, in order to secure that there shall be a proper consideration, than the Amendment just now accepted by the Government. I think this would really ensure the same object by methods which are less open to objection and which are not really secured by the second Section of this Bill. To anyone who reads the Bill hurriedly it may appear that the early introduction of the Budget is secured by the second Section of the Bill. That, of course, is not the case; it merely provides that the old taxes, Tea and Income Tax, shall continue to have effect for a certain period. Of course the Tea Duty only runs from the beginning of July, and it would be quite conceivable, and probably very desirable, that the Income Tax from that point of view should be assimilated to the Tea Duty, and should have effect to 1st July or 1st August even if the Income Tax year be not actually altered, so in any case there is really no safeguard for the introduction of the

    1855
    Budget within the proper time. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or in his absence the Home Secretary or Attorney-General, will consider this Amendment favourably, it will not really hamper the freedom of the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is ordinarily acting within reasonable financial limits. All during the ten years from 1896 to 1905 the Budget was really brought in within the limits which I propose in this Amendment, and consequently, under the ordinary normal proper financial procedure, this Amendment would really have no restrictive effect upon the Government. It is only if the Government should be loose in their financial operations and their times and periods that this Amendment would come into operation. I ask the Home Secretary if he will not agree that from that point of view it is on the whole a desirable Amendment? It cannot normally hamper the Chancellor of the Exchequer in any way whatever. It will only really ensure that he should be bound to bring in his next Budget within the proper season. I do not wish to take up further time, except to emphasise the point that Budgets properly introduced have been carried through within four weeks. There is no other provision in the Bill which will ensure that being the case, and therefore I think this is a perfectly reasonable Amendment, which I hope the Government will accept.
    Mr. McKENNA: I am not quite sure that the hon. Gentleman fully appreciates the effect of his Amendment, and what the effect would be in the case of a second Finance Bill. If the hon. Gentleman looks back to the period of the war, when Sir Michael Hicks-Beach introduced more than one Finance Bill, I think he will find that his Amendment would exclude taxes introduced in a second Finance Bill from the operations of this Bill. I do not think he desires to do that. I fully recognise that the object of the hon. Gentleman is simply to enforce upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer what I venture to call the duty of introducing his Budget earlier in the year. It is quite right, as he points out, that every Chancellor of the Exchequer has invariably introduced his Budget, I think with a single exception, early in the year. But the Amendment goes much beyond that. His Amendment has the same vice as that moved yesterday by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Yarmouth, which it was
    1856
    sought to amend by the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Bucks. As that Amendment stood it would operate very harmfully in the case of a second Finance Bill. I do not think in view of that point, that the hon. Member who, I recognise, is most anxious to facilitate the work of the Treasury, would wish to press his Amendment.
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I should like to offer a word of explanation. This Amendment was put down originally at an early period of Clause 1, and it was at that time intended entirely to meet the point which the right hon. Gentleman has in his mind, and it was said to me that possible objection would not be taken, because it could be so easily got over, and in order to meet any objection I had an extension of the Amendment which would make it acceptable, and which was:—
    "Provided always, that this limitation shall not apply where the House of Commons decides that such taxation is for the purposes of war or for any other expenditure which the House of Commons declares to be war expenditure or to be extraordinary expenditure for the defence of the Realm."
    If that is the only objection of the Home Secretary it would be perfectly easy to meet it, and I can only give as my authority for these words that they were the actual words introduced for similar purposes in a Section of the Home Rule Bill of 1893. If that is his only objection, it could easily be met.
    Mr. McKENNA: That is not the only objection; it is the first objection. It is not the experience of any Member of this House that any Chancellor of the Exchequer has so forgotten his duty to the House as not to introduce the Budget early. The introduction of the Budget has always been early. I quite admit that there have been one or two occasions upon which the business of the Finance Bill has been somewhat retarded, but retardation of the Finance Bill will not be touched by this Amendment. It simply proposes to touch an alleged evil for which no case has been shown or has ever occurred. That is the fundamental objection. I simply instanced the other objection, but this second objection is vital. That objection the hon. Member proposes to meet now by a long addition to his Amendment, but I do not think it would be possible to accept the proposal.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman's answer will really do. His second objection, or the one he had not previously made to my hon. Friend's Amendment, is that as no Budget had ever been delayed beyond the proper period there was really no case for this proposal. Until the present Chancellor of the Exchequer came into office the Budget had never been delayed until the month of December, and because that was done we must now take precautions against it being done again. We are not really taking precautions in this Bill. No Chancellor has ever had any temptation to delay the introduction of the Budget. If a Chancellor had the temptation to delay the passage of the Budget, a strong temptation, I will not say that as soon as he had he would fall, but the present. Chancellor fell and yielded to the temptation. The effect of the Amendment of my Noble Friend (Lord Hugh Cecil) which the Government have accepted depends upon the moment the Chancellor introduces the Budget. An Amendment on the lines of my hon. Friend is much more important than anything we have yet done. If you want to ensure that the Budget should be considered earlier, if you take the Amendment of my hon. Friend with the Amendment just accepted, you would secure that it should be introduced earlier and should be considered. But if you take the Amendment of my Noble Friend without further support, all that happens is that when the Budget is introduced its consideration shall be more or less continued. But you do not tie the Chancellor down to introduce it earlier. The Home Secretary's further objection is that it would be most inconvenient in an emergency if a great war broke out. That would be all very well if the Home Secretary had not resisted yesterday the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Falkirk, but if yon do not need your new taxes and can do without them in an emergency, if delay is of no consequence, or of so little consequence that you can provide for it, there is no reason for providing specially for the raising of the old taxes.
    I am afraid my position in this matter is a very lonely one. I heard my right hon. Friend say yesterday I was taking up the position of Athanasius contra mundum. I do not like the Bill; I think it is thoroughly bad. I do not care whether it is a little bit better or a little bit worse, but those who do care about these restrictions must support my hon. Friend's
    1858
    Amendment and such other Amendment as he has foreshadowed if they are to get securities. I think the illustration by my hon. Friend from one of the Home Rule Bills dealing with emergency is one that has a wider application to this very Amendment and that it might be well considered by the Government at a later stage, both in respect to this Amendment and to the whole question of emergency taxation everywhere. I do not pin myself to his precise form of words. There are other occasions, such as the Reserve being called out, which, of course, would mean a crisis, and I should like very much to see some financial provision put in for emergency of that kind, and even if the House would give that authority to a Minister in any other sense. In the meantime, I would prefer my hon. Friend's Amendment with such words added. I am bound to say that, on the lines on which the Government are defending this Bill, they are putting forward no answer to the claims of my hon. Friend for the security of the taxpayer.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: Really this Amendment is very remotely connected with the first Amendment which was discussed when the House was in Committee upon this Bill. I recollect the discussion on that Amendment, but I do not think it had any reference to the present Amendment. I was very much struck with what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire upon the last Amendment, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that his virtue is sufficient to resist a temptation of that kind. All I can say is that I hope all future Chancellors of the Exchequer will have sufficient virtue. I am going to assume, however, that their virtue is weak, and surely we ought to make certain that the Budget is introduced within a reasonable time after the close of the financial year. Unless you introduce some provision of this kind the first step may be taken in good time, and it may be abused by taking your Budget too late, and pleading that you have not sufficient time for discussion as regards the subsequent stages. I hope this Amendment will be pressed to a Division, because it is very important to secure that the Budget shall be introduced within a reasonable time.
    It has often been put forward that we shall have a difficulty under this Bill as regards emergency legislation. I am not a supporter of this Bill, and I am doing my best to moderate its evil. That is the

    1859
    most I can do, but I should like to point out that, if any such emergency protection is necessary, it certainly ought to be introduced into the Bill. But is it necessary? Are we not all cognisant that, if an emergency arose such as is suggested, this House would rise to the occasion and provide readily the necessary funds in case of war or in a national crisis? I do not believe any difficulty arises in these extremely exceptional cases, and they could be easily dealt with by this House. I am sure we should have sufficient patriotism to deal with a national crisis when it arises. We have to consider here the procedure in the case of a normal Budget introduced in the ordinary way, in order to ensure that it will be introduced sufficiently early and give us sufficient time to consider the subsequent stages. The Home Secretary has in his mind the question of the introduction of a supplemental Resolution. I think myself it would be perfectly easy to meet that difficulty if the Home Secretary would consider the principle of it, and if the principle is not going to be considered I shall support the proviso, and we shall have to go to a Division. If the Home Secretary will admit the principle of making certain that the Budget will be introduced by a certain date, it can easily be altered, drafted, or modified to meet the difficulty in case a supplemental Resolution is required.
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I wish to ask the Home Secretary if he cannot see his way to accept something of the kind which we have proposed. Really no conclusive reasons against accepting such an Amendment as this have been advanced. Apart from the question of an emergency, which it has been pointed out could be met in more than one way, the only other reason
    given was entirely inconsistent, with the reason given from the Treasury Bench for accepting the Amendment of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University. One of the statements made was that, as a matter of normal procedure, the days and the time limit which the Noble Lord proposed would really correspond with the normal practice, and that consequently there was no difficulty from that point of view in accepting the Noble Lord's Amendment. The Home Secretary now says that the time limit you propose in this Amendment is that which every Chancellor of the Exchequer observes, and therefore it is not necessary. Surely that argument holds perfectly good in both cases.
    Mr. McKENNA: The Noble Lord asks that the Resolution passed by the Committee should receive the sanction of the House within a limited time. The hon. Member opposite now asks us to put a condition upon the time during which the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall introduce his Budget, and that is an entirely different matter.
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: The Home Secretary has not answered my point at all. Everyone knows that these are two different Amendments, and I am sure the Noble Lord realises that my Amendment is needed to supplement his. The point I put is that it is perfectly inconsistent to accept one Amendment, because it harmonises with the usual practice, and then say that you will not accept the other Amendment because it harmonises with the other.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 262.

    Division No. 47.]

    AYES.

    [5.40 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Campion, W. R.

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

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Cator, John

    Fell, Arthur

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Cautley. Henry Strother

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Cave, George

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

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

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

    Cecil, Lord R, (Herts, Hitchin)

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

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

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Barnston, Harry

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Goldman, C. S.

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Bigland, Alfred

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Blair, Reginald

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Grant, J. A.

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Greene, Waler Raymond

    Boyton, James

    Denniss. E. R. B.

    Cretton, John

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

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

    Bull, Sir William James

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Stanier, Beville

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

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

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

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

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Hume-Williams, W. E.

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

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

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

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

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Thynne, Lord A.

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Valentia, Viscount

    Kerry, Earl of

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Weigall, Captain A. G.

    Keswick, Henry

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Remnant, James Farquharson

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

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

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

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Royds, Edmund

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Younger, Sir George

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

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Sandys, G. J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Cassel and Mr. James Mason.

    MacCaw, Wm, J. MacGeagh

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Johnson, W.

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Doris, William

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr (Tydvil)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Duffy, William J.

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Alden, Percy

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Jowett, F. W.

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Joyce, Michael

    Balker, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Keating, Matthew

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Falconer, James

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Kelly, Edward

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Kilbride, Denis

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

    Ffrench, Peter

    King, J.

    Bentham, G. J.

    Field, William

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

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Boland, John Pius

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

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

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Leach, Charles

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Gill, A. H.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Glanville, H. J.

    Lundon, Thomas

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Goldstone, Frank

    Lynch, A. A.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Macdonald. J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Grelg, Col. J. W.

    McGhee, Richard

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

    Griffith, Ellis J.

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

    Bytes, Sir William Pollard

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

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Hackett, J.

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Manfield, Harry

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Clough, William

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Meagher, Michael

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Middlebrook, William

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Havelock-Alan, Sir Henry

    Molloy, Michael

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Cotton, William Francis

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

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

    Mooney, John J.

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Morgan, George Hay

    Crooks, William

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

    Morison, Hector

    Crumley, Patrick

    Higham, John Sharp

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Cullinan, John

    Hinds, John

    Muldoon, John

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

    Hodge, John

    Munro, R.

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Hogge, James Myles

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

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Murphy, Martin J.

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

    Holt, Richard Darning

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Neilson, Francis

    Delany, William

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Devlin, Joseph

    Hudson, Walter

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Nuttall, Harry

    Dillon, John

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    O'Brlen, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    1862

    1863

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Robinson, Sidney

    Verney, Sir Harry

    O'Dowd, John

    Roche, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    O'Grady, James

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Wardle, George J.

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

    Rowlands, James

    Waring, Walter

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    O'Malley, William

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    O'Shee, James John

    Samuel, J. (Stockton)

    Webb, H.

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

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

    Parker, James (Halifax)

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

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Parry, Thomas

    Sheehy, David

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Shortt, Edward

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Wiles, Thomas

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

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

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

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

    Snowden, Philip

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

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Radford, G. H.

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Winfrey, Richard

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Sutton, John E.

    Wing, Thomas

    Reddy, M.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

    Rodmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Thomas, J. H.

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

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (a), to leave out the words "dissolved or."
    The effect of this would be that, though the Resolution ceased to have statutory effect if Parliament were prorogued, it would not cease to have statutory effect if Parliament were dissolved. I do not know whether the Attorney-General is prepared to accept the Amendment; if so, I will not take up the time of the Committee in giving reasons for it.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I should like to know the reasons.
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I should have thought that they were so obvious that I need not have troubled the Committee with them. If a Government prorogue Parliament they are responsible, and it is no doubt right and proper that the Resolution should cease to have statutory effect; but, on the other hand, if a Government dissolve Parliament, I think it is tolerably obvious that the Resolution ought then to continue to have effect, and, if necessary, its effect might be extended. Supposing a Government dissolved during the period of suspense, the incoming Government might be faced with the finances of the country in complete disorder. It would be in the power of an outgoing Government simply by dissolving to take away all effect from a Resolution and throw the finances of the country into disorder, thereby putting the incom-
    1864
    ing Government to extreme inconvenience. Any Government would have it in its power to turn round and say, precisely as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Masterman) said to the Opposition not so very long ago: "If you defeat the Government over a financial measure, you put the whole of the finances of the country into disorder; you are playing the part of a discredited Opposition." It would therefore be open to any Government by the lever of a Bill of this kind, unless these words are taken out, to try and prevent the Opposition from naturally putting an end to the term of their existence. I am quite sure that is not the object of the measure. The words are not in the least needed for any reasonable purpose, and I would ask the Attorney-General to agree to their deletion.
    I can only bring forward one analogy. Formerly Parliament was dissolved ipso facto by the demise of the Crown. That came to be felt to be quite an unnecessary inconvenience. It put the whole of the public administration into disorder, and there was no compensating advantage whatsoever. This type of provision is simply another anachronism of a precisely similar character. It can have no good effect; it can only have the bad effect of enabling the Government in power to use the finances of the country as a lever against the political Opposition of the day. We have, if I may say so without offence, every reason at the present time

    1865
    to fear that the power of the Government may be so used. It is within the memory of everyone here that two or three years ago it was apprehended by many that the fact that there was insufficient money provided by the Vote on Account and by the first Consolidated Fund Bill in May was a scheme of the Government at the time to put the Opposition in a fix should there be a sudden Dissolution. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] Perhaps the hon. Member is one who really appreciates such action on the part of the Government. I do not know whether he will find many supporters on the opposite side of the House among those who are supporting the Government, because they believe this is a Bill to put the finances of the country in order. If the hon. Member does not think so, he can at least vote against the Government on their own hypothesis. These two words go entirely against the whole spirit of the rest of the Bill, which is intended to put the finances of the country in order. This might, if ever the Government of the day so willed, and we have already had reason to believe they might, be used as a means for putting the finances of the country in complete disorder. I would therefore ask the Attorney-General to agree to the deletion of the words.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: These words were inserted because it was thought that if we did not provide for the Dissolution of Parliament objection would be taken, and it would be said that what we had done was to give a Resolution statutory effect and make it continuous, notwithstanding that Parliament was not sitting and that no Resolution in the House or Bill could be introduced in the interval. We thought it was perfectly right that we should provide not only for the Prorogation of Parliament, but also for the Dissolution of Parliament. I have listened to the hon. Gentleman, and I must confess that his speech surprised me very much. He seemed to think that I should accept the deletion of these words. I conceive his ground for moving the Amendment to be a suspicion that a Government dissolve in order to put its opponents into some difficulty with regard to the finances of the country. I really do not think so ill of my opponents as to imagine that any Government to which I was opposed would do any such thing. Even if you do not credit the Government with decency in these matters, you might at least think that they would consult their own interests. The last thing
    1866
    in the world which a Government would be likely to do would be to throw the finances of the country into disorder in order apparently to meet some party spite against their political opponents. We have tried to meet every contingency and to make provision for either Dissolution or Prorogation, which ought properly to bring a Resolution to an end. That would not happen which the hon. Member says might happen. No Government would dream of dissolving until it had made provision for the finances of the country. It could not possibly do it. If hon. Gentlemen will not consider any other reason they might have regard to the fact that it would react so strongly upon the Government that I should have thought we might dismiss the notion altogether. We have introduced these words simply because we thought it was right to make provision, not merely for the Prorogation, but also for the Dissolution of Parliament. I am not particularly wedded to the words or to the provision. We only put them in because we thought they carried out that which we said was our intention, namely, not to extend the usage, but to take care to limit it as far as we possibly can. I hope no one will think that there is anything in the mind of the Government such as the hon. Member suggests.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The Attorney-General said he did not wish to extend the usage.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: We want to limit it.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I would remind him of what took place in 1909. We had then exactly the circumstances which my hon. Friend has imagined. A Dissolution was taking place, and every financial authority on that side of the House and a great many on this contended that the Resolution of the House of Commons according to practice ought to be continued during the period of Dissolution, and in point of fact it did continue. Everybody knows that with the exception of a very few cases—I think there was only one firm in the case of the Whisky Tax—practically the whole of the taxes were collected. If you appeal to usage at all, we are entitled to consider the precedent of 1909. I think that was a very convenient and a very proper precedent. I do not think the finances of the country ought to be subordinated to considerations of electoral advantages for either party.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Hear, hear.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: If the Government were defeated and dissolved because of something obnoxious in their financial or fiscal proposals the Resolution would be of no effect, because it would have been defeated at some stage or other in its progress. But if the Government were defeated and had to go to the country on a matter of general policy in which their fiscal policy was not challenged, I think it would be excessively inconvenient to the country that its whole finances should be thrown into chaos. You are now saying for the first time under the authority of an Act of Parliament that if there is a Dissolution then in the period which takes place, it may be four months…
    Mr. LEIF JONES: No.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Well, a month, or a considerable time. You are raying that if a Dissolution takes place no man need pay any of the taxes contemplated in the Resolution, and you are saying that upon the authority of an Act of Parliament. That is a serious proposition to lay down. I do not know whether that point has occurred to the Government, or whether it has had serious consideration. I hope the Attorney-General will give consideration to it.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: The Resolution must be passed on Report within ten Parliamentary days of its being agreed to in Committee.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No, it is ten days upon which the House sits.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: That is so, and there would be four months in which the Resolution was run. But I cannot imagine that a Government would dissolve without dealing with such a situation created in their own interests. The whole object of the limitations put into this Bill by the hon. Member has been to secure that the Budget shall become law within four months after the passing of the Budget Resolution. That being so, it is no use going back to the procedure when the Budget was spun out to the end of December. We hope we shall never see that again. It is the desire of everyone to get it passed within the four months, and therefore, it does not seem to me that in regard to the Resolution there is any need for the anxiety displayed by the hon. Member.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: I hope that this Amendment will not be pressed. It would be too bad to give statutory effect to a Resolution under such circumstances. It would not be right that a Resolution passed in Committee should have effect beyond the period during which the House is itself existing. That appears to me a most unthinkable aggravation of the evils of this Bill.
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: If I may have permission, I shall be quite willing to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: "In Sub-section (a), leave out the word 'imposing.'"
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (a), after the word "Resolution" ["of the Resolution"], to insert the words "with or without modification."
    I am not sure whether or not this Amendment is necessary, and I should like to have the view of the Attorney-General with regard to it. The difficulty I felt was this: You say, under the Act, "Imposing, varying, or renewing taxation under the authority of the Resolution." The Government take the view that that would include the case where a tax was levied in the Bill if a Bill was founded on the authority of the Resolution, and for that reason I suppose they do not consider these words necessary. May I further ask whether the words "under the authority of the Resolution" would not make it necessary to have proof that the Bill really was under the authority of the Resolution? It might be suggested that the Bill was not founded on the authority of the Resolution. Subject to an explanation on these points, I shall not desire to press my Amendment.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The Bill will have to be founded on the Resolution.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. CASSEL: I now propose to move the words which the Government have intimated their willingness to accept. I wish to move to insert, in Sub-section (a), after the word "Report," the words "or the provisions giving effect to the Resolution are rejected during the passage of the Bill containing those provisions through the House."
    Although the Resolution may have been agreed to on Report, the Bills founded on

    1869
    that Resolution might be rejected on the Second Reading, but the Resolution as originally framed in Committee will still have effect. These words are, therefore, I think necessary.
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to insert the words:—
    "When the Resolution is modified on Report it shall during the remainder of the period limited by this Section have effect as so modified.'
    The object is that when a modification is made in the Resolution on Report the Resolution shall not continue to have effect for four months in its original form, lout that it shall have effect in the modified form. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman in the words he has accepted has gone quite far enough, because they do not deal with the case of the Resolution being modified during the passage of the Bill through the House. Assume that in Committee the original Resolution is that the Income Tax shall be 1s. 2d. in the £. In Committee of the House it may be reduced to 1s. I am afraid such a contingency is not likely to happen, but I put it forward for the sake of argument. In that event, under the Resolution, it would still continue for the four months at 1s. 2d., and the banks would, by Statute, be bound to deduct it at that figure. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having expressed his willingness to accept my Amendment, but I do urge that the words do not go far enough.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It is quite true that the provision, as drafted, does not meet the last point raised by the hon. and learned Member. It would be very difficult indeed to meet it in drafting, but it is quite unnecessary, and there would certainly be no difficulty, once the Bill has passed through the House, in dealing with a matter of that kind. The point has been considered with very great care.
    Further Amendment made: In paragraph (b), leave out the word "imposing."
    Sir A. CRIPPS: I beg to move, in paragraph (b), after the word "resolution," to insert the words "and any expenses or costs incurred in connection with such payment."
    1870
    I should like to have the learned Attorney-General's view on this Amendment. Suppose a tax is deducted under a Resolution, and some portion of it has to be repaid. There may have been certain expenses incurred, and the bankers, when making the repayment, will not have power to provide for repayment of those expenses. Might it not be well to include a provision for making such payment?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: This particular provision is a familiar one in Taxing Acts, and I know of no instance where the words suggested have been included. If, in consequence of litigation, costs have been incurred, of course it will be open to the Court to make such order, as it thinks right for payment of those costs, while if there has not been litigation, the expenses will probably have been nominal. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will not, under the circumstances, press this Amendment.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: Having regard to what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, I think it is a sufficient answer on the point, and I do not propose to press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Further Amendments made: In paragraph (b), leave out the words "impose" and "imposing."
    Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to move, in paragraph (c), to leave out the words "under the authority of the Resolution."
    I desire to ask the Attorney-General what is the effect of these words. We are now dealing with paragraph (c), which is a provision of the Bill intended to relate to cases where there is a modification or alteration of the Resolution, either on Report or in the Act. I am only asking for information. We are dealing with the paragraph which deals with the modification of a tax either on Report of the Resolution or by the Act which is actually carried and takes the place of the Resolution. What is the meaning of these words:—
    "Where the tax as imposed, varied, or renewed by the Resolution is modified, either when considered by the House on the Report of the Resolution, or by the Act imposing, varying, or renewing the tax"—

    1871
    The Act which imposes or varies must so far authorise or renew it. Why do we want the words—
    "under the authority of the Resolution"?
    I ask the question because I think they are surplusage. If the Attorney-General explains that there is some good reason for them I do not desire to say more.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I say quite frankly that I am not quite certain that I think the words are necessary, but there are those who take a different view and who think it is necessary to insert them because the tax which is to be renewed must be under the authority of the particular Resolution and not under the authority of any other Resolution. They are put in simply out of abundant caution. If my hon. and learned Friend is satisfied, I will certainly consider them again in the light of his criticism, and if they are not necessary I will certainly take them out.
    Mr. POLLOCK: In these circumstances I do not desire to press the Amendment, but I am quite satisfied with the observations the Attorney-General has made.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to move, in paragraph (c), to leave out the words "under the new conditions affecting the tax" ["payable under the new conditions affecting the tax"], and to insert instead thereof the words "if the said Resolution so modified or the said Act had been in force at the time of such payment."
    We have now dealt with the case of the tax being modified upon Report of the Resolution or by the Act which is actually carried into force. The words that are chosen are very unhappy because they go on—
    "any money which has been paid in pursuance of the Resolution"—
    that is the Resolution as it originally stood—
    "which would not have been payable under the new conditons affecting the tax shall be repaid or made good."
    There are no new conditions affecting the tax. You have either the tax imposed by the statutory effect given to it under the Bill, or you have a tax imposed by the Act itself. I suppose that in using the words "under the new conditions affecting the tax," what the draftsman
    1872
    means is that where you have a tax imposed by a Resolution, and you subsequently get either on Report a Resolution or an Act which is in some respects different from the original Resolution that they are new conditions affecting the tax. They are not. The position is that the tax originally imposed by the original Resolution has now become modified and altered by reason of the Resolution having been altered, or by the Act not being consonant with the original Resolution. In order to get over that difficulty I suggest much better words. The Clause would then read as follows:—
    "Any money which has been paid in pursuance of the Resolution which would not have been payable if the said Resolution so modified or the said Act had been in force at the time of such payment shall be repaid."
    It makes the difference between our once more asserting that the tax is a tax which ought to be imposed by Act of Parliament or imposed by a Resolution which, under this Bill, is to have statutory effect, or by our declaring that there may be a sort of tax arising neither under a Resolution nor under an Act, but in some new conditions which affect it although they do not impose it. I hope I have made my point clear to the Attorney-General.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: There is nothing in substance between the hon. and learned Gentleman and myself. It is only a question of drafting. On the whole, although his words are in some respects better, I think we make better provision by the words we use. With the subsequent words which the hon. and learned Member proposes to introduce in line 23 the whole result of this Amendment would not provide as we do for the deductions which have to be made. On the whole, the view is taken that our words do provide for everything that is necessary, and that we had better leave them as they are. It is merely a question of words.
    Mr. CAVE: I agree that it is a question of drafting, but I think the words of my hon. and learned Friend are better than those in the Bill. There are no new conditions affecting a tax. There was a proposal to impose a tax which had statutory effect for a short period, but that has been modified, and there is a new proposal altogether. The words of the Amendment are plain to me, and are easily

    1873
    understood and construed. The words in the Bill are very likely to give rise to questions, and even to litigation. I press the Attorney-General to reconsider his observations. I do not think he holds his view very strongly. I assure him that it does appear to me that the words recommended by my hon. and learned Friend are much better.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I should like to strongly endorse what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend. I cannot for the life of me understand the words "the new conditions affecting the tax." There are no new conditions affecting the tax. If the Resolution is modified and the Act that comes into effect confirms that modifying Resolution, a different sum will be payable from what has been paid. What we want to provide is that the proper sum shall be repaid, in other words, the difference between the sum actually paid and the sum which would have been payable if the modified Resolution and the Act had been in force at the time the payment was exacted. The introduction of these words, "under the new conditions affecting the tax," can only give rise to confusion. Anyone who comes to interpret the Bill will ask what are the new conditions, and will try to find some meaning which obviously the Attorney-General does not intend to put into the Clause. One must remember that when words of this sort are used and a judge comes to construe them, he would naturally ask what are these new conditions. The only possible result would be to lead to litigation, and, in the case of possible litigation, to confuse the mind of any tribunal which has to interpret the Act. The words of my hon. and learned Friend are absolutely apt. Personally, I should advise him, if they are not accepted, to divide upon the Amendment.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The difficulty is that they do not deal with deductions. They are all right in regard to payments, but they do not deal with deductions. I am quite willing to consider them.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I have a consequential Amendment to leave out the words
    "authorised under the new conditions affecting the tax," and to insert the words "payable as aforesaid." May I read to the Attorney-General the Clause as it would then read:—
    "Any money which has been paid in pursuance of the Resolution, which would not have been payable if the said Resolution so modified or the said Act had been in force at the time of such payment shall be repaid or made good, and any deduction made in pursuance of the Resolution shall, so far as it would not have been payable as aforesaid, be deemed to be an unauthorised deduction."
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Deduction! That is the difficulty in drafting which I pointed out.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I can move the consequential Amendment in a way which will meet the Attorney-General's criticism, which I at once appreciate. If he accepts my first Amendment, which is now before the Committee, I will move the other words to meet his criticism.
    Mr. CAVE: It is quite easy to do that, because all you have to do when you come to deduction is to follow the same form and say—
    "which would not have been deducted if such Resolution so modified had been in force at the time of such deduction."
    That point really arises later.
    The CHAIRMAN: If this Amendment is disposed of the subsequent Amendment, which is consequential, cannot be raised.
    Mr. CAVE: I quite accept that. The criticism of the Attorney-General does not apply to this Amendment but to a later one. If this Amendment is passed, his criticism can be met by altering the later Amendment.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 277; Noes, 130.

    Division No. 48.]

    AYES.

    [6.31 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Alden, Percy

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

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

    Bentham, G. J.

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Grady, James

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

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

    Black, Arthur W.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Boland, John Pius

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

    O'Malley, William

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Henry, Sir Charles

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

    Bowerman, C. W.

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

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Shee, James John

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hinds, John

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Hodge, John

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Hogge, James Myles

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Holt, Richard Darning

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

    Hudson, Walter

    Pointer, Joseph

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

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

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

    Johnson, W.

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Radford, G. H.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Clough, William

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Reddy, Michael

    Clynes, John R.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Jowett, F. W.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Joyce, Michael

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Keating, Matthew

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Kelly, Edward

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Crooks, William

    Kilbride, Denis

    Robinson, Sidney

    Crumley, Patrick

    King, J.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Cullinan, John

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

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

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

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Rowlands, James

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Leach, Charles

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Waiter

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

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Lewis, John Herbert

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

    Delany, William

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Lundon, Thomas

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glan., Bridgeton)

    Dillon, John

    Lynch, A. A.

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

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Sheehy, David

    Doris, William

    McGhee, Richard

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Duffy, William J.

    Maclean, Donald

    Shortt, Edward

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

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

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Snowden, Philip

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Manfield, Harry

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Falconer, James

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Sutton, John E.

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Meagher, Michael

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Middlebrook, William

    Tennant, Harold John

    Field, William

    Molloy, Michael

    Thomas, James Henry

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Mend, Sir Alfred M.

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Toulmin, Sir George

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Mooney, John J.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Gill, A. H.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Morrell, Philip

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Morison, Hector

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Glanville, H. J.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Muldoon, John

    Wardle, George J.

    Goldstone, Frank

    Munro, R.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

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

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Watt, Henry Anderson

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

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Webb, H.

    Gulland, John William

    Neilson, Francis

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Hackett, John

    Norman, Sir Henry

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

    Hall, F. (Yorks, (Normanton)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Hardie, J. Keir

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Dowd, John

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    1876

    1877

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

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

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. G. Howard and Captain Guest.

    Winfrey, Richard

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Wing, Thomas

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fitzroy, Hon, Edward A.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

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

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Gardner, Ernest

    Mount, William Arthur

    Baker, Sir Randolf L.

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Nield, Herbert

    Barnston, Harry

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

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

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Goldman, C. S.

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

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Bird, Alfred

    Gretton, John

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

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

    Randles, Sir John S,

    Boyton, James

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

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesail)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Royds, Edmund

    Bull, Sir William James

    Harris, Henry Percy

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

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Harrison-Broadiey, H. B.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Butcher, John George

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

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

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

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Campion, W. G.

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

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

    Cassel, Felix

    Hills, John Waller

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Cater, John

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Stanier, Beville

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hohler, G. F.

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Cave, George

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Chaloner Colonel R. G. W.

    Hume-Williams, W. E.

    Swift, Rigby

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

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Kerry, Earl of

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Keswick, Henry

    Touche, George Alexander

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Valentia, Viscount

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Weigall, Captain A. G.

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Eyres-Monsell, Boston M.

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Younger, Sir George

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

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Pollock and Mr. Hewins.

    Fell, Arthur

    Malcolm, Ian

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir A. Cripps) is, I think, equivalent to the rejection of the Bill.
    Mr. POLLOCK: May I call your attention to this? It is quite true the matter was discussed on the Resolution, but the Bill itself would still apply to Customs and Excise, and very different considerations apply to Income Tax, the financial year for which closes on 5th April, from what applies to Customs and Excise, where the year closes, certainly in the case of the Tea Tax, on 1st July. Income Tax and Customs and Excise do not run during similar years, and therefore a great many different considerations apply to them independently, so I submit that although it has been discussed on Report it is a matter which should be considered in the House, on the Bill, as to whether the Bill should apply to Income Tax.
    The CHAIRMAN: If I understand aright, the whole origin of this Bill is the action brought by Mr. Gibson Bowles, which dealt with Income Tax, and that is the main thing which we have had in our mind all these days. It is a little late to move to leave the Income Tax out of the Bill. It would make the Bill of no effect.
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "four" ["at the end of four months"], and to insert instead thereof the word "three."
    I would submit that three months are sufficient; for this reason, that you are practically bound under the Bill to introduce the Budget within one month of the close of the Income Tax year. The Income Tax year closes on 5th April, and payments and deductions may continue without any Resolution for one month from that date, so that the necessity for bring-

    1879
    ing in the Bill really arises on 5th May. Unless the Bill is introduced by 5th May the Income Tax deductions would lapse, so that the date from which you start the four months is 5th May. Four months from that carries you through to 5th September, and why the Finance Bill of the year should be put so late as 5th September I really do not see. I should have thought 5th August would have been late enough. Before this Government came into power there is absolutely no precedent for any Finance Bill being carried later than August, and I think there is none of ally Finance Bill having left this House later than July. Under these circumstances I submit that three months are sufficient. Whether the manuscript Amendment of the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil) has any effect on the point I really cannot tell. It is most unsatisfactory to have a manuscript Amendment which affects the whole procedure of the Budget for all future years brought forward which no one can understand. Subject to that having any effect, I should have submitted that three months was sufficient, because that would carry you to 5th August, taking the latest date at which the Budget can be introduced, having regard to Clause 2, under which the Income Tax continues to run for a month after 5th April without any renewal.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will not persist in taking this matter to a Division. Certainly, after what has transpired to-day and after the acceptance of the Amendment of the Noble Lord, there are, I should have thought, very ample safeguards as regards this Resolution. The effect of that Amendment was that the Resolution would only have effect, and continue to have effect, for ten days on which the House sat, and unless confirmed on Report it would lapse, and equally after that, unless the Bill founded on the Resolution was introduced into the House within twenty days on which the House sat, again the Resolution would lapse, so that there is ample protection for the proper introduction of the Budget. I really do not think there is any ground for anxiety when you have that special provision. It is quite true that it may possibly be deferred until a later date, but equally it may not. The hon. and learned Member says, "I want to fix the extreme period," but there is really not
    1880
    any need if you have the safeguard and protection which we have introduced in the Bill to-day.
    Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: So far as the earlier period is concerned I think we are protected. If you have a period of four months, as prescribed in the Bill as it stands, we may have the Budget postponed to a very late date in normal Sessions. We who had the experience in connection with the Budget of 1909, know what that meant. It meant that we were deprived of our right and privilege of reviewing the finance of the year, and of criticising the new taxes. In many cases we were closured, and when we were not closured, we were only allowed short periods of time for discussion. I had an Amendment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed to accept in 1908, but on account of the procedure followed it was not accepted until last year, four years after. That was owing to the Budget being crowded into a short period at the end of the Session. We had no chance of exercising our constitutional right of criticism. That is the difficulty I see in this matter. If the period is shortened in the way proposed by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Cassel), the Budget would have to be brought in before the House was jaded and worn out at the end of a long Session.
    Mr. McKENNAindicated dissent.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: The Home Secretary shakes his head, but I would point out that the Finance Act may not be dealt with until the last days of August or the beginning of September. The Committee and Report stages of the Bill are those which concern us most in these matters. These are the stages upon which we can review the taxation proposed for the year and seek to reduce it where we think it is proper to reduce it. I support the Amendment, because I see no reason why the Finance Bill should not be disposed of before that period.
    Question, "That the word 'four' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), leave out the words
    "the expression 'temporary tax' means a tax which has been imposed or renewed for a limited period not exceeding eighteen months,"
    and insert instead thereof the words
    "any expression referring to the renewal of the tax shall be deemed to refer also

    1881
    to the reimposition of the tax."—[Sir Rufus Isaacs.]
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Payments and Deductions Made on Account of Temporary Tax before Renewal of Tax.)
    (1) Any payment or deduction made on account of a temporary tax within one month after the date of the expiration of the tax shall, if the payment or deduction would have been a legal payment or deduction if the tax had not expired, be deemed to be a legal payment or deduction, subject to the condition that if a Resolution is not passed by the Committee of Ways and Means of the House of Commons within that month for the renewal of the tax, any money so paid or deducted shall be repaid or made good, and that if the tax is ultimately renewed at a different rate, or with modifications, any amount paid or deducted which could not properly have been paid or deducted under the new conditions affecting the tax shall be repaid or made good.

    (2) Section ninety-five of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, shall have effect with respect to any duties imposed by the Finance Act of this or any previous year, with the substitution of a reference to that Finance Act, for any reference in that Section to "this Act."

    Mr. CASSEL: Before we proceed with Clause 2, I beg respectfully to submit that it ought not to be proceeded with until fresh financial Resolutions have been obtained. The point is rather complicated, but I submit it is one of very great general importance. The effect of Sub-section (2) is, by anticipation, to incorporate Section 95 of the Finance Act of 1909–10 in the Finance Act that is to be. It incorporates the same Section retrospectively into every Finance Act there has ever been. I believe the first time that the actual expression "Finance Act" was used was in 1884, but whether the words would be limited to the words "Finance Act," or apply also to Customs and Inland Revenue Acts of previous years, is doubtful. For my purpose it is sufficient to say that Sub-section (2), Clause 2, applies retrospectively as far back as 1884, and that the effect is to legalise all acts done in connection with the collection of taxes. The effect of the Section is to legalise retrospectively all collections of duty
    1882
    made, whether in the way of deductions or actual collections by Revenue officers, before the Act of Parliament by which they were imposed came into force. It has a retrospective effect in that way, not only in regard to machinery, but in regard to actual deductions at a specific rate and collections at a specific rate. Similarly the present Bill, if carried into law, would have the effect of legalising retrospectively all acts of collection unlawfully done in anticipation of the Finance Act of 1913. On that ground I submit that it is not merely a matter of machinery, but a matter of actual collection. The moment you get a rate and deduct it, you are not dealing with mere machinery. You are dealing with collection. It would have been absurd to legalise mere matters of machinery so far back. The object is to legalise actual collection from 1884 onwards. If there is any doubt upon that point, I would like to quote what the Solicitor-General said in the Debate on the Second Reading, so far as it relates to the Finance Act of 1913. He said:—
    "Coming to the third question asked by the hon. Gentleman opposite on Sub-section (2) of Section 2, that Sub-section is the one which deals with the matter in which the bankers have been acting as between the 5th April and the present time."
    That was in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for the Uxbridge Division (Mr. Mills) who was concerned with the question whether the effect would be retrospective. The hon. and learned Gentleman also said:—
    "The effect of that Sub-section is, and is intended to be, that in so far as there has been a deduction, for instance, by the bank between the 5th April and the time the Bill received the Royal Assent that this deduction in so far as may be stall be retrospectively legalised and the banks rendered sale from the possibility of action."
    I submit that the legalising of an exaction from people, which otherwise would have been an illegal act, is not a matter of machinery. It is a matter of the actual collection of the charge. I submit alternatively that, even if it were a matter of machinery and not a matter of charge, a Resolution would still be necessary. It has been the invariable practice wherever alterations have been made even in the machinery of collecting taxes to have a Resolution that it is expedient to amend the law of Customs and Excise. Sir Michael Hicks-Beach (now Lord St. Aldwyn), when Chancellor of the Exchequer, endeavoured to avoid that Resolution in order to abbreviate discussion, but he found himself compelled to introduce such a Resolution in May, 1897. The

    1883
    Resolution was agreed to by the House. I submit that such a Resolution is necessary, for this reason: In the case of a Bill which is founded on a Resolution, the leave to bring in the Bill is limited by the Resolution, and unless you have a fresh Resolution which authorises you to amend the law of Customs and Excise, even in the matter of machinery, you are going beyond the title of the Bill.
    7.0 P.M.
    It has been suggested that Section 95 of the Finance Act of 1909–10 did not have any Resolution on which it was founded. That is an error. Section 95 was based, so far as it was a charging section, upon a Financial Resolution which preceded the Finance Act. The Finance Act of 1909–10 was passed on 20th April, 1910. The Resolution was itself retrospective in imposing the Income Tax in April, 1909, at the rate of 1s. 2d., so that in so far as it was a charging section, it may be said to have been founded on that retrospective Resolution. In so far as it was a machinery section, it was founded on the Resolution that it was expedient to amend the law of Customs and Excise which preceded the Finance Act. Therefore no argument can be drawn from that. Moreover, attention was never called to the point in 1909 or 1910. The Clause was passed with a batch of other Clauses in the Finance Act of 1909–10. The Clause may have been put in per incuriam. I ask that it should be tested in this way: If this Sub-section in the Bill now before the Committee had been the whole Bill, could such a Bill have been introduced without a Resolution? That is the test by which I wish my point to be determined. I wish to deal with the further point, that the actual Resolution upon which this Bill is founded is not sufficient to cover this particular Section. On that point I wish to call attention to the fact that all the three branches of the Resolution are in the future. They use the word "shall," and do nothing to authorise retrospective application. Under this Section it is proposed to give retrospective application, not only with regard to the period from 5th April up to the passing of this Bill, but in the words "previous years" it gives retrospective application to the time of the flood, if you can find a Finance Act, retrospective application of the widest extent possible, and no retrospective application is contemplated here. There are authorities, with which I have no doubt you will
    1884
    be familiar that you cannot ante-date a Resolution, that you cannot give it an effect outside that which it properly and grammatically bears, because that would be increasing the charge or going beyond the words of the Resolution. To give a Resolution which in its words contain the words of a Statute so wide a retrospective effect is outside the Resolution.
    Moreover, it gives a retrospective effect of the very worst possible kind, because the effect, if passed, would be to enable the Bank of England to sue Mr. Bowles again for the very sums which it has been decided that the Bank of England was not entitled to deduct. That would be under Sub-section (4) of Section 95. It is outside the Resolution also, because it deals with cases where there has been no Resolution at all. By anticipation it legalises any and every tax which may be imposed by the Finance Act of 1913, though no Resolution has yet been passed, although that Resolution may yet be delayed. It is true, we are told, that it is going to be brought in immediately, but there is nothing in the Bill to say that, and even assuming that the Budget of this year is not introduced until August, it would legalise in anticipation of the Budget all collections made previous to that date. That, moreover, applies not merely to temporary taxes, so that Sub-section (3) would not be sufficient to help out of the difficulty, but it applies to permanent taxes as well. The third ground on which it is outside the Resolution is that it authorises payments and reductions on account of temporary taxes for a longer period than two months. Take the year 1911 as an example. It would authorise all the deductions made on account of, say, Income Tax between the expiry of that tax on 5th April, 1911, and its renewal by the passing of the Finance Act of that year in December, 1911, which is a period exceeding the two months, which are specifically named in Sub-section (c) of the Resolution. On those grounds I submit that it is outside these Resolutions, and that it needs a Resolution itself, because, if it was the whole Bill, it would require a Resolution. Therefore I submit that this Bill ought not to be proceeded with until a fresh Resolution is passed.
    The CHAIRMAN: The point of Order which the hon. and learned Member has submitted is obviously one of considerable importance, and naturally I have clone my best to look into the matter, he having

    1885
    courteously informed me of the form in which he intended to raise it. I feel myself a little incompetent to meet him on purely legal grounds, not being a member of his profession; but I have a clear perception of what my duty is as Chairman, and from what it is that I must protect the Committee. It is of course against any imposition of a tax not made by due process of our Rules of Procedure. I have considered the points that the hon. and learned Member has just made, and it appears to me that they are not matters which require me to rule that this Clause ought not to proceed. If he looks at Sub-section (2) of this Clause, he will see that it applies Section 95 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910 with respect to "any duties imposed by the Finance Act of this or any previous year." That is to say, before any imposition upon the subject is legal, it requires the passage of a Finance Act, and therefore it only comes into effect in so far as the submission of the subject to the temporary deduction is a voluntary one or not objected to by the subject. Therefore I am not able to hold that in that respect it is the imposition of a new charge. It may perhaps be put in this way, that if I were to hold otherwise it would mean two Ways and Means Resolutions for the same purpose. With regard to the reference in this Sub-section to Finance Acts of any previous year, those taxes have been in due course legalised by the passage of those Acts. The other point which the hon. Member raised was that this was outside the Resolution, and that it ought to have been set forth in the Resolution or that a new Resolution should be brought in to support it. With regard to that, I can only repeat what Mr. Speaker said last week when the matter was raised before him, that it is not necessary that every provision of the Bill should be set out in the Resolution. Otherwise we should have two identical Committees, one on the Resolution and another one on the Bill. It is, I think, sufficient protection for the House and for the subject that the Resolution on which the Bill is founded should cover the essential proposals, so that neither the House nor the subject is taken by surprise. In my opinion Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 can proceed because it does not make any imposition on the subject which is out of order according to our Rules.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: To elucidate what you have just said may I put this? I understand that your interpretation of
    1886
    Sub-section (2) of this Clause is that no payment that was not legal before the passing of Finance Acts of previous years would be made legal by the operation of this Sub-section. Take the actual illustration of my hon. Friend. I understand that it would not be possible for the Bank of England to recover again from Mr.. Bowles the money which he recovered from them by his action, because it is evident that if by the operation of this Sub-section a tax was imposed on Mr. Bowles and he was obliged to pay money which without this Sub-section he would not be obliged to pay, a charge would be put upon the subject. I want to know if I have correctly understood your ruling that this Sub-section does not have that effect?
    The CHAIRMAN: The charge on Mr. Gibson Bowles was legalised when the Act of that year finally passed, and I imagine recovered from him at the later date when it was legally due, and this Section adds nothing to that.
    Mr. CASSEL: If it was not for this Section no action could be brought. The position then would be that he would have to make a return under Schedule D, and it would have to be recovered in that way. The result of this Section is this, that it calls attention to Sub-section (4) of Section 95 of the Act of 1909–10, which says this:—
    "also in a case where a person could have made a legal deduction if this Act had been in force on account of any duty imposed by this Act, but has not made it the person who has made or could have made the deduction as the case may be shall be entitled if there is no future payment from which the deduction may be made to recover the same as if it were a debt due from the person to whom the original deduction had been made good, or as against whom the deduction could have been originally made."
    So the Finance Act of 1912 alone would not have given the right of action against Mr. Bowles, but the result of the retrospective incorporation of this Section in the Finance Act of 1912, is to give that right, the right of destroying the fruits of his industry, which the Government declared it was not their intention to do on the 26th August.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is a point which possibly might be argued on the Bill, but after the Act finally passed in that year

    1887
    it legalised the charge on Mr. Bowles, though the result was as the hon. and learned Member has correctly said that the process would be by Schedule D rather than by deduction.
    Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. I should like to know, Sir, what your ruling is on the subject to which I wish to call attention, though I am not sure whether I am not too late. I maintain that this Sub-section is beyond the scope of the title of the Bill, which says that the Bill is to give
    "statutory effect to Resolutions imposing, varying, or renewing taxation, and to make provision with respect to payments and deductions made on account of any temporary tax between the dates of the expiration and renewal of the tax."
    To be within the scope of the title of the Bill it ought to have gone on to say, "or vary the Finance Act of 1909." Sub-section (2) does nothing with regard to the Resolution, but it does vary the Act which was passed in the year 1909, and therefore either the title will have to be amended or the Sub-section will have to be withdrawn. As a matter of fact, I ought to have raised this on the Second Reading, but as it is an important point I should like to know, Sir, whether you agree with me.
    The CHAIRMAN: As to the point raised by the hon. Baronet in regard to the title of the Bill, if he claims that the Bill cannot proceed on account of insufficient title, it ought to have been brought forward before the Second Reading. If it is some point in which the title ought to be amended it is open to the hon. Gentleman to move an Amendment of the title. The Sub-section does not invalidate the Clause or Bill in Committee on account of title.
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (2).
    I have already indicated some of my objections to this proposal, in speaking on the point of Order. It is to have effect firstly with regard to the Finance Act of "this year." We are asked, before we know in the least what the duties in this Finance Act may be, already to give them some effect. We are asked before we know what kind of a Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to introduce, blindly to give effect to any or
    1888
    every duty that may be imposed, and incorporate them in the Act of Parliament. I suggest that this is a course absolutely unprecedented. With regard to a Bill of which we know nothing, and with regard to duties of which We know nothing, we are already preliminarily and by anticipation giving them some effect. The result we really do not know and cannot appreciate, so far as the Finance Act of this year is concerned. If the Government want that effect secured by the Finance Act of this year, why do they not do it by that Finance Act instead of this Bill? They can do it equally well in that Act, and they could not operate so far as the Finance Act of this year is concerned until, according to Mr. Whitley's ruling, that Act is passed. What is the purpose of putting it in here in anticipation, instead of putting it into the Finance Act of the year? In regard to the words, "the Finance Act of this year," the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on a previous point of the Bill, urged the strongest possible reasons against the use of those words, because, he said, there might be two Finance Acts. But now he uses the words himself so far as the Finance Act of this year is concerned.
    According to the ruling, it would have no greater effect than the Finance Act itself. I submit that this is a monstrous piece of retrospective legislation in regard to the action which has been decided in the Courts, and it is done in this covert manner without any allusion to it in the Resolution—in a manner so concealed that nobody, unless he had gone most carefully into the question, could know that you are giving to the Bank of England the right of action against Mr. Bowles to recover directly from him. Apart from this Section, Mr. Bowles could only have been made liable under Schedule D, because he no longer holds the stock, so that there is no longer any payment upon which the deduction could be made by the Bank of England. Under Section 4 you are giving to the Bank of England a new remedy in regard to the very subject-matter of the action. Apart from that, what are we really doing? We are giving some retrospective effect to all the Finance Acts that have ever been. That is really what we are asked to do. What was the defect in these Finance Acts which we are being asked to remedy? It was that in those Finance Acts there was no provision under which deduction could legally have been made prior to the passage of the Acts

    1889
    into law. I suppose there is some apprehension that somebody might bring an application to reclaim the sums which have been deducted. I do not know whether that is the reason, but, if it is, I submit that to legislate retrospectively in regard to Finance Acts of the past is a most undesirable thing to do, and it is particularly undesirable to legislate retrospectively in regard to the result of proceedings in Court.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: All that is proposed to do by this Sub-section is to incorporate the machinery of Section 95 of the Act of 1909–10. A charge upon the subject must be imposed in accordance with the provisions of this Bill, and it must be followed by the Finance Act of the year. Meanwhile what is provided and what is attempted by the Resolution and by the Bill and by the first Sub-section of Clause 2, which has been passed, is that there shall be a continuation of the practice which has hitherto existed, and which was challenged by Mr. Gibson Bowles, of making deductions in respect of Income Tax, notwithstanding that the Income Tax has actually not been legalised by the passing of the Finance Act. That is the point that was raised, and the effect of this provision is, by one short Sub-section, to incorporate the whole of the provisions which it was thought wise to insert into the Act of 1909–10, in order to provide machinery requisite for the purpose of making the collection. The duty must be imposed by the Finance Act. There is nothing done here; this Bill imposes no duty at all. If, for example, our Finance Act did not impose the Income Tax—if such a thing could happen—the consequence would be that Section 95 of the Act of 1909–10 would come into operation. If you do impose the duty, if you first pass a Resolution, if the Resolution is reported and is then incorporated into a Bill, and the Bill passes through Committee and the Third Reading, then all that has taken place meanwhile is that you have imposed your duty by means of the machinery which we have provided for the purpose of deducting the Income Tax at the source. That is the intention; it is with that object we passed the Resolution, and it is for that purpose we have introduced the Clause as it stands now. It does not do any violence to the subject in any way; it merely provides machinery. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think that this is something which has
    1890
    been devised for use against Mr. Gibson Bowles. If hon. Members have listened to his argument, I think they will have found that he regards this particular paragraph to which he has directed so much of his criticism, Sub-section (4), as having been introduced only for the purpose of attacking Mr. Bowles; whereas it was introduced in the Act of 1909–10 for the purpose of meeting exactly the kind of case which is in contemplation. All we have done is to repeat that in this Act; and all we are doing is to provide machinery which it is absolutely desirable that we should have in order that Income Tax may be collected in the ordinary way.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: As regards the future Act and its application to the case of Mr. Bowles, if there had not been a Sub-section of the Act authorising the deduction to be made, Mr. Bowles could not have been charged under the present Bill with that Income Tax. As the Attorney-General said, what we are doing is to include all the provisions of Section 95 and of the earlier Acts. Still, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to look more particularly at Sub-section (4):—
    "Where any deduction which would have been a legal deduction if this Act had been in force has been made on account of any duty imposed by this Act, and the sum deducted has subsequently been made good by the person making the deduction, that person shall not be prevented from again making the deduction."
    The Bank of England, in the case of Mr. Bowles, made a deduction which was then refunded and afterwards legalised by the Finance Act. Therefore the Bank may make the deduction again. The Act has been in force for some time, and in all probability, though I speak without any information, the tax has been deducted through Mr. Bowles being called upon to make a return.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It is difficult to deal with a set of facts of which one has no definite knowledge, but I understood—I speak with doubt about it—that Mr. Bowles had sold his stock, and that there could be no deduction.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: In the next paragraph, Section 95 goes on to say that if there is nothing on which to make a deduction the amount may be recovered as if it "were a debt due." I do not for a moment suggest that the Inland Revenue

    1891
    would do anything of the kind. All I suggest is that you are incorporating the Section in another Act of Parliament with respect to future and retrospective matters, and you ought not to put it in the power of anybody to deduct twice over, when in fact Mr. Bowles was only liable to pay once. I suggest to the Attorney-General that these words would give the right to the bank, even if Mr. Bowles had already paid his tax, either to deduct the tax from him again, or alternatively to recover it from him as a debt, and I do not know what remedy he would then have.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I think the Committee is likely to make a mistake if we discuss this Sub-section too closely in relation to the hypothetical facts of the case of Bowles v. The Bank of England. The Attorney-General will, I think, agree with me in saying that it is not very easy to know exactly what did happen there, and so I pass that case by to ask what is the meaning of this Sub-section. The answer of the Attorney-General did not cover the point of my hon. and learned Friend that this Sub-section says that Section 95 is to have effect with regard to new duties imposed by the Finance Act of this year or any previous year. What is the necessity of passing a Clause in this Bill of that kind? The words "Finance Act" first appeared in a Bill in the year 1894, and we have got something like seventeen Finance Acts since that time, and now we have this beautiful Clause, which is to apply Section 95 to all of them. There was once a learned Common Serjeant of London who raised the merriment of all people at the time and of all lawyers since, by saying with reference to a case that was before him, "There never was a worse case than this case, and if there ever was a worse case than this case, then this case is that case." That is exactly what this Finance Act says. Section 95 is to apply to this Act or to that Act, and if ever there was a Finance Act which was not this Act or that Act, then it shall apply to this Act or that Act. If ever there was a wicked piece of legislation, though I do not impute any motives, and a really had piece of legislation, by reference, surely this case is that case. What is any subject to understand? In any dispute reference will be made to Finance Acts, and somebody will say, "Oh, you must look at another Act; you must look at the Provision and Collection
    1892
    of Taxes Act, and then you must look at Section 95 of the Act of 1910."
    I really do ask the Attorney-General does he think he has given sufficient explanation to make us pass what is really a piece of ridiculous legislation? As to the case of Bowles v. The Bank of England, if I understand the facts rightly, if Income Tax has not been deducted at the source, of course the subject still has to pay. There is no question that it is for the convenience of the banks and the subject that it should be deducted at the source. In the beautiful yellow form, with its delightful rules and regulations, the subject is asked to make a return in respect of all dividends which he has received. Mr. Bowles will no doubt make a return of his income on that form, and will pay the Income Tax for which he was liable at the time. I do not myself know as to the facts of that case, but I have no doubt the Inland Revenue will deal with it. If anyone expects to get a clear opinion as to what his liabilities will be after this Sub-section is passed, I shall be very much surprised. I dare say Somerset House may have some suggestion to make, but I have no doubt every judge before whom this might come would say that it was wholly inexplicable, and that he did not understand what it meant. On those grounds I support my hon. and learned Friend, and say that this ought not to be included in this Clause.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not think that the learned judge who has to construe this Clause will find it so difficult as my hon. and learned Friend suggests. I should have thought it was clear enough and not difficult to understand. Let me put this case. Suppose there had been a deduction made by a bank in respect of money paid either on a dividend or on a coupon, and supposing a suit is brought against the bank for the recovery of that money, the bank would immediately claim indemnity from the Treasury, and the Inland Revenue might have to return the money. In legalising this practice in previous years, what we want is to protect the Treasury against actions of that kind. If an action of the kind were brought by a man who was abroad, and if there was no answer, the money would have to be returned. What we are seeking to do is to take care that such a person shall not escape paying Income Tax.
    Mr. POLLOCK: If the man goes abroad would he leave his coupons here?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I was putting the case of a man who two years ago had his coupons here and had a dividend to receive, and from which the Bank, following the practice which hitherto existed, has made a deduction. Now it is held that the Bank could not make that deduction in consequence of the Gibson Bowles judgment. The person is living abroad and says to the Bank, "Give me back the money you illegally deducted." The Bank say, "No, we cannot do that. We have handed it over to the Treasury." He then says, "You must," and brings an action. If we pass this Clause there would be a complete answer, and nobody will have to pay Income Tax who is not liable, and nobody will suffer any injury, and we shall be legalising the practice which hitherto existed.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I confess I have the very greatest difficulty in following the discussion on either side of this matter, because it is a queer mixture of law and metaphysics. Do I correctly understand the Attorney-General to say that at this moment, without this Bill, anybody may bring an action against any bank for any money that has been deducted during any of the years in which money has been deducted in respect of the Income Tax, because the process of deduction was illegal under Resolution, and is this Sub-section the only thing that stands between us and a whole series of actions to recover that money? I have very great difficulty in believing that to be the case. If it is I cannot conceive why the Government did not put it right in last year's Finance Act.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The difficulty applies to a person who has gone abroad, for if the person remains here there are other ways. You could either get the money under Schedule D, or deduct again on the next occasion, but in the case of a man abroad who has nothing left here, if he were to bring an action, while I am not going to say for one moment what the result would be, yet it might be that the Bank sued would have no answer except an indemnity from the revenue.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: The Attorney-General apparently suggests that any taxpayer might bring an action in respect of past Income Tax imposed perhaps five years before and of the accumulated interest. If that is so, it is an incredible interpretation of the law, and Bumble was more justified than ever. I should have
    1894
    thought, at any rate, that the reference to previous years altogether unnecessary. Does the Attorney-General know of any contemplated action?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I will not say that I know of any action, but I know of applications to the Bank.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: In respect of deductions made under previous Finance Acts? I now understand for the first time why these words are in the Bill. In regard to its application to the Finance Act of this year, I do not understand what difference it makes. If this process of deduction is illegal without statutory authority, there is nothing in this Bill which gives statutory authority to the deductions until the Finance Act passes. Therefore, in the interval between now and the giving of the Royal Assent to the Finance Act, there will be no statutory authority for the deductions, and therefore the Bank may be proceeded against.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I did not say that.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that there was no statutory authority for the deduction. I am speaking now of the three weeks or the month before the giving of the Royal Assent to the Finance Act this year. Either this Bill gives the Bank a legal right to deduct it or it does not. If it does not, these words mean nothing and have no application whatever. If the Bank is given a legal right to deduct, a tax is imposed under this Clause, and the Chairman has given his ruling under a misapprehension. I shall be glad to hear how the Attorney-General gets out of that dilemma.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: There is no difficulty about it. There would be no tax imposed until the Finance Act is passed. Meanwhile money is coming into the hands of the Bank. It is intended that the Bank should have this authority to deduct if it chooses, and if a tax is subsequently imposed the deduction is legalised. But you cannot legalise a deduction by the Bank if the tax is not subsequently imposed by the Finance Act.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I quite understand what the Attorney-General contemplates, but I do not understand whether the action would he legal or illegal. Suppose the Bank makes a deduction next Monday. I understand that on Monday that

    1895
    would be illegal; but apparently by this proposal the legality is, so to speak, thrown back by anticipation. That is an incredible way of dealing with legislation. I suggest that this is a juggle. The Attorney-General is driven into a position which, however interesting as an intellectual exercise, cannot be accepted merely because he desires to uphold the ruling of the Chair on the one side and to get his money on the other. He wants to persuade the Chairman that there is no imposition of a tax and at the same time to make the subject "stump up." He says that a future Act, which may never come into existence, legalises something at the present moment. That is an incredible proposition. How can you have a tax imposed by an Act of Parliament until the Act of Parliament comes into existence? If this Clause said that the proposal should apply to the Resolutions on which the Finance Act of this year is to be founded that would mean something.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Has the Noble Lord read Section 2, Sub-clause (1)?
    Lord HUGH CECIL: That does not seem to have any bearing on the point with which I am dealing. What would happen between now and the giving of the Royal Assent to the Finance Act if this Clause were negatived? We should lose a lot of money. Therefore you are imposing a tax. What is a tax but money legally taken under the authority of Parliament? The Attorney-General suggests that banks will be lawfully entitled to do what is illegal. We are issuing, as it were, a letter of marque to all banks to conduct piracy under legal circumstances. We are driven to all these grotesque consequences because the Attorney-General is anxious to save the time of the House in passing another Resolution. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has put forward a preposterous doctrine which would not impose on the most credulous regiment of Horse-marines.
    Mr. CAVE: I do not wish to discuss either law or metaphysics; I simply want an assurance on two points. I follow the Attorney-General's last answer, which really comes to this—that we do not want any more Gibson Bowles actions. But it may be that actions have been brought upon the footing of the Gibson Bowles action. Is it a fact that this Clause will not affect those actions, so as to make actions which were proper when they were
    1896
    commenced improper now? If so, that ought to be made clear. It is not fair to affect pending litigation. I know of none myself, but the Attorney-General suggested that he knew of some claims.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I said applications made to the Bank.
    Mr. CAVE: I want it to be made quite clear that no action is affected by this Clause. Perhaps the Attorney-General will give that assurance, or, if necessary, insert words on Report. If this Clause had been law last year Mr. Gibson Bowles' action could not have been brought. I hope it will be made clear that the Clause will not have the effect either of robbing Mr. Gibson Bowles of the fruits of his action or of laying him open to some sort of counter-action. I want yes or no to that.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Of course, it will not.
    Mr. CASSEL: Does the Attorney-General claim that under Section 95 the Bank of England would not have a right of action?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Mr. Gibson Bowles, like everybody else, has to pay his Income Tax, and I have not the slightest doubt that, notwithstanding the fact that he has won his action, either he will have paid or somehow or other he will have to pay his Income Tax. He cannot escape having to pay his Income Tax by having set aside this practice. That is the only point with which I am concerned. I do not suppose for one moment that the Bank of England has any idea of suing Mr. Gibson Bowles. I should think they would say to the Inland Revenue, "It is your business to make Mr. Bowles pay. We tried to do so, but we have been sued, and have had to pay it back." I have no doubt that the Inland Revenue authorities will find a way.
    Mr. CAVE: We think that some words should be put in to the effect that the Clause shall not affect any litigation which has been determined or commenced.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: It is clear that if we incorporate Section 95 of the Finance Act of 1909 it will make the collection of the money by the Bank of England from Mr. Bowles perfectly legal now, although it was not legal before. But it is a pity to discuss a particular action on a Clause of this kind, except

    1897
    merely as an illustration of its effect. My objection to this Sub-section is that it is so exceedingly ambiguous and adds so much to the difficulties of dealing with such a complicated question as the Income Tax. With, perhaps, the exception of the Attorney-General and one or two other leading lawyers, I do not suppose that any Members have any idea how complicated the Income Tax is in all its bearings. In this piece of legislation by reference we are going to make it more complicated than ever. The words of the Sub-section are exceedingly objectionable. It is sought to be enacted that the provisions of Section 95 of the Finance Act of 1909 shall practically he incorporated in this Bill. If that Section were made a part of this Bill we could understand it. We could also understand it if it was proposed that that particular Section was to be read as incorporated in every future Finance Act. But if it is to be incorporated into the Finance Act of all previous years, it passes the wit of man to understand what the effect will be. One result is obvious nonsense. One of the previous Finance Acts is the Act of 1909 itself. How can you by Statute put Section 95 of the Finance Act, 1909, back again into the Finance Act, 1909? I imagine that even the Attorney-General could not tell me how to do that. I do not think that even the Attorney-General himself could reinsert into the Statute of 1909 the elaborate Clauses which are already there. It is ridiculous! It is also sought to put this Section 95 into the Finance Act of 1908. With what object? I do not think the Attorney-General, who has been challenged several times from these benches on this point, has made the slightest attempt to tell us what can be the object of putting Section 95 of the Finance Act of 1909 into the Finance Act of 1908. What is the idea?
    The whole object of this Clause and of this Bill is to get over the difficulty which arises between the suggestion of the tax in the Resolution and the actual passing of the Bill. Are there any difficulties outstanding with respect to 1908, 1907, 1906, or the twenty-nine previous Finance Acts that have been passed? I think the Attorney-General should tell us if there are any such difficulties, so that we may see whether there is any sense in it, or any necessity for passing this Section in this form? My objection, therefore, to the passing of this Sub-section (2) is two-fold. Firstly, that it is a most objectionable method of adding complications to one of
    1898
    the most difficult subjects in the world, namely, the law relating to the present Income Tax in this country; secondly, that it is confused and involved, and creates a number of supposititious difficulties; that it would be ridiculous in regard to the Finance Act of 1909 that has already got this Section in it; that no case has been made out by any suggestion from the Attorney-General, or from anybody else representing the Government, that there has been the slightest difficulty in regard to taxes under any previous Act which would call upon us to perpetuate this piece of confusion. For these reasons I join with the hon. and learned Gentleman objecting to this Sub-section.
    Mr. CASSEL: Before this Amendment goes to a Division, and for the sake of other Amendments, may I point out to the Attorney-General that a real and practical difficulty arises. In this way: That there may be a defence under Schedule D as in a case like that of Mr. Gibson Bowles. In fact, I could give him a reason why Schedule D may be inadequate. There is the argument that a man may not be liable under Schedule D. Notwithstanding that you now retrospectively make him liable with reference to the very thing on which Mr. Bowles won his action. It has not been the practice of Parliament to do that.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Has he to escape payment of his Income Tax then?
    Mr. CASSEL: The contention is that Schedule D does not apply in a great many cases, and in a great many cases deductions are made in which the people are not liable, and the people never recover the money. In many cases people, whose incomes are under £160, have Income Tax deducted, and they never go to the trouble to recover it. Mr. Gibson Bowles' contention was that Income Tax was deducted from income which was not liable under Schedule D. By reason of this Section you are retrospectively going against him with reference to the very point on which he won, and I say it is contrary to the principle and tradition of this House. With regard to this specific Amendment, the Attorney-General has given us no answer. If you wanted this power with regard to the duties of the Finance Act of this year why did not you put it into the Finance Act of this year. It cannot have any effect until that Act is passed, because it only applies to duties imposed by the Finance Act of this year.

    1899
    Why not put it in? I do attach a very great importance to the point that we should not retrospectively legislate with reference to the very subject matter of litigation in which the subject was successful.
    Question put, "That the words 'Any payment or deduction made on account of' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 107.

    Division No. 49.]

    AYES.

    [8.8 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Meagher, Michael

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Goldstone, Frank

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Middlebrook, William

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Alden, Percy

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Molloy, Michael

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

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

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Gulland, John William

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Hackett, John

    Mooney, John J.

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Hancock, J. G.

    Morison, Hector

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Muldoon, John

    Bentham, G. J.

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Munro, R.

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Black, Arthur W.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Boland, John Pius

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Neilson, Francis

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hayward, Evan

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Nuttall, Harry

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

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

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Hinds, John

    O'Dowd, John

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Grady, James

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Hodge, John

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

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

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Malley, William

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

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

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Shee, James John

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Clough, William

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Clynes, John R.

    Johnson, W.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Crooks, William

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Cullinan, John

    Joyce, Michael

    Radford, G. H.

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

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Kelly, Edward

    Reddy, M.

    Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Dawes, J. A.

    King, J. (Somerset, North)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Delany, William

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

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Dillon, John

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

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Leach, Charles

    Robinson, Sidney

    Doris, William

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Duffy, William J.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Rowlands, James

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Lundon, Thomas

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Farrell, James Patrick

    McGhee, Richard

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

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

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

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-an-Tees)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Ffrench, Peter

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Field, William

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    M'Kean, John

    Sheehy, David

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Shortt, Edward

    Furness, Stephen

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

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Manfield, Harry

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

    Gill, A. H.

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Snowden, Philip

    Glanville, H. J.

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Wadsworth, J.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Sutton, John E.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    Winfrey, Richard

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Webb, H.

    Wing, Thomas

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    Toulmin, Sir George

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

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. G. Howard and Captain Guest.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Gibbs, George Abraham

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

    Astor, Waldorf

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

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

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

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

    Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Gretton, John

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Barnston, Harry

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

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks)

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

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

    Bird, Alfred

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hills, John Waller

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Spear, Sir John Ward

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

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Stanier, Beville

    Campion, W. R.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hume-Williams, W. E.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Cave, George

    Hunt, Rowland

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

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

    Cecil, Lard R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Kerry, Earl of

    Touche, George Alexander

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

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Valentia, Viscount

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Weigall, Captain A. G.

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Croft, H. P.

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

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Cassel and Col. Burn.

    Fell, Arthur

    Malcolm, Ian

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Question put, and agreed to.
    Adjourned at Twenty-four minutes before Nine o'clock.

    CLAUSE 3.—Short Title.
    This Act may be cited as the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913.

    NEW CLAUSE.—Duration of Act.
    This Act shall continue in force for a period of eighteen months from the date of the passing thereof.
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    With regard to this Clause the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a suggestion earlier in the Debate that it might be desirable to make this a temporary Bill. I do not agree with the terms he then proposed, but the fact that he made the offer
    1902
    I think shows that he himself must have felt some doubt as to whether it was wise to place this permanently upon the Statute Book. We have been proceeding in a very hurried manner under a temporary emergency. I think we ought to have commenced long before we did. I constantly pressed upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he ought to have dealt with this matter before the 5th April. Whatever were the reasons, we have had to deal with it with very great speed and without an opportunity of properly considering the matter. We have actually had manuscript Amendments dealing with the procedure for the Budget for all future times put into this Bill. I think it is extremely unsatisfactory to do things in that way. I think this whole question might be well considered by a Select Committee, and when that Committee reports there will be time

    1903
    enough to deal with the matter in the Finance Act of next year. I intentionally made the period long enough to give an opportunity of doing that. We have had other expedients suggested, such as the alteration of the time for the Income Tax year, and for making the Customs Tax Act retrospective, and for taking a deposit or security. But I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that this would be the best course to take in the circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman may say he made an offer, and that I did not agree to it. But I submit to him that he cannot hold me bound in that way. I felt it my duty to make suggestions with regard to this Bill, and I think that something like half the Amendments I proposed were accepted. I am grateful to the Government for the way in which they accepted my Amendments. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman ought not to be deterred from referring this matter to a Select Committee now, if he was willing to do so, had I not moved my Amendment, and that he ought not to be deterred simply because I did my duty as a Member of the House and made suggestions which I thought would improve the Bill.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I certainly do not complain that the hon. Gentleman in the exercise of his discretion came to the conclusion that it would not be worth while accepting the suggestion which I made repeatedly in the course of the discussion. We tried to arrive at some reasonable working compromise with the Opposition. I say quite frankly it was done in order to save time in the discussion of the Bill. Since then the Bill has undoubtedly been improved by some of the Amendments, but we have had a very full discussion for two days, and I think the Bill is probably better now than when we introduced it. It is a very different thing at the end of two days discussion to come forward and say, "We must have both our bargain and consideration." I do not think that is a very considerate thing to do. The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have both. This new Clause simply means that at the end of eighteen months we, or any other Government who happened to be in power, should go through the same thing again. Whether it is desirable or not to get a Committee to consider it may be worth thinking over, but it is a different matter to say you are going to impose a statutory limit which
    1904
    will compel some Government eighteen months hence to legislate upon the same subject. I think that would be a great mistake unless, as a consideration, we had saved time.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has quite recollected that at least one of the alternatives which we suggested and which he himself was quite ready to consider, that was the alternative of taking deposits, or securities, from those engaged in trade, was ruled out of order in the Debates on the Bill. I submit that that alternative is well worthy of consideration. I am very glad to know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer threw out some suggestion that he might be prepared to consider the appointment of a Committee, and if the right hon. Gentleman will say here and now that he is prepared to consider the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry into the whole question, then I think a good deal of the objection we entertain to this Bill would be removed. Whether or not my hon. and learned Friend would then be prepared to withdraw his Motion I do not know, but personally a great deal of the objection I entertain would be removed. Perhaps I may take this opportunity of asking whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Attorney-General is now in a position to answer a question as to the application of this Bill in relation to the Government of Ireland Bill, whether or not they are prepared to give an answer I confess it appears to me to be doubtful…
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not see what this has got to do with the Amendment.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I raised the question earlier in the afternoon when the Chairman was in the Chair—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. and learned Gentleman raised a point about the Home Rule Bill I should be compelled to rule him out of order. It is a hypothetical question, and he cannot argue the question of the Home Rule Bill on this Amendment.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Then we can argue whatever is relevant, and it certainly is relevant to consider what would be the effect of the Bill eighteen months hence, and, if that had occurred to you, you would not have given the ruling you have just given.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not know what the Noble Lord means by that last remark, but I consider it distinctly disrespectful to the Chair.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Of course I withdraw my remark if it appears discourteous to the Chair. I submit, however, that this is an Amendment which the Government might very reasonably accept. The whole subject is a very difficult one. The Debates have shown that there are many difficulties and many points fairly open to discussion. Amendments have been moved relating to the time and machinery in respect of retrospection, and all these are things which experience will teach us upon, and which we ought to be able to consider afresh when experience has given us the necessary instruction. We still have the Report stage to go through, and if all the Amendments which have been referred to are put down on the Report stage and discussed that stage may be a very long one. Therefore it is not inappropriate for the Government now to oil the wheels of the Bill at this stage. The sacrifice asked for from the Government is not a very large one. Bills are constantly made temporary which after all become permanent by the operation of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman would be able to continue this Bill for one year more. I do not think this Amendment is an unreasonable proposal, and I suggest that it has an importance which the Government themselves recognised when they were passing the Minimum Wage Act. If you pass a Bill ostensibly temporary you are more respectful of the principle you are affirming than when you pass an Act which on the face of it is permanent, and therefore you show on the face of the Statute that you recognise what you are doing is unusual. I think, therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be well advised to accept this Amendment. He has already declared to us that there was a stage of the proceedings when he thought a proposal of this kind was a reasonable Amendment to insert in the Bill.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That was as part of a bargain.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: We all assumed that the Government have been engaged in the patriotic work of legislating with a single mind to improve the laws, and to talk about bargains is a shock to the moral
    1906
    feelings of the whole Committee. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will wind up the evening by one more display of his conciliatory spirit, and thus conclude the Committee stage in a good humour.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: The right hon. Gentleman has just told us that he cannot accept this Amendment, and we must leave it there. I rise, however, to ask him not to dismiss from his mind the possibility of appointing a Select Committee to deal with the whole question. Whether the Bill is temporary or not it cannot be continued. It is a most difficult subject, and the discussion has revealed how far-reaching are many of the points we are dealing with. I think, when we come to the whole question of the financial procedure dealing with this subject we might be allowed to have a Select Committee.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I have taken no part in any bargaining, but I suggest that this is an extremely important Amendment and far more important than some of the Amendments which have been discussed at length. What are the facts? Admittedly in order to meet a crisis, and in order to meet temporary circumstances which have arisen, you are passing a Bill which on the face of it is going to be operative for all time. For the first time in the history of England you are giving legal effect to taxation imposed by a Resolution of the House. This procedure is entirely new. This Bill is being passed to meet an emergency, and I think you are running a danger in passing a Bill under these circumstances that it may be put into operation for a totally different set of circumstances. Everyone must admit that this is a subject which requires the best consideration of a Select Committee of the House. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to accede to the suggestion that a Select Committee should be appointed to investigate the whole question, then, in the name of common sense, why should he refuse to limit the operation of this Bill until that Committee has reported? Surely that is common sense. If the Committee reports against this Bill it can be discontinued or altered, and if they report in favour of it, then it can be continued.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The point has behind me (Mr. Leif Jones) has asked me desirable to have a Select Committee to consider this question. My hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Leif Jones) has asked me to go a little further. Before I give an

    1907
    answer on the wider issue, I should like to consult the Prime Minister and my colleagues. In regard to this Bill, however, I am in a position to say that the Government are prepared to appoint a Select Committee to consider the best way of dealing with this question, and in view of this promise I hope the hon. and learned Member opposite will see his way to withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. CASSEL: Under these circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Bill reported, with an amended title; as amended, to be considered to-morrow (Wednesday), and to be printed. [Bill 104.]

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Mr. KING: I wish to call attention to the important fact that there are vacan-
    1908
    cies on some of the Committees which need to be filled up, and there is a vacancy on the Putumayo Committee.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean): The hon. Member cannot discuss the Orders of the Day on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
    Mr. KING: I ventured to hope that the Orders of the Day will be gone through, that those appointments will be made, and that then the House will adjourn.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am pledge bound to move the Adjournment at this stage, and therefore I cannot go back upon it at this moment. If this matter had been called to my attention, I might have made some other arrangements, but I am bound by the arrangements, and I hope, under those circumstances, my hon. Friend will be satisfied.
    Mr. KING: I quite accept the explanation.

  Ecclesiastical Endowments (Taxation).
  Ecclesiastical Endowments (Taxation).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Damage to Fishing Nets (Settlement of Claims).
  Damage to Fishing Nets (Settlement of Claims).
  Papal Legate.
  Papal Legate.
  Army Ordnance Department (Writers).
  Army Ordnance Department (Writers).
  Yeomanry Officers.
  Yeomanry Officers.
  Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation).
  Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation).
  Silver Currency (West Africa).
  Silver Currency (West Africa).
  Naturalisation Fees.
  Naturalisation Fees.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the. Clerk of the Parliaments had laid, upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill:
Metropolitan Water Board [H.L.].
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for a Bill by the
Richmond (Surrey) Electric Light and Power Company
ought to be dispensed with and leave given to introduce the Bill:
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
Arigna Valley Railway Bill [H.L.]
ought to be dispensed with, subject to Clauses 43, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 and 58 being struck out of the Bill.

WEST HAMPSHIRE WATER. BILL. [H.L.]
A Witness ordered to attend Select Committee on Monday next.
CONYNGHAM HEIRLOOMS BILL. [H.L.]
Judges' Report received: Bill presented, and read 1a.
RICHMOND (SURREY) ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
Presented (pursuant to leave given this day); read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
CAROLIN'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
A Witness ordered to attend on the Second Reading of the Bill.
ARUNDELL ESTATE (CLOSING OF ARUNDELL STREET AND PANTON SQUARE) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
LEEDS CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

PAGE ESTATES BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees what course is proposed to be taken with regard to the Page Estates Bill, which stands on the Order Paper for Second Reading to-day. It was put down for Second Reading on Monday last and was then postponed, and I have come down to the House to-day expressly for the purpose of doing my best to defeat the Second Reading of this Bill. But I am now informed that it is intended to again postpone the Second Reading. This is, in my opinion, a most extraordinary Bill. It attempts to overrule Acts of Parliament and to create a roving Commission with power to interfere with titles 120 years old. I ask the Lord Chairman, first, whether he intends at any time to move the Second Reading of this Bill, and, if he does not so intend, whether it is his intention to assume any responsibility at all for the Bill.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I am extremely sorry that any of your Lordships should have been inconvenienced, but I am bound to point out that no member of your Lordships' House had given notice for the rejection of this Bill. Had that been done, I should have taken the usual course of consulting with your Lordships as to the most convenient date for the discussion to be taken. The matter, as far as I am concerned, is in this position. I have informed the parties that I am not prepared myself to move the Second Reading of this Bill. That is a course which I understand my predecessors have taken in days gone by in regard to certain Private Bills. It is open to the parties, if they desire to do so, to get some other member of your Lordships' House to move the Second Reading of the Bill, but meanwhile it is necessary that the Bill should be kept alive by putting it off by order of the House from time to time. As your Lordships are aware, by the Standing Orders all Private Bills must be read a second time by a certain date. That date has long since passed, and the only way of keeping the Bill alive is to postpone it from time to time, as has been done already and as was intended to be done again to-day, in order to enable the parties to consider whether or not they will go on with the Bill.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: It is quite obvious that to keep the Bill alive the course proposed has to be taken. But I venture to suggest that it would have been more convenient had the Bill been put off yesterday, in which ease it would not have appeared on the Order Paper for to-day. If it is technically necessary that notice should he given, I am perfectly prepared to give notice of a Motion to reject the Bill.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I did not mean to suggest that it was necessary that notice of rejection should be given. My point was that had I known that objection was going to be taken to the Second Reading of the Bill I would have seen that notice was given of the fact that the Bill was going to be again put off.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Until what date is it proposed to postpone the Bill?
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Until to-morrow fortnight. But I would gladly fix any other day if it would be more convenient to your Lordships.
LORD HYLTON: I should like to ask the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees whether I would be in order in moving the Second Reading of this Bill to-day, in the hope that it might be finally got rid of in the way suggested by Lord Portsmouth?
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I should be interested to hear what arguments the noble Lord, would advance in favour of the Bill.
LORD HYLTON: But should I be in order in moving the Second Reading?
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The Lord Chairman has told us that he is not prepared to move the Second Reading of the Bill, and from that I think we may infer that if it were moved there would be opposition to it. At all events I hope that if any noble Lord takes the Bill up sufficient notice will be given to the House, so that on the one hand we may not have it put down on the Order Paper when it is not coming on, and, on the other hand, it shall not be brought forward without our having sufficient notice of it.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Now that I realise how many of your Lordships object to this Bill, I will see, of course, that full notice is given of anything being done with the Bill in any shape or form.
Second Reading put off accordingly to Wednesday the 30 th instant.

CHILDREN (EMPLOYMENT ABROAD) BILL. [H.L.]
[SECTION READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD STRACHIE): My Lords, in asking your Lordships to-day to give this Bill a Second Heading. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into the merits or indeed into the details of the Bill, because it is but a very few weeks since your Lordships gave the Bill a Second Reading in the last session of Parliament, and it was only not proceeded with because there was not time to pass it through all its stages here and send it to the House of Commons before the conclusion of the session. This is the same Bill as the one which I introduced last session, although there have been certain alterations which I will indicate. The Bill prohibits any child being sent abroad to perform for profit, and it prohibits any young person being taken out of the United Kingdom with a view to singing, playing, performing, or being exhibited for profit except under licence. The Bill, in fact, supplements the Acts already on the Statute-book for the protection of children and young persons. A "child" is defined as a child up to the age of fourteen, and a "young person" as a person between the ages of fourteen and sixteen.
I propose, very shortly, to indicate the alterations which have been made in the Bill since it was last before your Lordships. When the Motion made on February 10 last, that the House should resolve itself into Committee on the Bill—to which Motion Lord Salisbury objected on the ground that the time allowed had been very short—was withdrawn. I undertook that the Amendments that had then been put down should be most carefully considered by the Home Office, with a view to seeing how many of them we could embody in the new Bill which I undertook on behalf of the Government to introduce during this session. I will deal first with Clause 1. The only alteration that has been made in this clause is of a verbal character, omitting the word "such" before "child" in line six of the clause. An addition has been made 'in Clause 2 the object of which, as your Lordships will see, is to provide that a copy of the contract of employment or other document showing
94
the terms and conditions of employment, drawn up in a language understood by the young person, has been furnished to the young person. The magistrate who is asked to grant the licence has to be satisfied that the young person has seen and understands this document. That is embodying a very useful by-law of the London County Council, who, under their General Powers Act, 1910, have power to make by-laws, subject to the sanction of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, regulating the sending abroad of children under the jurisdiction of the London County Council, although that by-law does not apply to young persons.
Next there was an Amendment placed on the Paper by Lord Salisbury to turn the word "may" in Clause 2, line 39, into "the object being that the Police magistrate should be obliged to satisfy himself that the conditions upon which the young persons were going abroad were proper and right. We have met that Amendment by substituting the word "shall," but we have also added the words "unless he is satisfied that under the circumstances it is unnecessary." I think that will entirely remove the noble Marquess's objection.
There is another Amendment which we have ourselves inserted, giving the Police magistrate power to revoke a licence if he is satisfied that any of the conditions on which the licence was granted are not being complied with. That provision collies in as a new subsection at the end of Clause 2. Then, again, in Clause 4 we have inserted an entirely new subsection, which makes it an indictable offence where a person by means of any false pretence or false representation procures a child or young person to go out of the United Kingdom for any of the purposes mentioned. Finally we have added a new subsection to Clause 6 providing that the Bill shall not come into operation until the expiration of one month front its passing. This will give the necessary time for the Home Office to make the Regulations, and, of course, will afford ample time to meet the case of persons who are contemplating sending young persons abroad under licence.
I will now state the reasons why we are not prepared to accept certain of the other Amendments that were placed on the

95
Paper. The first Amendment, which stood in the name of Lord Salisbury, which I am unable to accept had for its object the deletion from subsection (3) of Clause 1 of the words "only temporarily resident in the United Kingdom" and the substitution therefor of the words "not domiciled in the United Kingdom." As regards the question of domicile, those noble Lords who are acquainted with this subject will see that if the wording of the subsection was changed as Lord Salisbury suggested you would he entering into a very controversial subject. There are two kinds of domicile—one of origin, and the other of choice. Dicey has laid down that a person's domicile—
"is in general the place or country which is in fact his permanent home, but is in some cases the place or country which, whether it he in fact his home or not, is determined to be his home by a rule of law."
And as regards domicile of choice, it must be shown that there was a final and deliberate intention to abandon the domicile of origin and adopt the domicile of choice. Consequently the substitution of the words proposed by Lord Salisbury would lead to all kinds of difficulties in administering the Bill, and therefore I hope your Lordships will agree that we are right in retaining the words originally in the clause.
Another Amendment was tabled by Lord Salisbury, in which he urged that a child or young person should be allowed to go abroad without a licence if he or she went in charge of his or her parents or guardians. There, again, we have been unable to accept the Amendment, because it is fairly obvious that we should thereby be opening the way to the perpetration of fraud by parents or guardians undertaking for the agent to cross the Channel with the children, thus avoiding the necessity of a licence. I now come to the Amendment which suggested the omission of Clause 3. I fully admit that there is something to be said against legislating in respect of events which have already happened, but although I admit there are difficulties I hope the House will be inclined to retain Clause 3, at any rate unless stronger arguments are used against it than were brought forward on the last occasion.
Then there was an Amendment placed on the Paper by Lord Stanhope, on behalf, I understood, of the London County
96
Council, the object of which was to give concurrent powers to the London County Council in regard to licences and having reports made. I hope the noble Earl will be satisfied with what we have clone in regard to that. We shall provide under the rules of the Home Office that the County Council shall have notices sent them by the Commissioner of Police as regards licences applied for, and that they shall he made acquainted generally with the action taken. I have told your Lord ships shortly, and I hope clearly, what alterations have been made in the Bill, and I trust that the result will be that you will not only be able to give it a Second Reading to-day but that we may very quickly send it down to another place, because if it is not sent down to the other House in good time I am afraid it may be crowded out.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strachie.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, in the absence of the most rev. Primate, who is prevented from being in his place by illness, I should like to say a few words in support of this Bill. I dare say your Lordships hardly realise the extent of this practice and the great need there is for this Bill, but I may tell you that one of our chaplains in Paris has connected with his church a guild of 200 English girls employed in the theatrical profession alone. That number, of course, cannot anything like represent the number of English girls who are so employed there, but it will enable you to realise how many young girls are sent abroad from England. This chaplain is doing excellent work affording these girls the moral support and protection of himself and his wife. But it is not only the Church which feels the need for this Bill. The Salvation Army is also doing excellent work, and I have heard Mrs. Bramwell Booth speak in feeling terms of the great dangers which English girls incur who are taken abroad and the great necessity for regulations; and I recently received a letter from an officer who is doing splendid work in connection with the Salvation Army pleading very earnestly the great need for some such precaution as this Bill provides. The passing of the White Slave Traffic Act, as it is called, has made this Bill all the more urgent. That Act already has been fraught with very favourable results in

97
London. Many of the agents have fled across to the Continent, but there they are on the Continent waiting for their prey all the more eagerly because we have checked them in London. Therefore if we can by such means as this Bill enforce licences in these cases and secure better protection we shall be throwing a very necessary shield round the children of the nation.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I do not rise to oppose this Bill. On the contrary, I hope it will become law. But I rise to call attention to a small Amendment which I hope to move in Committee, and which I trust the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will be able to accept. In every case where a licence or the renewal of a licence is applied for subsection (3) of Clause 2 puts the initial action in the hands of the Chief Officer of the Police for the district in which the voting person resides. This Bill deals with young persons who go abroad for the purpose of playing and performing, and I do not suppose the 200 girls mentioned by the right rev. Prelate would all come under that category. I do not suppose they are all performing in music halls.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: They are all ballet dancers.
LORD SHEFFIELD: Then, of course, they would come under the Bill. We have had a good deal of legislation concerning the employment of young people after leaving school. At one time the Board of Trade were entrusted with the framing of regulations. Although it is not on all fours with this, the question was raised about what we call "blind-alley" employment, and it was urged that the proper authority to be consulted in the first instance about these young people was the education authority of the district. I submit that the education authority, through its attendance officers, has a much more intimate knowledge of the homes and circumstances of these people than any other organisation. It must not be assumed that the bulk of the people who will apply for licences are undesirable persons engaged in the white slave traffic. The majority of them would probably be respectable people, and I do not think it is quite fair to throw them in the first instance into contact with the Police and subject them to visits from the Police to
98
their homes. I think that the first notice should be given to the education authority. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill did not make himself quite clear on the point, but he intimated that, in deference to an Amendment which Lord Stanhope had tabled when the Bill was last before your Lordships, he was prepared to insert a provision that notice should be given to the county council. I do not know whether he was sneaking only of the London County Council or whether notice would be given to all county con mils.
LORD STRACHIE: The London County Council only.
LORD SHEFFIELD: In my opinion that is quite inadequate. If there was a proposal, for instance, to take a number of young people from Liverpool to America to perform for profit somebody ought to be consulted in Liverpool, but not tire Police. I do not in the least object to the provision in the Bill that ultimately the licence should be granted by the Police magistrate. All I desire is that the preliminary information should be brought before the Police magistrate by persons who are in direct touch with the class from whom these young persons come, who know them well, and also know the whole of the circumstances surrounding their life. I believe that ninety-nine out of every hundred of these applications would be prefectly respectable and honest, and I do not think that in those cases these people should be thrown into contact with the Police. Therefore when we go into Committee on this Bill I shall move that instead of the notice being given to the Chief Officer of Police it should be given to the local education authority, who would make a report in writing upon the case or instruct someone to appear before the Police magistrate.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My-Lords, our attitude towards this Bill is entirely benevolent. Indeed, I think enough was said with regard to it by my noble friend Lord Salisbury when the Bill last came before the House to show that any criticism coming from this side would be of an entirely friendly character. I trust that the Bill will find its way on to the Statute-book. Indeed, I do not think it is too much to say that it might very well have found its way on to the Statute-book some time ago. The noble Lord

99
when he last addressed us on this subject, told the House that the Home Office had had the matter before them, I think he said, for six and, a-half years. That is a pretty considerable period for reflection. With regard to the Amendments which the noble Lord was good enough to explain to the House, those seem to me to be matters which would probably be more conveniently dealt with on the Committee stage; and as a good many of them dealt with points raised by my noble friend Lord Salisbury, who is not able to be here to-night, there would certainly be an advantage in reserving the discussion of them until he is able to be here. With regard to one point, I rather regret that Clause 3 still remains in its original form, because, as was shown on the last occasion when we debated the matter, it is a somewhat unusual clause. It is an ex post facto clause, and the noble Lord in charge of the Bill was himself inclined to admit that it did not amount to very much more than what I think he called a pious opinion. But that is, perhaps, a question we can debate hereafter. I am sure there will be no desire in this House to delay the progress of the Bill. I would like to recall the fact that when it last came before us it did so at a date so near the end of the session that it was really impossible for us to give it the attention which it deserved. In this case there will be plenty of time, and if the Bill does encounter any quicksands they will not be encountered in your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill. The Bill proposes to do three things—first, to add two to the number, at present four, of Lords of Appeal appointed under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876; secondly, to enable those Lords of Appeal who are qualified, if they so desire, to be members of the Court of Appeal in England and to sit there on occasions; and, thirdly, to
100
amend the provisions of the Judicial Committee Act, 1895, by increasing from five to seven the number of those Judges of Dominion Courts who may, on being added to the Privy Council, become members of the Judicial Committee. These are the three purposes of the Bill; and I will only add that it is proposed that the new Lords of Appeal should be on exactly the same footing and terms as the existing Lords of Appeal. For obvious reasons, which I am sure it is unnecessary for me to go into, no distinction whatever will be made.
I pass to the justification for the Bill itself, which is to be found in the Resolution passed unanimously at the Imperial Conference in 1911, and in the state of business. The whole question of the Supreme Tribunal of Appeal of the Empire was a good deal discussed at the Imperial Conference. Various Dominions made various suggestions. One Dominion suggested that Dominion Judges should sit on the Judicial Committee. But as the result of thrashing that question out at the Conference it became apparent that what was really wanted by the Dominions was that on occasion when desirable a Judge of the Supreme Court of a Dominion should be able to come over and take his place on the Judicial Committee and hear appeals from that Dominion. That has already been the practice to a considerable extent. The Chief Justice of Canada sat regularly with the Judicial Committee in hearing appeals which were not before him in Canada; and in the same way other Judges from other Dominions have sat on the Judicial Committee here for the hearing of appeals from their Dominions. That, of course, is a very different thing from having a Judge from each Dominion or Judges from some of the Dominions sitting always on the Judicial Committee and hearing appeals from other Dominions. The Conference finally expressed a preference for the modified arrangement I have suggested rather than the more' ambitious arrangement which was at first foreshadowed.
There was another subject discussed at the Conference. At first it was thought that the form of giving judgment in the Judicial Committee should be like the form of giving judgment in this House, where noble and learned Lords express their opinions in public and the decision come to is the decision of the majority. In the

101
Judicial Committee, as your Lordships know, the rule of secrecy is observed, and the judgment is always the judgment of the Judicial Committee, whatever may have been the differences of opinion on that Committee. It was thought by some of the representatives of the Dominions—I think by most of them at first—that they would prefer that it should be otherwise, and that the analogy of this House should be followed; but subsequent correspondence with the Colonial Secretary has brought them practically unanimously, I think, to the view that they prefer, for the present at any rate, that the existing arrangement should continue. We therefore take no power in this Bill to deal with that question—for a two-fold reason: first, that the balance of opinion is, as I have stated, at present adverse to it; and, secondly, that the change can be made at any time by an Order in Council without any provision in an Act of Parliament.
What the Imperial Conference ultimately resolved, and on this it was unanimous, was that the Imperial Government should be requested to appoint two more Law Lords to sit on the Judicial Committee and in this House, so that the Supreme Court of Appeal might be stronger in point of numbers. They also recommended that the two additional Law Lords should be English Judges. I do not think that was meant to be construed in any narrow way; it simply meant that they should be men of great experience and judicial capacity. This proposition, if it receives effect, would thus increase the number of Lords of Appeal to six, in addition to whom there would be the Lord Chancellor and the ex-Lord Chancellors, who are, I need not say, a great source of strength in constituting tribunals, especially when the sittings have to be in two divisions, one at the Judicial Committee and the other in this House. Thus there will be nine at all events, and generally there is some, other noble Lord who, having had high judicial experience, is ready and willing to take part in the adjudication of causes. We have several noble and learned Lords who fulfil these conditions at the present time. What was desired was that the Judicial Committee should sit with not less than four, and if possible five, members at a time, and even more when the cases were important, and that in this House those sitting to hear appeals should not number less than four or live, with possibly
102
more in certain cases. This Resolution of the Imperial Conference was accepted by His Majesty's Government, and the Bill the Second Reading of which I am now moving is introduced in fulfilment of that compact.
But the Bill has another foundation—the foundation of desirability, which amounts almost to necessity in present circumstances. The Supreme Tribunal of the Empire is that of the King in Council so far as those portions of the Empire outside the United Kingdom are concerned, and this House so far as England, Ireland, and Scotland are concerned. It may be that in the future this House will be reconstituted in such a fashion that it will not be natural or logical that appeals should any longer lie to it, but should rather lie to the Supreme Tribunal of the Empire sitting in two divisions, one for those parts of the Empire which are outside the United Kingdom and the other for the United Kingdom. It is a question which we do not in this Bill at all prejudge. All that we do in this Bill is so to make the appointments that no difficulty shall be created if that question comes to be a practical one. You will have the materials which you can combine into a different kind of Supreme Court of the Empire from the form in which that Court exists in its two parts at the present time.
Turning to the necessity for making a change, the case is, I think, a very strong one. Appeals to the Privy Council and to the House of Lords are certainly not diminishing in number, and they tend to increase in importance. That is remarkably so in the case of the Dominions. Cases of vast importance, Constitutional cases and cases affecting great issues of property, come before us in numbers which are tending to increase. Very often these cases cannot be disposed of under several days' careful hearing. Apart from these there are special references such as took place the other day upon an important question, which took up much time and required the best tribunal we could constitute. I have no hesitation in saying that under present circumstances it is impossible for the two tribunals to live up to the standard which I have indicated—the standard, namely, that you should always have as powerful a tribunal as you can get together for dealing with particular cases. At the present moment two of the Lords of Appeal are sitting in the Judicial

103
Committee with two other members of that Committee disposing of Indian appeals, and in this House I am at present sitting with two other Lords of Appeal and we constitute a tribunal of only three. We do cur best to give the cases the closest attention, and an attention sufficiently lung to enable all points to be adequately considered; but I confess that I should feel much happier in some of these important cases if I were sitting with four colleagues instead of only two; and in the Judicial Committee that is so much the case that we often have to suspend the sittings of this House altogether. For example, last July we thought it expedient to make provision so that the Canadian appeals should all be taken together, and we suspended the sittings of this House and sat in cur full strength in the Judicial Committee for over a month to dispose of those cases. We made a satisfactory tribunal with the assistance of the Chief Justice of Canada, but it meant the complete suspension of the Judicial sittings of this House; and so it will continue unless we have the tribunal in such strength that we can have sittings in both places where necessary.
In the circumstances I have not the smallest hesitation in saving that the passing of this measure is a necessary preliminary to putting the Supreme Tribunal of the Empire, both in this House and at the Judicial Committee, upon a proper footing. The Bill takes the steps, and no more than the steps, that are necessary for that purpose; and aiming as it does at that object, I commend it to your Lordships' favourable consideration as a Bill which certainly will make an immense improvement in the situation over the state of things which exists at the present time. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I confess that I came down to the House with a different view of this Bill, because I had understood that there was to be some inequality in regard to salary with respect to the two additional Lords of Appeal. That misunderstanding having been removed I heartily commend this Bill to your Lordships' acceptance. I can speak from experience in this matter, because I know the extreme difficulty that has been found from time to time in getting both tribunals, that of the Judicial Com-
104
mittee and of this House, to go on together, one having very often had to be suspended for a considerable time. It is, I think, a very curious reflection upon us that there should be a difficulty in the sittings of the two divisions by reason of the sparse numbers of those who form the Supreme Tribunal. Considering the extent of the jurisdiction and the area covered in respect of all disputed questions it is a very odd thing that we should hesitate over this, as it appears to me, very small matter in comparison with the supreme importance of having an adequately manned tribunal. I entirely concur with the Lord Chancellor as to the absolute necessity of passing some such Bill as this, and so far as I have been able to look through it the Bill is exactly what is required for the purpose.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

COMPULSORY TAKING OF LAND (INSANITARY PROPERTY).
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to further consider and report whether it is desirable to enable purchasers under the Lands Clauses Acts to take advantage of procedure under the Housing of Working Classes Acts, 1890, in acquiring of any insanitary property for the purposes of their undertaking (The Chairman of Committees); agreed to, and ordered accordingly: The Lords following were named of the Committee—

M. Bath.

E. Stanhope.

E. Camperdown.

E. Craven.

V. Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore).

The Committee to appoint their own Chairman.

FORGERY BILL. [H.L.]
Moved, That a Committee of Five Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons to consider the said Bill (The Lord Chancellor); agreed to:
The Lords following were named of the Committee—

E. Loreburn.

L. Zouche of Haryngworth.

L. Balfour.

L. Stanley of Alderley (L. Sheffield).

L. Ashby St. Ledgers.

Ordered, That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.
Then a Message was ordered to be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint them therewith, and to request them to appoint Five Members of that House to be joined with the said Committee.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING (PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 to 1909, relating to Baildon, Beckenham (Extension), Chipping Norton, Hazel Grove and lichen, Skelton and Brolton, Southborough, Stoke-on-'17rent (Extension), Truro and Weaverham District: Presented by the Lord Granard (E. Granard); read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 17.)

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Can the noble Marquess the Leader of the I louse tell us when we shall receive the Army (Annual) Bill? There has been some idea that it would come up to this House to-morrow, in which case we should be prepared, if it is convenient to the Government, to debate it on Thursday. But it would be a great convenience, as the time is getting so very short the Bill having to be passed by the 30th, to know on what date the debate will be taken.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): I understand that the Army (Annual) Bill is likely to be received in this House in time for the debate upon it to begin on Thursday. I am informed that it is the desire of noble Lords opposite to raise a discussion of a more or less general character upon that Bill, and supposing it not to be possible to conclude that discussion in the course of Thursday, and presuming also that it is desired that the House should not sit very late on Thursday for that purpose, the obvious course would be to adjourn the discussion until the following Monday. If that appeals to noble Lords opposite as being the best course to take, it is one with which we are quite willing to fall in.

THE DISTRESS IN ADRIANOPLE.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, before the House adjourns I should like to put to the noble Marquess opposite a Question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether the Government can give any assistance towards the relief of the terrible distress existing in Adrianople. I am associated with one of the societies that is affording relief—the Red Crescent Society—and in a letter received on April 4 it was stated that there were at least 20,000 prisoners of war practically destitute and almost starving, that the mortality was nearly 200 a day, and that the condition of the hospitals in the town and of the general population was terrible. This information was supplemented by a telegram received on April 6, in which it was stated that the misery was awful. The association with which I am connected received a communication from the Foreign Office yesterday to the effect that there were 30,000 prisoners of war, and the request was made that additional money to supply necessities of life should be sent out immediately. At the time of the Messina earthquake the Government sent assistance, and I think this is an occasion on which the sympathy of the Government might he made good by deeds and by the sending of help in some form or other. It must be remembered that the distress is not confined to Adrianople, for the various relief societies are having their funds exhausted by the sending of help to relieve the distress in Macedonia and also in Asia Minor.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I can assure the noble Lord that His Majesty's Government will continue to assist in every way they can the distribution of funds which may be raised for the relief of the poor people whose condition the noble Lord has described, and they are certain that public opinion all over this country will continue to appreciate the urgent necessity for relief of this kind; and, as the noble Lord has pointed out, no small response has already been made to these appeals. As regards India, for instance, I find that a considerable sum, several thousands of pounds, has already been sent by an important Mahomedan newspaper, the Comrade, published at Delhi—money collected from its readers and other Moslems in India; and His Majesty's Government have been glad to help as far as they could in transmitting

107
those sums and seeing that they have been handed over to proper persons for distribution. But, of course, the appeal of the noble Lord goes a good deal further than that. He asks us—I do not think he did so in so many words but it was evidently what he meant—he asks us to subscribe from public funds for the purpose of these unhappy people. The noble Lord will, I am sure, realise that we have no authority to make use of public funds for such a purpose, and of course without the authority of Parliament we have no funds whatever at our disposal. And as far as I have been able to ascertain there is no precedent whatever for employing public funds for a purpose of this kind, however excellent in itself.
LORD LAMINGTON: I quoted the help given to Messina as a precedent.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I think the noble Lord will see that there is a difference between the effects of a great natural convulsion like the earthquake at Messina and the results of a war. The noble Lord's historical recollection will enable him to bring to mind other wars which have been followed by periods of serious distress, in which foreign countries, including ourselves, have come forward with assistance, sometimes on a large scale, but not through the application of public funds. I am afraid I cannot hold out much hope to the noble Lord that any action of the kind which he desires can be taken by His Majesty's Government.
House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.