Sitting of 17 April 1913

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Harrow and Stanmore Gas Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
London County Council (Tramways, Trolley Vehicles, and Improvements) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Southgate Urban District Council Bill,
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Private Bills (Group B),
Sir Edwin Cornwall reported from the Committee on Group B of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Monday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Northern Counties Electricity Supply Bill,
Cleveland and Durham County Electric Power Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table.
Herne Bay Gas and Electricity Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PAUPERISM (ENGLAND AND WALES) (MONTHLY STATEMENTS).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 14th April; Mr. Herbert Lewis]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the county council of the West Riding of Yorkshire (Horsforth Urban District), and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
PUBLIC INCOME AND EXPENDITURE.
Account presented of the Public Income and Expenditure in the year ended 31st March, 1913, together with the Balances in the Exchequer at the commencement and at the termination of the year, and the Amounts received into or issued from the Exchequer in respect of Funded and Unfunded Debt created or redeemed in the said year [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
GREEK LOAN OF 1898.
Account presented up to 31st March, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
EGYPTIAN GUARANTEED LOAN OF 1885.
Account presented up to 31st March, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS (AGRICULTURAL LAND).
Address "for Return of the Agricultural Land administered by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, setting out the amount of Land so administered in each county and the parish in which it is situated."—[Mr. Winfrey.]

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee.

1. "That, in the case of the Lothian Railways Bill [Lords], Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert the additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

2. "That, in the case of the Belfast Corporation Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought not to be dispensed with."

3. "That, in the case of the Arundell Estate (Closing of Arundell Street and Panton Square) Bill [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

2091

4. "That, in the case of the Richmond (Surrey) Electricity Supply Bill [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

5. "That, in the case of the Dover Harbour Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the Petition of 'the Owners, Lessees, and Occupiers of Property in the vicinity of the proposed Wet Dock No. 2 and inhabitants of the borough of Dover,' against the Bill, the said Standing Order ought, to be dispensed with."

6. "That, in the case of the Arigna Valley Railway Bill [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

7. "That, in the case of the Midland Railway (Superannuation Fund) Bill [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

8. "That, in the case of the Leeds Corporation Bill [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, on the condition that Tramway No. 6 is struck out of the Bill:—That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."

9. "That, in the case of the London and South Western Railway Bill [Lords], Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Resolutions agreed to.
Report to lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Upper Egypt.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official reports of rioting in connection with the ejectment of villagers in Upper Egypt from lands recently acquired by the Viscomte Fortarce; and, if so, how many villagers were killed or
  2092
  will ask His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General for a report.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): I have no information on this subject, but will ask His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General for a report.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Will it be convenient if I put down a similar question a week hence?
  Mr. ACLAND: I will let the hon. Member know if I may.

  Irish Language.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many inspectors employed by the Commissioners of National Education and by the Commissioners of Intermediate Education, respectively, in Ireland are competent to examine students in the Irish language; and what steps are being taken to form a competent staff for this purpose?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): Twenty-one of the inspectors employed by the Commissioners of National Education, and one of the five inspectors at present in the service of the Intermediate Education Board are competent to inspect classes in the Irish language. With a view to increasing the number of inspectors so qualified Irish must now be taken as one of the subjects of the qualifying examination of candidates for the office of junior inspector of national schools in the case of every alternate appointment.

  Dublin Castle.
  Mr. GINNELLasked whether the permanent officials in the Court of Probate, Dublin, have recently been questioned with reference to their knowledge of crime in Dublin Castle; whether Mr. Craig Davidson and Mr. Norris Goddard have been questioned; whether since the commencement of a certain criminal trial now proceeding in London one of these Dublin officials has been given indefinite leave of absence; on what plea this has been given; and whether before his departure the Director of Public Prosecutions here was put in possession of the information at that person's disposal and now has his present address?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Although I have nothing whatever to say to the Probate Court, and have no control over its officials, I have

  2093
  referred this question to the Chief Registrar, who informs me that no official of the Court has been questioned as to crime in Dublin Castle. The Probate Court has no connection with the Castle, and is nowhere near it. Mr. Goddard informed me, in connection with a previous question, that he has not now and never had in his custody, possession, or procurement, any evidence relating to crime committed in Dublin Castle. Neither he nor any of the officials of the Probate Court have been given indefinite leave of absence. I am not aware of any reason for addressing any questions to Mr. Craig Davidson, who is wholly unconnected with and has never been in the public service.
  Mr. GINNELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman account for the fact that one of the permanent officials has been absent now for a considerable time and has recently been in Berlin?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir; I know nothing about his movements or the capital he has visited.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the total loss to local Grants in county Longford incurred by any default to meet annuities by tenant purchasers there for the year ending 31st March, 1913?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The total deduction made from the share of county Longford in the Estate or Death Duty Grant during the year ended the 31st March, 1913, in respect of purchasers' annuities in arrear amounted to £766 18s. 4d., but in no sense of the word whatever is this a total loss.
  Mr. FARRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why, if he believes this is not going to be a total loss, the deduction could not have been deferred?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have explained over and over again that when land purchase annuities are in arrear they are of course deducted from the Grant made to the county, but when the arrears are paid off, as they almost invariably are, without any delay—at the present time county Longford is only in default of two half-yearly instalments amounting to £7 16s. 8d.—then the money is returned to the county.
  Mr. FARRELLasked whether the Estates Commissioners have taken any further steps to complete the negotiations with Mr. J. W. Bond, D.L., for the acquirement of the untenanted lands of Coolcraff, North Longford?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question on this subject on 29th April last, to which I have nothing to add.
  Mr. FARRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Estates Commissioners have made any further communication to this landlord?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, I do not know that they have.
  Mr. FARRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask them to do so?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, I will.
  Mr. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed by the Longford District Council asking that the powers of the Estates Commissioners be extended under the promised amending Land Bill to the seven congested divisions of Longford Union, so as to enable the Commissioners to acquire untenanted lands in county Longford to relieve congestion there; and can he hold out any hope that this will be given effect to?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have not received the resolution referred to. The powers of the Estates Commissioners at present extend to the whole of county Longford.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked what obstacle the Estates Commissioners are now placing in the way of the evicted tenants at Aughanish, county Limerick, being reinstated in their holdings, in view of the fact that they and the landlord, Lane Joynt, and the tenants on the estate have agreed on the purchase price of the holdings, and in addition have made up between them the £500 required by the Estates Commissioners to be lodged by them for the upkeep of the embankments on the estate, and which amount the Estates Commissioners refused to advance to them on Land Act or other terms?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have no power to place any persons in occupation of the lands until they acquire them. As the hon. Member has been already informed, they have made their offer to purchase, and they await its acceptance and compliance with its conditions.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Has not that offer been accepted, and did not the right hon. Gentleman promise me that these

  2095
  evicted tenants would be reinstated by March last, and why have they not been reinstated?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The acceptance has not yet been made.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: How is that?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know.
  Mr. DORISasked whether the Congested Districts Board have yet received from Mr. Ryan, Mr. Stannel, and Lord Vaux maps of their estates near Newport, county Mayo, or whether offers to sell the estates through the Board have been received from them or any of them?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The estates of Mr. E. A. Ryan and Mr. C. A. Stannel have been offered for sale through the Congested Districts Board, and the necessary maps and documents have been lodged. The Board understand that the necessary documents in the case of Lord Vaux's Estate are about to be lodged.
  Mr. DORISasked whether the Congested Districts Board have yet issued an offer for the Domville estate, near Balla, county Mayo; and, if so, whether the offer has been accepted by the owners?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have issued an offer for the purchase of this estate, and they are at present in correspondence with the owner regarding it.
  Mr. DORISasked whether the trustees of the Achill Mission estate, county Mayo, have yet expressed their willingness to sell the estate through the Congested Districts Board or have refused to sell voluntarily; and when the tenants of this congested estate may expect relief under the Land Act of 1909?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that there are some legal difficulties in the way of a voluntary sale, but I hope they may not prove to be insurmountable. The Congested Districts Board are not prepared to take steps to acquire this estate compulsorily, but if maps and documents giving the necessary particulars are lodged, the Board will have the estate valued and an offer made for the purchase of it.

  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked if the pay of a constable after three years' service in the Royal Irish Constabulary is
  2096
  only 21s. per week, and this figure has remained stationary for more than twenty-five years; if, during that period and since the last revision of pay of this force, the cost of living has risen to a very large extent; and if the Treasury have laid down any definite period of time which must elapse before the question of a further revision of pay will be considered?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am aware of the facts to which the hon. Member refers, but the question of the pay of the junior constables is part of the larger question of the pay of the force generally, and as I have said before, it is too soon to reconsider that matter, which was dealt with in 1908. The answer to the last paragraph of the question is in the negative.

  Coolavokig School, Macroom (Ireland).
  Mr. SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the intentions of the Commissioners of National Education in reference to the Coolavokig (Macroom) school dispute; whether the school is to be placed in charge of the teacher, Mr. Twohig, whose advent to the place led to a riot for which thirteen men have been bound to the peace; is he aware that the reopening of the school under the control of this teacher is likely to lead to renewed disturbances; will any steps be taken by the Commissioners to independently investigate the charge against the former teacher, Mr. Galvin, and to ascertain the facts connected with his resignation; and what is the decision as to the payment of salary to Mrs. Galvin, who is not a party to the dispute, during the period that the school has been closed?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education do not propose to interfere with the discretion of the manager in the appointment of a teacher in this case. The Commissioners are not aware that the reopening of the school under the control of the teacher whom the manager has appointed is likely to lead to renewed disturbances. The Commissioners having regard to the circumstances see no reason for investigating the charge made against the former teacher and no decision as to the payment of Mrs. Galvin's salary has yet been come to.

  Committee on Irish Finance.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland (1) whether he can now give the names of the fourteen witnesses who have consented to

  2097
  the publication of their evidence before the Committee on Irish Finance; and (2) when he proposes to publish the evidence of the fourteen witnesses before the Committee on Irish Finance?
  Mr. BIRRELL: There is no necessity for giving the list for which the hon. Member asks. The evidence which it is proposed to publish is in the printers' hands and will be issued without any delay.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any special objection to giving the list of names?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir, except that I think if the hon. Member waits a few days he will have them. As a matter of fact, one of them is in question at the present moment.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many witnesses altogether have consented to their evidence being published?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have said it was fourteen; possibly it may be fifteen.
  Mr. STANIERasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he has any objection to the publication, in whole or part, of the evidence of Mr. Thomas P. Gill, Mr. Thomas Butler, and Mr. Joseph P. Walsh before the Committee on Irish Finance?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): The answer is in the affirmative.
  Colonel BURNasked whether the Inland Revenue Department have any objection to the publication, in whole or part, of the evidence of Mr. Alfred W. Soward before the Committee on Irish Finance?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): The Commissioners of Inland Revenue have no objection to the publication of the evidence referred to by the hon. and gallant Member.
  Colonel BURN: Will the evidence be published?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The hon. Member should address that question to the Chief Secretary.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister what was the reason
  2098
  of the six months' delay in ascertaining whether the witnesses before the Committee on Irish Finance objected to the publication of their evidence, seeing that a majority of the Members of this House asked him to do so in October last.
  Mr. BIRRELL (for the Prime Minister): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has repeatedly explained this matter. He stated to the House in May last that he did not see his way to inquire whether the witnesses had any objection to the publication of the evidence which they had given in confidence until a general desire for it on the part of the House was expressed. Although that condition was never satisfied, yet, as some Members seem to think that there was some mystery in the matter, the Prime Minister asked me on the 1st of this month to communicate with the witnesses, and I have done so.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: What I wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman was why he should wait until six months after the majority of the Members of this House asked him to approach the witnesses?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Because the Prime Minister entertained doubts as to whether a majority of the House is the same thing as a general desire.
  Mr. GINNELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain, what has never been explained in this House, why a pledge of secrecy was given in connection with a public matter?
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: That is the mystery.
  Mr. BIRRELL: If that is the mystery the answer is this: We were very anxious that Civil servants should be at liberty to give evidence and feel themselves so.
  Mr. FELLasked the Postmaster-General whether he has any objection to the publication, in whole or part, of the evidence of Sir Charles A. King before the Committee on Irish Finance?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Sir Charles King has informed the Chief Secretary for Ireland that he has no objection to the publication of the evidence referred to.

  Bee Disease.
  Mr. BOLANDasked how many cases of foul brood in bees were dealt with in

  2099
  the year 1911–12 under the provisions of the Bee Pest Prevention (Ireland) Act, 1908; what was the total allocated for compensation, and how much compensation was actually paid; have there been any suspected cases of Isle of Wight disease; and, if so, what steps have been taken to deal with this disease?
  Mr. RUSSELL: During the year 1911–12 331 cases of foul brood came under the notice of the local authorities and were dealt with by them. The total amount allocated for payment of compensation was £273. Payments of compensation amounting to £36 14s. 6d. were recommended in twelve counties. Some suspected cases of Isle of Wight disease were reported to the Department during the year. Each case was investigated and suitable precautionary measures were prescribed. The Department have at present no statutory powers to enforce compliance with such measures, except in the case of foul brood.
  Mr. BOLAND: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take any steps to enable the Department to deal with the matter should disease break out?
  Mr. RUSSELL: Yes, Sir, there is a Bill for England and Scotland before the House, and when it reaches Committee I have an Amendment prepared to enable it to be applied to Ireland.

  Sleeping Sickness.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the recent public announcement of an outbreak of sleeping sickness in Southern Rhodesia and a denial on behalf of the British South Africa Company; and, the prevalence of that disease south of the Zambesi being now acknowledged, whether any steps have been taken to warn intending emigrants to that territory?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I would refer to my reply to questions regarding sleeping sickness in Southern Rhodesia on Monday. There is no reason to suppose that the disease is generally prevalent south of the Zambesi.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question as to the warning to emigrants?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I do not exactly know how the warning could be conveyed, and as the disease is only prevalent south of the Zambesi I am not so sure of the necessity for it.

  British West Africa (Concessions).
  Mr. TOUCHEasked whether any concessions, privileges, or rights in British West Africa were applied for by any other parties during the period covered by the correspondence with Messrs. Lever Brothers, Limited; and were they dealt with in a similar manner?
  Mr. HARCOURT: During the period referred to I received no application for any concession in British West Africa similar to that made by Messrs. Lever Brothers.
  Mr. TOUCHE: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any notification to the effect that no applications have been made, because it was understood that it was contrary to the policy of the Government to grant exclusive privileges?
  Mr. HARCOURT: No, Sir, not within my recollection.
  Mr. TOUCHE: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will inquire.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the nature and extent of all rights, privileges, or concessions, other than those relating to railways, granted or promised to Messrs. Lever Brothers, Limited, or associated firms, in any West African Colonies or Protectorates up to the present time?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The only grants which have come to my knowledge are those contemplated in Cd. 6561.
  Mr. TOUCHE: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in view the fact that when the correspondence was published nothing definite or final had been decided upon, and can he say whether any progress has been made since that date?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I must have notice on the question of progress.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked what licences have been granted or promised to Messrs. Lever Brothers, Limited, or their associated firms, to construct railways in any West African Colony or Protectorate?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The only promise made is that contained in the letter of 18th December printed on page 45 of Cd. 6561. So far as I am aware, Messrs. Lever

  2101
  Brothers have not yet made any application for a licence.

  Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society of Australia.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has received the statutory returns of the Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society of Australia for 1912; how they compare with those for 1889 in premium receipts, receipts of interest on funds invested, gross receipts, payments on claims and surrenders, cost of administration, including directors, gross expenditure, and sum invested for security of the insured; and, if an annual meeting is ever held, when the last one was held and how many insured persons were present at it?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The returns of the Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society, Limited, under the Assurance Companies Act for the year 1912 have not yet been received, and they are not required by the Act until the 30th June next. The last annual meeting of which the Board of Trade have information was held at Melbourne on the 22nd May, 1912, but the Board have no information as to the number of insured persons present at the meeting.

  National United Insurance Society, of Glasgow.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the President of the Board of Trade, whether he has received the statutory returns due from the National United Insurance Society, of Glasgow; what sum is shown to have been in the bank at the end of 1912; whether he is aware that all this, except a nominal balance to keep the account open, has since been drawn to keep afloat the National Assurance Collecting Society, worked by the same persons; whether those persons in either capacity have deposited security for fidelity; and, if so, with whom and of what value; and, in view of these two societies run by the same persons, accounting to different State Departments at different dates and making the same money serve as an alleged capital for both, whether he will require an actuarial investigation of the affairs of both simultaneously?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The National United Insurance Society is a registered society, and returns with regard to it are accordingly made like those regarding the National Assurance Collecting Society to
  2102
  the Assistant Registrar of Friendly Societies and not to the Board of Trade. The statutory return for 1912 has not yet been received, but a notice has been sent to the society requiring it to be submitted within fourteen days from the 3rd instant. The Chief Registrar has no knowledge of the other matters referred to by the hon. Member and no power to order an actuarial investigation into either society, but, on the application of the proper number of members provided by the Statute, he has power to appoint an inspector to examine into and report on the affairs of a society.

  Irish Provident Assurance Company.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the liquidator of the Irish Provident Assurance Company has had the property of the victims of that company under his control for two years without giving them any satisfaction; whether he is entitled to retain this property indefinitely; if not, when will the Board require a settlement; whether the Board has power to substitute a liquidator for a nominee of the failing directors; and, in view of the number of poor people suffering from this particular failure, whether he will have the assets, if any, distributed without further delay?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: As the hon. Member has been informed on three previous occasions, the liquidation of the Irish Provident Assurance Company, Limited, is not under the control of the Board of Trade, but under that of the Irish Courts. The Board of Trade have no jurisdiction in the matter.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will not the Board of Trade inquire into a case which has been in Court two years?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: As I have said, we have no jurisdiction, but I will ascertain if we can make any inquiry on behalf of the hon. Gentleman.

  Ghent Exhibition.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the President of the Board of Trade on what date, and by whom, the decision was arrived at to exclude financial publications from the library of British journals in the British Pavilion at the Ghent Exhibition; and whether this was the original intention or the result of subsequent consideration?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: It was the original intention of the Board of Trade that the

  2103
  library in the British Pavilion at the Ghent Exhibition should be confined to trade and technical journals. The question of including financial papers was given particular consideration last month by the Exhibitions Branch when the original decision to exclude all but trade and technical journals was confirmed.
  Mr. TOUCHE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that an invitation was issued to financial journals to make application, and that when one did so there was a long delay before any reply was made? As there appears to have been some misunderstanding, will the hon. Gentleman make further inquiry?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: If the hon. Gentleman will give me the details I will inquire. I was not aware of the invitation to which he alludes.

  Labour Exchanges.
  Mr. BARNESasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the fact that the manager of the Glasgow Labour Exchange had prevented the carpenters' and joiners' trade union from inserting in their vacant book, which is kept at the exchange, a notice to members asking such members not to accept employment at a certain works; and if he will take the necessary steps to see that the trade union in question gets the full use of its books.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I will cause inquiries to be made into the statement made by my hon. Friend, and will communicate the result to him.
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if the managers of Labour Exchanges are sending a card marked D/L. E. 8 to employers of labour asking them when they require workmen to state the wages they are prepared to pay, so that suitable applicants may be selected; whether this is practically inviting employers to offer less than the standard rate of wages and obtaining cheap labour to the disadvantage of trade unionists; and whether he will either cancel this card or delete from it any reference to wages?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The card to which my hon. Friend refers has been in use since the inception of the Labour Exchange system. Representations were made to the Board of Trade by the Parliamentary
  2104
  Committee of the Trade Union Congress in October, 1910, urging that full information should in all cases be obtained from employers notifying vacancies as to the wages they proposed to pay. Apart from this it appears to me obviously desirable that managers of Exchanges should endeavour to obtain as much information as employers are willing to give about their vacancies in order to avoid the fruitless work of putting applicants into touch with vacancies which they will not be prepared to accept.
  Mr. TYSON WILSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of certain skilled workmen the employers have in many instances offered much less than the standard rate and that owing to this notice having been sent out employers in trades which never offered less than the standard rate are offering less now?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: There has been no change since the system first came into operation.

  Peruvian Amazon Company.
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked whether His Majesty's Government will be prepared to give any special assistance to the Official Receiver in liquidating the affairs of the Peruvian Amazon Company?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: All necessary assistance will, of course, be given to the Official Receiver in dealing with this case, but I understand from the Official Receiver that no cause for any special assistance has so far arisen.
  Sir W. BYLES: Is there any possibility of the Official Receiver employing Senor Arana? Can the Board do anything to prevent that?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I do not think that is at all likely.

  Workmen's Compensation Act.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLORasked the President of the Board of Trade which his attention has been called to case of Howarth v. Knowles, decided by the judge of the Salford County Court on 9th April last, in which it was proved that a scheme officially certified by the Registrar of Friendly Societies as not less favourable to the general body of workmen and their dependents than the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act was in fact so much less favourable that the plaintiff and other workmen who had

  2105
  accepted and were dependent on the scheme are left without compensation or remedy for the rest of their lives; and whether it is proposed to take any, and, if so, what, steps to amend Section 3 of the Act so as to ensure that a scheme certified by the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and on the faith of which contracting out is permitted, can be relied on by those dependent on it as a trustworthy substitute for the provisions of the Act of Parliament?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I have seen a newspaper report of the case referred to. The case raises a point of law on the Workmen's Compensation Act which is quite new, and is undoubtedly important, and I understand that there is likely to be an appeal from the learned judge's decision. So far as regards future cases, the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies informs me that practically all the existing schemes under the Act expire on 30th June next, and that in considering the grant of certificates of renewal he will take steps to ensure, as far as practicable, that provision is made in the schemes for meeting the point raised in the case referred to.
  Mr. T. TAYLOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to do nothing in case other schemes fall short as this one has done? Can he not possibly do anything?
  Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend will see that all these schemes expire in June next, and the Registrar-General proposes to take steps to meet future cases. Therefore the difficulty will be met.
  Mr. W. THORNE: In the event of the Court of Appeal deciding against the workmen will the Registrar-General be in a position to make an alteration to meet the case?
  Mr. McKENNA: Not until the 30th June. But I will consider the point.

  Census Records.
  Mr. BOWERMANasked when it is intended that the Census Records (England and Wales) of 1861 and 1871 will be transferred from the custody of the Registrar-General to the Record Office, so that they may be made available for search by the general public and for proving the age of claimants for old age pensions?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I understand there would not be sufficient accommodation at the Record Office to house the Census Records of 1861 and 1871 as the hon. Member suggests.

  Representation of the People (Women) Bill.
  Mr. DICKINSONasked upon which day the Government will provide facilities for the Second Reading of the Representation of the People (Women) Bill?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): We propose Monday, 5th May, and Tuesday, 6th May.
  Mr. KING: Will these days be immediately before the Recess? Would it not be for the general convenience of Members if these days were taken immediately before the holidays, so that hon. Members might have an opportunity of prolonging their holidays if they liked? Will that suggestion be considered?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Government always give the most careful consideration to every suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend.

  Channel Tunnel.
  Mr. FELLasked the right hon. Gentleman if he will give an opportunity, at an early date, for discussing the question of the construction of a Channel Tunnel?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My right hon. Friend is not prepared to give facilities from Government time for a discussion of this project.
  Mr. FELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that this is a question in which immense interest is taken on both sides of the House generally, and that it has not been mentioned in the House for many years; and might we not have a half-day?

  Land Transfer.
  Sir JOHN SPEARasked the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware of the legal expenses connected with the sale and transfer of land; and if he will, by providing for the registration of title, simplify the transfer and thus reduce the expense of such exchange, thereby encouraging the creation of an increase of the number of owners of land?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The whole of this question is receiving the close con-

  2107
  sideration of the Lord Chancellor, but I can make no statement at present with regard to it.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer indicate that the Government intend at an early date to take some action upon the Report of the Royal Commission?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: They certainly propose to take action. I think they are in consultation with various interests concerned.
  Mr. CASSEL: In dealing with the transfer of land will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that the cost of transferring land has been increased by his Land Taxes?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a matter for controversy on the Finance and Revenue Act.
  Mr. RAFFAN: Is it not a fact that a larger quantity of land has been transferred to small holders since the Budget was passed than in the preceding years?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. Friend is certainly right there. The Stamp Revenue Returns certainly prove that.

  Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Bill.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked if it is intended to give facilities for passing the Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Bill during the present Session?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister on 9th April last to a question by the hon. Member for Norwich on this subject.

  Income Tax (Collection).
  Mr. HAYES FISHERasked the right hon. Gentleman if the Inland Revenue, by direction of the Lords and officials of the Treasury subject to his authority, has suggested to the Bank of England to pay coupons payable to bearer for the interest on public funds, otherwise than in full, by making without warrant of law a deduction from each coupon in respect of Income Tax not yet imposed; has he considered the effect upon the credit of the Bank and of this country of paying such coupons otherwise than in full; and have the Law Officers been consulted on the legality of such a diminished payment?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Inland Revenue has made no suggestion to the Bank of England beyond what was contained in the circular letter of 2nd April to bankers, paying agents, etc., which was laid on the Table of the House. With regard to the second and third parts, the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the general question of the deductions to which he refers is being fully dealt with in the legislative proposals that are at present before the House.

  Customs and Excise Department (Surveyors).
  Mr. LEACHasked the present number of surveyors and unattached surveyors of Customs and Excise, respectively, who were serving in the Customs branch and in the Excise branch at the time of the adoption of the Report of the Hobhouse Committee; the actual number of promotions to that grade since that date, and how many such promotions have fallen to the officers formerly serving in the Customs and Excise Departments, respectively?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Of the present surveyors, 198 attached and 94 unattached were serving in the Customs branch, and 398 attached and 30 unattached in the Excise branch, at the date referred to. The answer to the last part of the question is the same that I gave to a similar question put to me by the hon. Member for Blackburn on 5th December last, except that the number of the Customs men referred to is now 104.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    UNITED NATIONAL FRIENDLY ASSURANCE COLLECTING SOCIETY.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the right hon. Gentleman the result of the inquiry instituted into the financial condition of the United National Friendly Assurance Collecting Society; the number of persons insured; the total amount collected from them; the total expenditure; the total liabilities incurred; the amount secured to meet those liabilities; the nature and value of any security given by officers for fidelity, and by whom held; the amount of the endowment policies due to mature in 1914; whether the society continues collecting and canvassing in Ireland; whether approval has been withdrawn from the society worked by it under the National Insurance Act; and whether he will institute an actuarial investigation into this society's affairs?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The complaints made by my hon. Friend and others with regard to this society have been the subject of investigation, as promised in the answer given to him on 1st January. No such irregularities have been disclosed as would justify the withdrawal of approval under Section 29 of the Insurance Act from the United National Friendly Approved Society, which is a separate section conducting business under the Insurance Act under conditions which keep the finances absolutely distinct from those of the collecting society; but the affairs of the society will continue to be under the observation of the Commissioners and the auditors. The return of the collecting society for 1912 has not yet been received, and is not finally due until 31st May next. Particulars as to the assets and liabilities of the society, as shown in the Return for 1911, were given to my hon. Friend in the answer of 1st January. I have no knowledge of the other matters referred to in the question and no power to institute an actuarial investigation into the affairs of the collecting society.

    APPROVED SOCIETIES' VALUATION.
    Mr. J. WARDasked whether the valuation of approved societies having over 5,000 members in England and less than 5,000 members in Scotland and Wales will be conducted on a system which will secure to the members in Scotland and Wales not less than the minimum benefits paid to the members of the same society resident in England after the valuation?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The answer is in the negative. The English, Scottish and Welsh sections of societies having members in all three countries have each complete financial independence of each other whatever their respective numbers.
    Mr. J. WARD: May we take it for granted from the hon. Gentleman's answer that there may be, after the next valuation, three scales of benefits for the different sets of members of one society?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: This is the result, of course, of the decision arrived at by the House. It does not follow, as the hon. Member infers, that the English set will always have the best of it.
    Mr. J. WARD: Seeing that they all pay the same, does not the hon. Gentleman think they should all receive the same, and that any regulation which prevents that is ridiculous?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: It is the Act which creates four separate funds. We cannot override that.
    Mr. J. WARD: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of dealing with this part of the business in the amending Bill?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I will pass on the suggestion.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that William Butler, of Llanelly, an insured person and a member of the Prudential Approved Society, was unable to obtain the benefits of the National Insurance Act during a recent illness through failure on the part of the Prudential Society to provide him with a medical ticket after repeated applications; whether he is aware that the man is still without a medical ticket; and whether he will take steps to compel the Prudential Society to at once give Butler his card and to prevent similar occurrences in future?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am informed by the society that the insured person was a deposit contributor who subsequently transferred to the society, and that the delay in providing him with a medical ticket was due to a misunderstanding on the part of the society's local representative who was under the impression that all the formalities in connection with the transfer of the insured person from the Post Office Fund to the society must be completed before the ticket could be issued. A medical ticket has now been supplied to the member, and the position has been made clear to the society's agent.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Will this person suffer any financial loss through the neglect of the society?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I cannot say. Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a further question.

    SICKNESS BENEFIT.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. Parry, a school teacher at Deal, who, on the 15th January, 1913, became entitled to sickness benefit, being furnished with a medical certificate in the prescribed form stating that she was totally incapacitated from work; whether he is aware that Mrs. Parry, being dangerously

    2111
    ill, was admitted on the 22nd of January to the Victoria Cottage Hospital at Deal, being, as an insured person, only eligible for admission to the hospital as a case of urgency and on condition of paying for her maintenance and medical attendance; that she is still unable to resume her employment, but that, in spite of repeated applications to her approved society, the Teachers' Provident Society, she has been unable to obtain any payment of sickness benefit except for the first week of her illness, and although she has a blind infant dependent upon her; whether this treatment is due to a decision of the Insurance Commissioners that under no circumstances shall sickness benefit be paid to insured persons in hospital, even though obliged to provide their own maintenance; and whether he will take steps to reverse this decision of the Commissioners and to remove the injustice inflicted thereby on Mrs. Parry and other insured persons in similar circumstances?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: It is not a decision of the Insurance Commissioners, but a definite provision of Section 12 of the National Insurance Act that sickness benefit shall not be paid to insured persons while they are in hospitals of the kind described in the Section. The same Section, however, provides for the application of the benefit, in whole or in part, for the relief or maintenance of any dependants. I am informed by the society that they were unable until last week to ascertain whether Mrs. Perry had any dependants, and that immediately on being satisfied that such was the case the whole amount of the sickness benefit calculated up to 13th April, namely, £4 10s., was paid for the relief and maintenance of the dependants, in acccordance with the provisions of Section 12. Any inconvenience that may have been caused would appear to have been due to the insured person not supplying the society at once with information as to her dependants, and not to any decision of the Insurance Commissioners.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. SHEEHANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Mrs. Johanna Murphy made an application at the Aherla post office last September for an old age pension, filling up the usual form and showing her certificate of birth that she was seventy years of age on 1st January, 1913; whether she was informed in the first week of February, 1913,
    2112
    by the clerk of the Bandon (No. 1) Pension Sub-committee that the committee did not meet until the last Monday in January and that she was granted pension allowance from that date; will Mrs. Murphy be deprived of her pension for four weeks from 1st January owing to the failure of the committee to meet; and, if not, what steps must be taken to recover the amount properly due to her?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I understand that the officer's report in this case was sent to the sub-committee in due time for the usual meeting in December, but that the sub-committee did not meet until the end of January. Under the provisions of the Old Age Pension Act a pension only commences to accrue as from the Friday following its allowance by a committee, and I fear that Mrs. Murphy therefore only became entitled to a pension as from that date.
    Mr. SHEEHAN: Is Mr. Murphy to suffer because of the fact that the committee did not have the usual meeting?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I admit there is a hardship but we have no statutory power to remedy it. The blame must lie on the committee.
    Mr. GINNELLasked whether the general Order issued to old age pension officers in September, 1908, or any substituted Order, on the value of maintenance has been communicated to every pension officer in Ireland and is now used by them for their guidance; if so, what scale the Order fixes in normal cases in urban and rural districts in Great Britain and in Ireland, respectively; whether it leaves each officer discretion to increase or reduce the pension according to circumstances within the limits of the Act; what is the authority or scale whereby this discretion is always used to reduce or extinguish pensions in Ireland but not in Great Britain; whether the opinion of the medical officer is obtained in all such cases before the reduction is made; if the rent or valuation of the home where the claimant resides affects the pension, what is the practice on that point in the two countries, respectively; and in what percentage of the claims for old age pensions has the pension been reduced or disallowed on account of the value of maintenance in Great Britain and in Ireland, respectively?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: No scale is in force under either the Order of September, 1908,

    2113
    or any subsequent Order, for general application by pension officers in framing their estimates of the value of maintenance, and the general rule governing the officers' practice is as stated in my reply to the hon. Member's previous question of the 11th instant. Pension officers have no discretion to increase or reduce a pension. This discretion rests with the local committee or the Local Government Board on appeal. So far as I am aware, it is not the practice of pension officers to obtain medical opinion on questions affecting the value of means. The rent or valuation of the house in which a claimant resides is one of several factors which a pension officer might take into account in framing an estimate in either country. The information asked for in the last paragraph of the question is not available.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is is not a fact that the circular issued in September, 1908, contained a scale; is that circular, or any one corresponding to it, still in force; and is the circular of 1908, which exempted £30 of furniture, clothes, and personal effects from the estimate, still in force?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The hon. Member is mistaken. The so-called circular of which he speaks was not a scale, but simply a set of a few suggestions to officers. They never constituted a scale. The suggestions have been modified as a result of the experience acquired.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is the earlier circular exempting £30 of personal effects still in force?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that special point. I cannot answer it at the moment.

    Civil Service (Conditions of Employment).
    Mr. FREDERICK HALLasked if the approval of the Treasury is required to the appointment to posts in the Civil Service to which a commencing salary on a rising scale is attached at higher than the commencing rates; and, if so, whether the approval of the Treasury was given in all the cases specified in the Returns recently published of persons appointed without competitive examination in which the commencing salary paid was in excess of the fixed minimum?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The special sanction of the Treasury would be required for the appointment of any Civil servant at a rate
    2114
    of salary higher than the minimum of the scale attached to the post to which he was appointed unless the case fell within certain categories covered by general authorities given under Treasury Minutes. If in any case such sanction were not obtained, the omission would be noticed by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and queried by him. I am not aware of any case among those to which the hon. Member refers in which such omission has occurred.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked whether the Board of Education employs permanent clerks at salaries less than the equivalent of £l per week; and what is the number of clerks in the Board's service receiving, on 31st March ultimo, less than £1 per week, 25s. per week, and 30s. per week, respectively?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The hon. Member is, no doubt, aware that the commencing salary of an assistant clerk is £45. The number of permanent clerks, including women clerks and typists, in the Board's service receiving on 31st March last less than 30s. per week was 199. Of these, 136 received less than 25s. per week, and of these, again, forty-four received less than £1 per week.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is any distinction made in the salaries paid to men and women for the same class of work?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: If the hon. Member will put down a question I will give him the figures.
    Mr. BARNES: What is the age of these people who start at £45 a year?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: Seventeen.
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked whether the Board's assistant clerks are eligible for special increments similar to those awarded to second division clerks?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: Assistant clerks serving under the Board of Education are eligible for special increments only under the conditions laid down in Treasury Regulations of 22nd December, 1908, but the conditions of these increments are not similar to those under which special increments are granted to second division clerks under Clause 33 of the Order in Council of 10th January, 1910.
    Mr. POINTERasked the Secretary of State for War the number of adults serving in a civil capacity in his Department; the grades and numbers of persons so employed who receive less than 30s. per week or £78 per annum; and the number whose working day exceeds eight hours?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): The total number so serving in the War Office amounts to 1,179, of whom 268 are receiving less than 30s. a week or £78 a year. This latter number includes 33 lady typists, 110 messengers and porters, and 100 female servants and charwomen. The normal working day for all classes is less than eight hours a day, except for messengers, who are liable for a longer period, but are rarely called up to work beyond a period of eight hours.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Are the wages paid to women typists less than those paid to men typists?
    Mr. BAKER: I must ask for notice.

    School Accommodation.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that all departments of the Holy Trinity Church of England school, Wey-mouth, have been overcrowded for some years past; whether he will give the reasons why this overcrowding has been allowed to continue; whether he is aware that the latest official list of schools shows that 40 per cent. of the scholars in Wey mouth are in overcrowded schools; and whether anything will be done to remedy the present overcrowding?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: Overcrowding occurred in the school referred to in 1910 and 1911, partly as a result of the reassessment of accommodation on the ten and nine square feet basis which took place in 1909 as a result of rearrangements. The only overcrowded department in the school in 1912 was that of the infants, in which the average attendance exceeded the recognised accommodation by two. No other department of any school in the area of the authority was overcrowded during the last school year.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the official list of schools shows that 100 per cent. of the scholars in Pelsall
    2116
    are in overcrowded schools, and that in the Wesleyan school and the Church of England school the average attendance is in excess of the accommodation in all departments; and what steps he is taking to provide additional accommodation as required by the code?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: For the last school year only one department of the four departments in the two schools in Pelsall was overcrowded, and the overcrowding amounted only to thirteen units. As the result of conferences between the authority, the school managers, and the Board the two schools will be reorganised, and proposals have been put forward by the local authority for the provision of a new school for 250 children.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the latest volume of statistics shows that after excluding all scholars under five years of age there are in all the elementary schools of Coventry only 16,188 school places for 16,719 children on the roll; whether he is aware that 32 per cent. of the scholars are in overcrowded schools, and that the average attendance greatly exceeds the accommodation in All Saints and Holy Trinity Church of England schools, and in Wheatley Street and Edgewick council schools; and what steps will be taken to enable all children between five and fifteen years of age to attend schools?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: The figures given in the first part of the question are correct. With regard to the second part of the question, during the year ended 31st March, 1912, approximately 28 per cent. of the children were in overcrowded schools. There is no longer overcrowding in the Church of England schools, mentioned in the question; but there is some excess of average attendance over accommodation in the case of the Wheatley Street council school, and a small excess in the case of the Edgewick council school. The Board have been in correspondence with the authority on the subject of accommodation for some time. Two new council schools, making provision for over 1,700 scholars, have been opened since September, 1911, and proposals are at present before the Board for the provision of 5,200 additional places in the area of the authority. The hon. Member will be aware that there has been in recent years a rapid growth in the population of Coventry.

    Physically Defective Children.
    Mr. RUPERT GUINNESSasked the President of the Board of Education whether the education of physically defective children is included in the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Bill; and, if not, whether he will extend its provisions so as to include them?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. My right hon. Friend is not at present prepared to make compulsory upon local education authorities the provision of special schools for physically defective children. The hon. Member will be aware that local authorities already have power to make this provision under the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act, 1899.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (FAIR-WAGES CLAUSE).
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Hoffman Manufacturing Company, Limited, Chelmsford, are sub-contractors to Messrs. Armstrong, Whitworth, and Company, Limited, and Vickers, Sons, and Maxims, Limited; if so, whether this brings this firm within the Fair-Wages Clause; whether he is aware that this firm are paying adult men as low a wage as 3½d. per hour; whether he is aware that this firm print on their note-heading in red ink the fact that they are contractors to the Admiralty and other Government Departments; and whether he can see his way clear to make inquiry into the wages paid by this firm in order to discover whether they are observing the Fair-Wages Clause in their contracts?
    Mr. LAMBERT (Civil Lord of the Admiralty): The Admiralty have no information as to whether the firm mentioned are holding sub-contracts for Admiralty work from the firms named. If they do, the Fair-Wages Clause applies, and the main contractor is responsible for the due observance of that Clause. As to the third part of the question, the Admiralty have no information. As to the fourth part, this appears to be the case. As regards the last part of the question, this must depend upon a specific complaint in respect of Admiralty work, and it will be necessary to furnish primâ, facie evidence that the actual rates paid for particular classes of labour are below
    2118
    those recognised by employers and trade societies in the district, or failing such agreed rates, are below those paid by good employers. As a strike is understood to exist at the works, it would not be practicable for an individual Department to conduct an investigation under the Fair-Wages Clause unless the Board of Trade were satisfied that such action would not be generally prejudicial.
    Mr. BARNES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this firm, by its own admission, is a blackleg firm, and that prior to this strike taking place they were advertising for tool makers at about 25 per cent. less than the ordinary rate of wages, and that upon the paper inviting men to come for that rate of wages they advertised the fact, and gave it the special emphasis of red ink, that they are contractors to the Admiralty; and will he take some steps to see that the firm no longer advertises or is struck off the list?
    Mr. LAMBERT: I have no knowledge of the information given me by my hon. Friend, but I will take note of it.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: Can the firms mentioned in the question sub-let their work to another contractor without the sanction of the Admiralty?
    Mr. LAMBERT: Yes, in some cases.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Hoffman Manufacturing Company, Limited, Chelmsford, are sub-contractors to Messrs. Armstrong, Whitworth, and Company, Limited, and Vickers, Sons, and Maxims, Limited; if so, whether this brings this firm within the Fair-Wages Clause; whether he is aware that this firm are paying adult men as low a wage as 3½d. per hour; whether he is aware that this firm print on their note-heading in red ink the fact that they are contractors, to the War Office and other Government Departments; and whether he will therefore make inquiry into the wages paid by this firm, in order to discover whether they are observing the Fair-Wages Clause in their contracts?
    Mr. BAKER: Under the terms of the Fair-Wages Clause a contractor is responsible for the observance of the Clause by a sub-contractor. It is not known at the War Office if the firm in question is, at the present moment, supplying the firms mentioned, or other contractors, with material required in

    2119
    connection with Army contracts. But, as I stated on the 14th instant, I do not think that the War Office can usefully intervene, or require a contractor to intervene, while the present dispute is in progress.

    CANTEEN POSITIONS (MALTESE).
    Mr. BURGOYNEasked what is the number of Maltese holding canteen positions in Home waters?
    Mr. LAMBERT: Seventeen canteen tenancies in His Majesty's ships in Home waters are held by Maltese firms at the present time.

    AIRCRAFT.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any aeroplanes, hydro-aeroplanes, or other types of aerial craft, are attached to any of the fleets or squadrons in Home waters; and, if not, whether he will, in view of the fact that the speed of an aeroplane is approximately twice as great as that of a destroyer, take the necessary measures to ensure that our fleets are equipped with these craft for scouting purposes?
    Mr. LAMBERT: This question is being made the subject of investigation and experiment.
    Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Is the hon. Member aware that the First Lord stated last March twelvemonths that he hoped in a few months aeroplanes will be attached to all the fleets?
    Mr. LAMBERT: I can only say we are making experiments. I am sure he would not desire us to take hasty action in this Important matter.
    Mr. MIDDLEMORE: The First Lord then was incorrect last March?
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked whether the principal dockyards, arsenals, and naval bases in this country are within the nominal radius of action of the German airships of the Zeppelin type acting from the German coast; and whether our fleets, dockyards, and arsenals are provided with defensive equipment against aerial attack by means either of aircraft or of anti-aircraft guns?
    Mr. LAMBERT: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, provided that the conditions are favourable. With regard to the second part, defensive measures are being taken for dealing with aerial attack.
    Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Will the hon. Member say what is being done?
    Mr. LAMBERT: I do not think that would be very wise.

    WERRY ENGINES.
    Mr. BURGOYNEasked if the Werry type of engine installed in a pinnace attached to His Majesty's Australian Ship "Australia" has completed its trials successfully; and, if so, whether the building of engines of similar or larger sizes is under consideration?
    Mr. LAMBERT: The Werry type of engine installed in steam pinnace A2 attached to the "Australia" worked satisfactorily during its trials, but its performance was not equal to that of the types generally fitted in Service steam pinnaces. The building of Werry engines of similar or larger sizes is not under consideration.

    SUPPLEMENTARY LIEUTENANTS.
    Mr. BURGOYNEasked whether the commissions of the new supplementary lieutenants are to be dated from their seniority as lieutenants, Royal Naval Reserve, or from the date that their names were actually inserted on the Navy List as lieutenants, Royal Navy?
    Mr. LAMBERT: The commissions of officers now being entered in the Royal Navy as supplementary lieutenants will be dated from the approximate date of their entry into the Royal Navy.

    Reformatories.
    Mr. ATHERLEY-JONESasked the Home Secretary what is the cause of the delay in submitting the Report of the Departmental Committee on Reformatories; and at what date the reception of evidence was completed?
    Mr. McKENNA: I understand no evidence has been taken since July last, but since that date further inquiries have been made by the Committee by means of circulars and visits to schools. The Committee now hope to have their Report ready in a few weeks.
    Sir W. BYLES: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether there will be any opportunity for the discussion of the question of reformatories and cognate questions?
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member knows that that matter is not in my hands.

    Street Hawking, London.
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the case of John Quinn, a coloured man but a British subject, who has been prevented from hawking goods in the streets of London; and whether, in this matter of street hawking, the police have any right to make any distinction between white and coloured British subjects?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Commissioner of Police reports that the man referred to conducts his business in the streets in such a manner as to cause serious obstruction, and he is not amenable to advice or caution. Such action as has been found necessary has been taken in the ordinary course of police duty, no distinction being drawn between one offender and another.

    Prosecution of Mr. Cecil Chesterton.
    Mr. OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Home Secretary whether he has received any communication setting forth facts connected with the St. David's Mining Development Company, Limited, the Voel Mines, Limited, and the Gwyn Mines, Limited; and whether the Director of Public Prosecutions will investigate these facts and take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown about them?
    Mr. McKENNA: After the hon. Member had given notice of this question I received the communication to which apparently he refers. How many of the statements it contains can be described as facts I am unable to say; but I cannot help feeling much doubt as to the bona fides of representations first made ten years after the events to which they refer. I have no jurisdiction in the matter.
    Mr. OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman defer the criminal prosecution of Mr. Cecil Chesterton until he has thoroughly investigated the facts to which I refer in my question?
    Mr. McKENNA: I think it would be obviously to the advantage of the good administration of justice if the hon. Gentleman would defer the question until the prosecution is finished.

    Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Act.
    Mr. JOHN TAYLORasked whether in a district it has been decided that a mason's labourer working regularly in a
    2122
    mine does not come within the scope of the Coal Mines (Minimum Wages) Act; and whether, in view of the conflicting opinions on the matter and the fact that mason's labourers in other districts come under the Act, any guidance can be given on the point or any steps taken to secure uniformity of administration?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I have not seen the decision referred to, but, as my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, the definition of "workman" for the purposes of the Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Act is contained in Section 5 (1) of the Act. The Board of Trade have no authority in regard to the matter, which would appear to be ultimately one for the decision of the Courts.

    Mines Act (Aid Certificates).
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Home Secretary the date upon which the Glamorgan County Council first memorialised him asking that their first aid certificates should be recognised by him for the purposes of the requirements of the Mines Act; and what are the reasons which have led to the delay in coming to a decision, particularly as these certificates are recognised by the Board of Trade and the War Office?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Glamorgan County Council applied in April last year that the certificates which they were proposing to issue might be recognised for the purposes of the Rescue Order. It was explained to them that this would require an amendment of the Order, and they were asked to submit details of their scheme for consideration, but these were not received till the end of November. It has been necessary to examine carefully the whole question of the recognition of the certificates of bodies other than the principal ambulance associations, and this question is not yet ready for decision; but, in the meantime, the Board for Mining Examinations have decided, with a view to preventing any hardship, that a candidate for a certificate of competency who is desirous of sitting at the examination next month but has not yet obtained the first aid certificate required, shall be allowed four months after the examination in which to obtain it.

    Post Office Staff (Engineering Department).
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware

    2123
    that, notwithstanding his reply to a recent memorial that no obstacle would be placed in the way of assistant clerks serving in the Post Office engineering department seeking transfers to other Government Departments, assistant clerks who have arranged such transfers are being kept back, and the vacancies for which they applied are being filled by the Civil Service Commission with new entrants to the class; and will he say what action he proposes to take in the case of these clerks?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Requests from other Government Departments for the services of assistant clerks employed in the Post Office engineering department have been complied with whenever the circumstances permitted. For some time the Civil Service Commissioners were unable to comply with requisitions for assistant clerks, and on account of the extreme pressure of work existing in the engineering department no assistant clerks could be spared for transfer until successors were available. I am not aware, however, of any case in which the transfer of an assistant clerk has fallen through owing to this cause.

    Telephone Service.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the Postmaster-General whether he has yet completed his inquiries regarding the demand for telephone facilities in the village of Wingham, Kent; and whether he can now say that such facilities will be provided without further delay?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The estimates are not yet complete, and I am unable at present to say if the provision of the facilities will be justified. I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as I am in a position to give a decision.

    Housing Accommodation, Potterne (Wiltshire).
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, as the result of an inquiry by Mr. Collin, a Local Government Board inspector, on the 23rd May, 1912, into the housing conditions of Potterne, in Wilts, the Board has twice communicated with the Devizes Rural District Council, recommending, on the 5th July, the erection of twelve cottages, and again in September, warning the council that they are not justified in deferring action any longer though the erection of cottages
    2124
    might entail a burden on the rates; and whether, although seven months have elapsed since the Board issued this warning, no steps have been taken by the Devizes Rural District Council to erect any cottages for the labourers of Potterne?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): I have received representations not only from the Devizes Rural District Council, but also from the Potterne Parish Council, in regard to this matter, in which the need for the provision of further cottages in the parish of Potterne is questioned, and various reasons are advanced in support of this view. In consequence, I have thought it desirable to have the matter further investigated on the spot, and one of my inspectors will visit the district for this purpose at an early date.

    Paupers (Shropshire).
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the figures of the various unions in Shropshire to show the present number of indoor and outdoor paupers over and under seventy years of age, respectively; and the corresponding figures for the same date in 1906 and the intervening years?
    Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: I will send to the hon. Member a table containing such figures as I am able to supply.

    Dobbinson Charity, Willington (Durham).
    Mr. JOHN WILSON (Durham)asked the hon. Member for the Stroud Division, as representing the Charity Commissioners, what were the original purposes of the Dobbinson Charity, Willington, in the county of Durham; and whether the proceeds of the charity are now being devoted to these original purposes; if not so devoted, what steps does he propose to take to restore the charity to its original character?
    Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury): The Dobbinson Charity, Brancepeth, was founded by Anne Dobbinson's gift by will of 21st January, 1662, of £2 5s. a year to the poor of Willington, and other smaller annual sums to six other townships in the parish of Brancepeth. By a scheme made by the Durham County Court on 23rd March, 1857, amended in certain details by two subsequent schemes in 1880 and 1898, the whole income of the charity was made applicable for educational purposes

    2125
    in connection with elementary schools in the townships interested. The charity is now under the jurisdiction of the Board of Education.

    Development Fund (Grants).
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture what is the present interpretation of a farm institute towards the expenses of which Development Fund Grants are shortly to be made available to local authorities by the Board; and whether it necessarily involves the provision of buildings, either presently or ultimately?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): A farm institute is intended to be an institution which, in addition to providing courses of instruction in agricultural subjects suitable for the district in which it is situated, shall also serve as a headquarters for one or more members of the staff of agricultural instructors employed in local peripatetic work. In cases in which buildings suitable for the purposes of an institute are not available it is contemplated that they must ultimately be provided either by single counties or by groups of counties.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the recent circular on the subject to the local authorities does not make this absolutely clear?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is very difficult to make it absolutely clear. Every individual case will be considered by the Board, and if the hon. Gentleman will bring any case to my notice it will be inquired into.

    Land Valuation.
    Mr. LANE-FOXasked whether there are any further additions to be made to the Estimate of £630,000 for the expenses of the Land Valuation Office to arrive at the complete cost of its working, besides £20,000 for rent of district valuer's offices and £15,000 for printing; and, if so, what is the amount of them, and under what Votes do they come?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The total cost of the services rendered by other Departments in connection with the original valuation for the current year is approximately £50,000, made up as follows:—

    £

    Rent of offices (borne on Office of Works Vote)

    …

    20,000

    Rates (borne on Vote for Rates on Government Property)

    …

    4,500

    2126

    £

    Stationery and printing (borne on Stationery Office Vote)

    …

    11,000

    Postage (borne on Post Office Vote)

    …

    14,500

    The sum of £15,000 previously given as the estimated cost of stationery and printing is found upon further investigation to have been excessive.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether on a future occasion it would not be possible to set down the estimate more clearly so that the whole cost will appear in a single estimate instead of being spread over a number of estimates?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If that was done in connection with this Vote, it would have to be done in connection with all other Votes, and I think that would be quite impossible.

    Education (Necessitous Areas Grant).
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received a resolution from the education committee of Merthyr Tydvil protesting against the reduction of the necessitous areas Grant and claiming that three-fourths of the expenditure in excess of a rate of 1s. 6d. in the £ should be met by the Government, as originally promised, and not be subject to the limitations since imposed; whether he is aware that the notification of a further reduction in the necessitous school areas Grant was not known to the local education authority until after the estimates for the coming year were passed and will, if persisted in, mean an addition of 2d. to the education rate for the borough; and whether he will revert to the original policy of the Government to pay three-fourths of the expenditure in excess of a rate of 1s. 6d. in the £?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The regulations for the necessitous Grants (Cd. 6224) provide in 1912–13, as in previous years, for a pro rata reduction in case the total Grants exceed the fixed sum voted by Parliament. Ample notice was thus given to the local authorities, but it is not possible to inform them of the precise reduction of their claims until the close of the year, when all the claims have been examined.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: In view of the fact that the number of areas has been

    2127
    increased, and that the Grant is consequently proportionately smaller, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to put an extra £80,000 in the Budget to meet the claims of all the areas?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The whole subject is at present under consideration.

    Undeveloped Land Duty.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many hereditaments are referred to in the objections and appeals against Undeveloped Land Duty already received by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not, I regret, in a position to furnish the information desired. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 9th April to the hon. Member for the Horncastle Division.
    Mr. LANE-FOXasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in cases where tenant right has been included in the total value of land which is liable to Undeveloped Land Duty under the Finance Act, he will give instructions that no duty shall be charged unless a full deduction has been allowed in respect of this tenant right from the total value before arriving at the site value upon which the duty is assessed?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member is doubtless aware that Undeveloped Land Duty assessed in respect of agricultural land is chargeable on the difference between the site value and the agricultural value, and that if in any case tenant right falls to be included in the former it would also be included in the latter value. Thus tenant right is automatically excluded from the net sum upon which duty would be chargeable, and the issue of any such instructions as are suggested by the hon. Member are unnecessary.

    Increment Duty.
    Sir HARRY SAMUELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a claim for £3 18s. was made for Increment Duty on Mr. F. F. Schweitzer, a man belonging to the working classes, who had purchased a leasehold house in 1908 for £270, and who had sold it two years later at a loss of £10; that Schweitzer's solicitors had a correspondence on the subject with the Board
    2128
    of Inland Revenue, the district valuer, and others, and resisted the claim; that on the solicitors insisting that no Increment Duty was payable, and on giving notice of appeal, the claim was completely withdrawn; and that the solicitors demanded payment of their costs in the matter, and the Board without comment paid these costs in full; and will he say under which Act of Parliament or authority were these costs paid, and out of which fund were they provided?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The facts are substantially as stated by the hon. Member. The claim was withdrawn on its being ascertained that a substituted site value had been allowed by the valuer under the provisions of Section 2 (3) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, the effect of the substitution being to cancel the liability to duty. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue considered that the case was one in which the costs incurred by Mr. Schweitzer might properly be paid by them, and the payment was accordingly made out of the sums voted by Parliament for Law Costs and Expenses of Appeals, which are included in the Inland Revenue Estimates under Sub-head D. D.
    Mr. NEWMANasked whether it is the practice and duty of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to set out to those who are assessed for purposes of Increment Value Duty any exemptions to which they are entitled, or whether the onus of setting out and claiming any such exemptions is held to rest on the owner of the hereditament?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is the practice of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to draw the attention of persons who are primâ facie liable to pay Increment Value Duty to the exemptions and allowances which may be claimed, at the time when these persons are informed of the site value proposed to be adopted on the occasion giving rise to the claim for duty. Exemptions and allowances which are obviously due are granted without claim.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Law Officers of the Crown have yet had time to look into the transactions in real estate of Mr. Lindsell, the Willesden road-sweeper, who purchased a house in Kensal Rise and sold the same at a loss of over £50: and whether he will state if the claim for £4 15s. 1d. Increment Value Duty, in respect of which legal proceedings have been

    2129
    threatened by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue against Mr. Lindsell, will be proceeded with?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The transactions referred to by the hon. Member are being further investigated, and I am unable at present to make any statement in the matter.

    Land Values Committee.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked when it is proposed to publish the Report of the Land Inquiry Committee?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I can add nothing to the reply which was given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in answer to the hon. Member for Enfield.
    Mr. BATHURST: Is it a fact that the Report is actually drawn up and about to be issued in two volumes?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member seems to know more about it than I do.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman contradict the statement to that effect that appeared in several newspapers?

    Income Tax.
    Mr. FELLasked what amount of Income Tax was paid into the Exchequer during the first seven days in April in each of the last five years?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The figures are as follows:—

    £

    1908

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,374,000

    1909

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,378,000

    1910

    …

    …

    …

    …

    146,000

    1911

    …

    …

    …

    …

    2,853,000

    1912

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,359,000

    1913

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,923,000

    A true comparison cannot be drawn from these figures without adjustment, as in the two first years the rate of Income Tax was 1s. in the £ only; in the following two years the circumstances were abnormal owing to the rejection of the 1909–10 Budget; and in 1912 Good Friday occurred on the 5th April, and resulted in the payment of some £550,000 of Income Tax being delayed till the following week.
    Mr. FELLasked why the Super-tax which was due during the last financial year was not collected during that year, and particularly why the collectors during
    2130
    the month of March made no efforts to get this tax paid?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: About £3,600,000 was received in Super-tax in the last financial year, which is approximately £900,000 in excess of the estimated yield for a full year. All possible progress was made in overtaking the arrears consequent upon the late passing of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, by which the tax was originally imposed. There was no relaxation in the month of March in the efforts of the Special Commissioners to get the Super-tax paid.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether the Government have contracted with any of the vendors of land in Wiltshire required for the purposes of their new flying ground not to charge him Increment Value Duty in consequence of the sale of such land to the Government at a profit of £20,000; and, if so, what is the reason for the exoneration of such vendor from a tax imposed by the Government upon other citizens?
    Mr. HAROLD BAKER: No such contract was made.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked what was the price per acre paid, respectively, by the War Office to Lord St. Aldwyn for his property at Netheravon and Fittleton, in the county of Wilts, and more recently by the same Government Department for their flying ground, to St. Katherine's Hospital, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and Mr. Maton for their respective estates in parishes adjoining the above; and whether the first-mentiond proprty included less hill land and more buildings than either of the other three estates?
    Mr. HAROLD BAKER: The prices per acre were approximately as follows:—

    £

    s.

    Lord St. Alwyn

    …

    12

    0

    Mr. Maton

    …

    26

    10

    Ecclesiastical Commissioners

    …

    13

    10

    St. Katherine's Hospital

    …

    15

    10

    The first-mentioned property included a greater proportion of buildings, including cottages, than the other estates. The proportion of arable to grass land were as follows: Lord St. Alwyn, 4,302 acres arable to 3,516 acres grass; Mr. Maton, rather

    2131
    more than half arable; Ecclesiastical Commissioners, mostly arable; St. Katherine's Hospital, about half arable.
    Mr. BATHURST: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that the statement made as regards Lord St. Aldwyn's land before the Marconi Committee to the effect that he was overpaid is not justified on those figures?
    Mr. BAKER: The hon. Member realises that the lands are different lands, and that there may be a great difference in price.
    Mr. KING: Do not these figures show that the Liberal Government is far more generous to the landlords than the Conservatives?

    SUFFRAGIST PRISONERS.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Home Secretary a question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether he can state the number of prisoners now being forcibly fed in consequence of indulging in a hunger strike; whether Hugh Franklin is among these, and, if so, has he received any special report on the state of his health; and what length of time this forcible feeding has been applied in each particular case?
    Mr. McKENNA: I only received the hon. Member's notice after three o'clock, and consequently I am not in a position to answer all his points. The number of prisoners now being forcibly fed is four. Mr. Hugh Franklin is among the number. I saw a report as to his health this morning and there was nothing in the report to suggest alarm. I cannot say how long the process of forcible feeding has been carried on in each case.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman arrange to facilitate the delivery of communications? This was handed in at the door to the messengers at one o'clock, and marked "Urgent."
    Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Member will be so good as to address questions to the Home Office I shall always receive them earlier.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a man died the other day in Stafford Asylum through being forcibly fed?
    Mr. McKENNA: I heard of the case this morning.

    PROSECUTION OF MR. G. LANSBURY.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Home Secretary a question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether Mr. George Lansbury has been summoned to give sureties and be bound to the peace under Section 1 of the Act of 34 Edward III.; if so, will he state the words of the Act under which the powers of binding to the peace are conferred upon the magistrates, and is he aware that the Act as it stands in the Statutes of the Realm is a mistranslation of the original French?
    Mr. McKENNA: I understand that the answer to the first question is in the affirmative. The variation between the Norman-French text and the ancient translations has been set out in all the authorised editions of the Statutes since 1810. In view of the numerous cases which have come before the Courts, it is hardly likely to give rise to any difficulty.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that this High Court of Parliament makes the laws of this country or that some transcriber in the fifteenth century is to make the law by which we are to be governed?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am not fully familiar with the facts of the case, but I understand that in one of the copies of this law the word "not" has been omitted, but it appears in others—the more reliable editions.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will refer to the original text of the Statute, which is to be found in the Statute Roll (Chancery), Number 1 roll, Membrane 10, which, after referring to those who have been
    "pilours et robeurs es parties de dela,"
    goes on
    "et de prendre de touz ceux qi sont de bone fame souffisant seurete de lour bon port, et les auters duement punir,"
    and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House an authorised copy of this original document in the Record Office, coupled with an authorised translation of the same?
    Mr. McKENNA: I will consider the point brought forward by my hon. Friend, but I could not without notice answer any question on the construction of my hon. Friend's early French.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether the Home Secretary has referred to the article which appeared in the "English Historical Review," of April, 1912, by two officials in the Record Office, making the case perfectly clear, and showing that the Act was only intended to refer to those persons who had come back from France after the long French war.
    Mr. McKENNA: Notwithstanding the authority of the officials of the Record Office, this is really a matter to be settled by decisions of the Courts.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the business for next week and arrangements as to the holidays?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On Monday we shall take the Third Reading of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Bill, and I hope we shall be able to conclude the remaining stages of the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-Health) Bill.
  On Tuesday, we take the Budget, as already announced.
  On Wednesday, the Committee stage on the Financial Resolution for the Soudan Loan; and the Prisoners (Temporary Dis-
  2154
  charge for Ill-Health) Bill, if not already passed, with other minor Government Bills.
  On Thursday, Supply—the Post Office Vote.
  On Thursday, 8th May, we shall take the Adjournment Motion for the Whitsuntide holiday, until the following Tuesday fortnight, 27th May.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move: "That the Proceedings on the Provisional Collection of Taxes Bill and on the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-Health) Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 275; Noes, 126.

  Division No. 51.]

  AYES.

  [3.55 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Acland, Francis Dyke

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

  Hinds, John

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Dawes, J. A.

  Hogge, James Myles

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Delany, William

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Alden, Percy

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Dillon, John

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Doris, William

  John, Edward Thomas

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Duffy, William J.

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

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Bughs)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

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

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Bentham, G. J.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Joyce, Michael

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Field, William

  Keating, Matthew

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Boland, John Plus

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Kelly, Edward

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  King, J.

  Brace, William

  Gill, A. H.

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

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Glanville, H. J.

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

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Leach, Charles

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Goldstone, Frank

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

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

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Lundon, Thomas

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

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

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Hackett, John

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk, Burghs)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  McGhee, Richard

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Hancock, J. G.

  Maclean, Donald

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

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

  Clough, William

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Clynes, John R.

  Hardle, J. Keir

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

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

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

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

  Cotton, William Francis

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hayward, Evan

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Martin, Joseph

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Crooks, William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Meagher, Michael

  Crumley, Patrick

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

  Middlebrook, William

  2155

  Millar, James Duncan

  Primrose, Hon. Nell James

  Sutton, John E.

  Molloy, Michael

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Radford, G. H.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Mooney, John J.

  Reddy, M.

  Thomas, James Henry

  Morgan, George Hay

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Morrell, Philip

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Morison, Hector

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Muldoon, John

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Munro, R.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Neilson, Francis

  Robinson, Sidney

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Wardle, George J.

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Waring, Walter

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Nuttall, Harry

  Rowlands, James

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Webb, H.

  O'Doherty, Philip

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

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  O'Dowd, John

  Scanlan, Thomas

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Wiles, Thomas

  O'Malley, William

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

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Sheehy, David

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  O'Shee, James John

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Shortt, Edward

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Wing, Thomas

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Wood, Rt Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Snowden, Philip

  Young, William (Perthshire, E.)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Pointer, Joseph

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

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

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Sutherland, John E.

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

  2156

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Fell, Arthur

  M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

  Astor, Waldorf

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

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

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

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

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Mount, William Arthur

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gardner, Ernest

  Newman, John R. P.

  Barnston, Harry

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Nicholsen, William G. (Petersfield)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Grant, J. A.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bird, Alfred

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

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Blair, Reginald

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Boyton, James

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Royds, Edmund

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Butcher, John George

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Campion, W. R.

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Cassel, Felix

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Stewart, Gershom

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Touche, George Alexander

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Croft, Henry Page

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

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

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  2157

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Rupert Guinness and Mr. Denniss.

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

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Motion made, and Question put, "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
  2158
  (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
  The House divided: Ayes, 275; Noes, 128.

  Division No. 52.]

  AYES.

  [4.5 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Lundon, Thomas

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Field, William

  Lynch, A. A.

  Alden, Percy

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Fitzgibbon, John

  McGhee, Richard

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Ginnell, Laurence

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Gladstone, W. G. C

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Barnes, George N.

  Glanville, H. J.

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

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Barton, William

  Goldstone, Frank

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Martin, Joseph

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

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

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

  Meagher, Michael

  Bentham, G. J.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Hackett, John

  Middlebrook, William

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Boland, John Pius

  Hancock, J. G.

  Molloy, Michael

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Brace, William

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Mooney, John J.

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

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

  Morgan, George Hay

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morrell, Philip

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Havelock-Alian, Sir Henry

  Morison, Hector

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hayward, Evan

  Muldoon, John

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hazleton, Richard

  Munro, R.

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

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Neilson, Francis

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

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

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Hinds, John

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hogge, James Myles

  Nuttall, Harry

  Clough, William

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Clynes, John R.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  O'Dowd, John

  Cotton, William Francis

  John, Edward Thomas

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

  Cowan, W. H.

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

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Malley, William

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Crooks, William

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  O'Shee, James John

  Crumley, Patrick

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

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

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Davles, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Joyce, Michael

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Dawes, J. A.

  Keating, Matthew

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Delany, William

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Pointer, Joseph

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Kelly, Edward

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Dillon, John

  Kilbride, Denis

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

  Donelan, Captain A.

  King, J.

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Doris, William

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

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Duffy, William J.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Radford, G. H.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

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

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Leach, Charles

  Reddy, M.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  2159

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Wardle, George J.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Waring, Walter

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Snowden, Philip

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Roberston, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Webb, H.

  Robinson, Sidney

  Sutherland, John E.

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Sutton, John E.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Rowlands, James

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Tennant, Harold John

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Thomas, James Henry

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Wing, Thomas

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Young, W. (Perthshire, East)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

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

  Wadsworth, J.

  Sheehy, David

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

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

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Shortt, Edward

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  2160

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fell, Arthur

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

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

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Mount, William Arthur

  Astor, Waldorf

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Newman, John R. P.

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gardner, Ernest

  Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

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

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Barnston, Harry

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Grant, J. A.

  Royds, Edmund

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

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

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

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

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bigland, Alfred

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Bird, Alfred

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Blair, Reginald

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Scott, Sir S. (Marybone, W.)

  Boyton, James

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Stewart, Gershom

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Butcher, John George

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Campion, W. R.

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Cassel, Felix

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Touche, George Alexander

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

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

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

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

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

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

  Croft, H. P.

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

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

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

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

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

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Kerr-Smiley and Mr. Hill-Wood.

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  BILLS PRESENTED.
    POLICE ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL.
    "To amend the Police Acts, 1839 to 1909, and to make more secure provision for incapacitated constables and for the widows, children, and other dependents of constables." Presented by Mr. WILES; supported by Sir Charles Schwann, Sir James Fortescue Flannery, Sir William Priestley, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. Dickinson, and Sir Robert Price; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 110.]
    EDUCATION BILL.
    "To make further provision with regard to Education in England and Wales." Presented by Mr. WINFREY; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 3rd June, and to be printed. [Bill 111.]
    COMPANIES (CONSOLIDATION) ACT (1908) AMENDMENT BILL.
    "To amend the provisions of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, with respect to private companies." Presented by Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 112.]
    HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS BILL.
    "To regulate the conditions of employment of persons in Hotels and Restaurants." Presented by Mr. PARKER; supported by Mr. Pointer, Mr. Chancellor, Mr. Alden, Mr. William Thorne, and Mr. Primrose; to be read a second time upon Monday, 5th May, and to be printed. [Bill 113.]

  PROVISIONAL COLLECTION OF TAXES BILL.
  As amended, Considered.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I should like to ask, Sir, whether in your opinion this is a Money Bill within the terms of Section 1 of the Parliament Act?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Subject to any changes which may occur in the Bill during the Report stage, in my opinion this is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act.

  PROVISIONAL COLLECTION OF TAXES BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Application of Act.)
    This Act shall apply only to duties of Customs and Excise and to Income Tax.
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    This proposal is really in the nature of a drafting Amendment. When the Resolutions were under discussion the Chancellor of the Exchequer told me that he would limit the Bill to duties of Customs and Excise and Income Tax. He has carried that out, but he has put the provision, as I think, in the wrong place, or in not so favourable a place as it ought to be. I understand that the Attorney-General will accept the Clause.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

    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. HUME-WILLIAMS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    We on this side think that this Clause embodies a very important subject, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not think the matter less important because it can be briefly stated. Let me state briefly what the circumstances are under which this Bill has been introduced, and therefore what are the reasons why I suggest it should be limited in duration to a period of eighteen months. I think it is common ground that this Bill makes a new and very important departure in the law of the land and in the practice of this House. On the one hand, the Government are met with the difficulty that the system which has hitherto obtained of collecting taxes under a mere Resolution of a Committee of this House in anticipation of legislation has been declared to be illegal, and they apparently think that the best thing they can do is to introduce this Bill and for the first time in our history to give statutory effect to a mere Resolution of a Committee of this House. Many of us regard this system with great apprehension. The discussions in this House on such a Resolution must necessarily be brief. The object for which the Resolution is introduced is that it may go through quickly, and we think that the amount of discussion that can be given to what in the future will be a law authorising taxation is entirely inadequate to the importance of the subject. We fear that the Committee of Ways and Means in this House may become a mere automatic machine for registering and legalising schemes of Treasury officials. We fear also any scheme which shall give to the Government of the day, from whichever side it may be drawn, additional powers to use its party majority in the direction of minimising discussion and removing from the House of Commons its real control over the finances of the country. I believe that these fears are shared by a considerable number of Members on the other side of the House.
    Under these circumstances, what is the obvious course to pursue? The obvious course was and is to appoint a Select

    2163
    Committee recruited from those who have considerable experience of Parliamentary procedure and finance, and to get from them a suggestion as to the best means, on the one hand, of safeguarding our rights and through us the rights of the taxpayer, and, on the other hand, of facilitating for the Treasury the collection of the taxes of the country without fear of evasion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has consented to the appointment of such a Select Committee. Personally, I think it ought to have been appointed a long time ago. In my opinion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been well advised if, as soon as the decision was given in the action brought by Mr. Bowles, when he must have foreseen the difficulties that would arise, he had at once, or within a reasonable time, appointed a Select Committee to suggest the proper course to pursue in order to obviate the difficulties in which that decision would place the Government. However, better late than never; at last we are to have the Committee. The question which really comes before the House is whether the Report of this Select Committee is to be given a reasonable chance of being incorporated in legislation. The Committee will have many schemes to consider. I have no doubt that even among the treasures of the official mind, lurking behind the "modern eye," there are various schemes which will be brought before the Select Committee for consideration. There is the procedure of many foreign countries to be investigated. Information is to be derived from the experience of the procedure in other Parliaments. There are those who think that some scheme by which, if the Standing Orders of this House were altered, the Resolutions which precede the Finance Act could be done away with, the Budget could be introduced earlier in the year, and that part of it which deals with Customs and Excise could become immediately operative, and would be preferable to the scheme of a statutory Resolution incorporated in this Bill. Many schemes will have to be considered by the Select Committee. That being so, if the Committee is to do any good, and is to devise, as I hope it will, a workable scheme, just to all, what is the common sense of passing a permanent Bill first and then asking from the Select Committee a Report as to what that Bill should contain?
    Those who have experience of this House know what the fate of a Report
    2164
    under these circumstances is likely to be. The tragedy of "Love's Labour Lost" is nothing compared to the pathetic spectacle of gentlemen of eminence passing their valuable time in devising a Report which we know and they know, as soon as it appears, will receive decent permanent interment in the Blue Books of this House, which the youngest Member does not trouble to read after his first Session in Parliament. If that is so, and I think the statement is not exaggerated, surely common sense dictates that we should limit the duration of the Bill to a period which will give proper time for the completed scheme to come from the experts whom you yourselves are going to appoint. To make the Bill permanent will discourage those who are going to inquire. Then if you desire to act on the Report when it is presented, you will have to find time for it. It may come at a time when circumstances are altered. What Chancellor of the Exchequer, from this party or that, if he has this measure ready to his hand, will be able to resist the temptation to put it into operation without troubling himself about the Report of an expert Committee appointed eighteen months before? This is the net result. If your Committee of experts reports in accordance with the scheme of this Bill, if after due examination it comes to the conclusion that this scheme is the best, the measure can be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, and it will go on automatically. If, on the other hand, as we on this side ardently hope, a new and better scheme is devised, this Bill will cease to be operative in eighteen months' time, and the new scheme can be incorporated in a perfect Bill, at which I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aiming as we are. Such a Bill could be presented, and, in the ordinary course, one is entitled to hope it would go through practically without opposition. Take this as a test—I think this is a legitimate observation—of the real intention of the Government, not to get themselves out of a temporary difficulty, but to secure a perfect scheme which shall remain in operation for all future time. If they really desire that, there is no possible reason why they should not accept a Clause limiting the duration of a measure which they admit is to deal with a temporary emergency only. If they desire that the Report of the Committee should be a farce, and that this new and startling procedure should be utilised for all time

    2165
    by all parties, of course there is no object in appointing the Select Committee and still less in limiting the duration of the Bill. I hope that these arguments will appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It seems to me that a time limit is the legitimate corollary of that to which he has already consented. I think the whole House is grateful to the Government for having recognised that an expert inquiry into this difficult question is required, and this is a way of making the work of that Committee effective.
    Mr. A. S. WILSON: I beg to second the Motion.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): This Clause was moved in identical terms on the Committee stage. The Government, after some discussion, promised to appoint a Select Committee to consider the best method of meeting the difficulties with which this Bill is intended to deal, and upon that promise the hon. and learned Member, although he distinctly stated that he preferred both to appoint the Committee and to limit the duration of the Bill, stated that half a loaf was better than no bread, and withdrew the Clause.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer will remember that I said at the time that I was no party to the bargain, and that I knew nothing of it.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is so, but I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that I am within my rights in reminding him of the circumstances under which similar Clauses were withdrawn on Tuesday last. The hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that we should not merely appoint a Select Committee, but should also limit the duration of the Bill, and that the Government should undertake at once to give statutory effect to the Report of the Committee. That would be rather a rash pledge for any Government to give. Whatever Government happens to be in power eighteen months since would be bound to legislate at the time, and there might be reason why they should put it off for the time being. If the hon. and learned Gentleman has watched the whole proceedings carefully he will have found that this Bill has been very considerably limited since its first introduction into this House—at least since it was first outlined to the House; since the summary of the Bill and its pro-
    2166
    visions were outlined. Since then there have been Clauses introduced which will have the effect of limiting its operations very considerably indeed. As a matter of fact, the Bill does not represent 50 per cent. of the accommodation and facility which the old practice represented. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire knows that very well.
    The Amendment of the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Hugh Cecil), which the Government accepted, involves the statutory guarantee that the Budget will be debated during the course of the live part of the Session. Although no doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman will say that this Government have abused the facilities which they had under the old practice, still if he looks at the precedents he will find that many Governments have put off to the end of the Session the discussions on the Committee and Report stages of Resolutions. The Noble Lord will find possibly several cases of the Report, stages of Finance Bills which were put off till the end of July. I have no doubt there was some temporary justification for it. But that will be impossible while you have this statutory guarantee. It cannot be done. There are other limitations which have been introduced into the Bill. There is the limitation which confines it to Customs and Excise and the Income Tax. There are two or three other limitations, including the very serious one in regard to the new taxes. I would suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that when the Select Committee reports the Report may not be in favour of further limiting the Bill, but in favour of extending the powers. I would not mind predicting that the point of view of that Committee will possibly be that of old Members of this House and of those who studied the procedure on this matter, and that the Report will be in favour of widening and extending the powers. Therefore it will be rather in the interests of the Government of the day than those who are criticising the Bill from the point of view of excessive powers. The hon. and learned Gentleman has presented his case, and has presented it very clearly and fairly—as he always does—and I hope, having done so, he will now be able to see his way to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I extremely regret the tone of the reply which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given…
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Oh!
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: Because it seems obvious to me that he contemplates not only this Bill, but still larger Bills in this direction as part of the permanent machinery of the Government and of the Executive.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGEindicated dissent.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he was predicting just now that the result of any examination by any Select Committee would be to give to future Chancellors of the Exchequer even more powers. He will understand, then, why I regret it is so. I have taken some exception to the tone of his speech…
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Oh!
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: Well, then, if the right hon. Gentleman will have it so, let me say I regret the outlook of the right hon. gentleman.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Hear, hear.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: That outlook is a very different outlook to that which we hoped he was going to indulge in to-day. We have observed during the progress of this Bill that the right hon. Gentleman has made many concessions to those who have been criticising his proposals. Amongst those concessions—I was not able to continue in the House the other evening—there was the right hon. Gentleman's consent to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the whole procedure attaching to this Resolution and this Bill. I was very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having promised to set up that Committee. I was one of those whom the right hon. Gentleman beneath me consulted in respect to a Select Committee in the early days, when we were debating the Resolution on which this Bill is founded, and I was strongly in favour of such a Committee being set up. If we are to have that Committee, I think that Committee, having reported, there ought to be on the part of the Government some real desire to legislate on the lines of the Report, unless they strongly disagree upon it. I cannot help thinking as it is that it is this Government, after all, that has occasioned the difficulty. By challenging action in another place they have really created this difficulty, and therefore it is this Government which ought to deal with the difficulty and extricate this House and the country from the position in which they find themselves.
    2168
    From the speech of the right hon. Gentleman it seems perfectly patent when he gets these powers put into his hands, he is not likely to pay any attention to any Report of any Select Committee during, at any rate, the existence of this Parliament. Obviously this Parliament cannot last more than another two and a half years, even if it lasts its full time, and unless there is some limiting time put into the powers that are given to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by this Bill, I am quite certain that the Chancellor will not find time to indulge in any legislation which will be found recommended in the Report of the Select Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will find himself in the possession of very large powers which he will fully enjoy. He will not be at all anxious to part with them for any lesser powers such as I think will be recommended by the Select Committee. I am quite aware that Chancellors of the Exchequer will be glad of the powers which are given by this Bill.
    For my own part I have been more anxious for the rights of the House, the rights of the subject, and the rights of the taxed subject than for the rights of the Treasury and the rights of Chancellors of the Exchequer. I think it is high time that there were more in this House who were ready to take the side of the House and the side of the subject against the side of the Treasury and the side of the Executive, even although they themselves may have had some experience on the Treasury side and may in every way possible be anxious to promote the getting in of our revenue in the proper and orthodox way. I regret that the Government do not see their way to put any Clause into this Bill making it a temporary Bill. If they have no intention of making it a temporary Bill that is almost conclusive that they are hoping to make this part of the permanent machinery of the Executive and of the practice of the Treasury. I have always said that this is a most dangerous power to give to any Chancellor of the Exchequer or to any Treasury. I fully admit that these powers have been very much limited, and particularly limited by the Amendment of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University. His Amendment seems to me a very valuable Amendment. Yet these powers, limited as they are, are enormous. I can never fail to remember, when I am speaking on this Bill, the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for

    2169
    East Worcestershire, in which he himself admitted that even under the limited powers of the Bill it might be perfectly possible, by a single Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means, to raise the Income Tax from 1s. 2d. to 15s. in the £—this by one single Vote. Now, however, the Amendment of the Noble Lord has been put in, of course such a Resolution would have to be debated by the whole House within ten days; and within twenty days would have to find itself in a Finance Act. At the same time I have a great dislike to, and a great distrust of, giving such enormous powers to any Government, even for ten days.
    When taxation is once on it is very difficult to take off. The expenditure based on that taxation begins almost at once, and the arguments proposed against it are not always advanced at the right time or in the right place: the tax becomes part of the taxation of the country, and it is very difficult, after it has been actually passed by Committee of this House, to oppose it; for a successful opposition would probably lead to the overthrow of the Government of the day. The Government in defence would bring up all their forces. The Members might have very much disliked the Resolution when they first heard it; but the Government would subsequently say to their supporters, "You must support us; we will make this a matter of confidence, and if you oppose us you will help to turn the Government out at a critical time." So the Government are able to use this unfair power in respect to taxation, and the whole subject is not debated in that free way in which it would be debated under the present system. I cannot help thinking that there should be some limit, and I shall strongly support the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend that the operation of this Bill should be limited to eighteen months. That period would give the present Government time to legislate and extricate themselves from the difficulty in which they have landed this House of Commons. I think we ought to take every opportunity of registering our opinion that this Bill and the legislation founded upon a Resolution of Committee of Ways and Means is not legislation that ought to be passed as the permanent machinery of this country.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: This Amendment is put forward not in the least degree in a spirit of complaint against the Government or the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We
    2170
    quite recognise the concession made on Tuesday evening, and the spirit in which it was made. This Amendment is merely put forward with a desire to improve the Bill. I confess, in spite of the arguments that were used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it still seems to me that it would be an improvement. The right hon. Gentleman says, "You are quite as likely to have arrangements altered for the worse from your point of view as for the better; on the other hand, restrictions of this kind might be inconvenient and put forward at an awkward moment when it might be difficult to give the necessary time for the passing of the Resolution." In respect to the last matter no such difficulty could arise, for it would be always possible to meet it. No one could reasonably complain of its being put into one year in order to relieve Parliament of any congestion of business that it was suffering from at that time. So far as the other argument goes, I recognise fully that, if it was the danger the Chancellor of the Exchequer speaks of, nothing we do on this occasion can make that danger either less or greater. It is quite true that once having made this great breach in the constitutional security of the subject it is only too likely that it will be enlarged. Nothing is easier than to enlarge it. You do not require a new Bill. You can do it by a Clause in the Budget Bill, and you can sweep away any of those safeguards the Chancellor of the Exchequer speaks of. And I think it is very likely that a Clause would be introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcester (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) including new taxes. He has not concealed from the House that he has a very strong opinion that the Bill is almost useless unless it includes new taxes. When we have a majority in this House, and he is the Minister in charge of the finances of the country, he would lose no time in proposing such an addition to this Bill, the necessity of which he has always urged. The Government know they cannot restrain a future Chancellor of the Exchequer. As things are, there is no doubt in any future Budget it could be extended to any degree by any Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if it suited the purposes of the Treasury, whether presided over by a Unionist or a Liberal, to enlarge this Bill, this Bill will be enlarged. And the ineffectiveness of our resistance, not in argument, in which I think our resistance has been very effective, but the ineffec-

    2171
    tiveness of our resistance to having this thing done, shows how helpless those are who seek to put any limit upon the growing authority of the Executive Government. It is merely a question of how much the Treasury likes to ask for; they will get it. I think the main value of making the Bill temporary is the moral effect. By making it temporary we recognise that we are doing something which is a very serious change. We pay, at any rate, that debt of hypocrisy, which, as we know, is the tribute that vice pays to virtue, and we maintain, at any rate, the externals of the Constitution, and therefore, if there is any reaction of opinion which really thinks that the Executive Government has more power than they ought to have and that Parliament has less power than it ought to have, we are ear-marking this as one of the things on which reform should be made.
    There are many alternatives by which the convenience of the public might be served besides this breach in the Constitution. You might do it by getting importers to give security where a Resolution was passed, or you might allow the rapid passing of a temporary Act of Parliament which would be infinitely less harmful to a Constitutional procedure if you are to preserve the procedure resembling that which is sanctioned by tradition in this country, and you might allow a Bill to pass through all its stages in a short time if you have to deal with an emergency. I mention this to show that there are other alternatives. Therefore, if a Select Committee considered it thoroughly, it might well be that while they might report favourably as to the convenience of this particular Bill, they might also report amendments in our view desirable and they might also report that there are alternative schemes. Then you might have a reaction of opinion and if Parliament should think it was desirable to put a check upon the extraordinary power of the Executive Government, then you would have this scheme urged and this Bill ear-marked. On these grounds I think it would be better to make it a temporary Bill. We ought to maintain the forms of great deference to the ancient Constitution and show upon the Act of Parliament that we are conscious we are doing a thing which, even though it be necessary, is a matter of regret to those who wish to preserve our ancient constitutional procedure.
    Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I think it is a matter of great importance, having regard to the enormous change that this Bill would undoubtedly introduce, that it should be only of a temporary character. I go further than the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University. I think it would have more than a moral effect and I think it would have a great protective effect as regards the maintenance of the true spirit of our Constitution in the future. Take the case of the Army Act. Why is that temporary and renewable from year to year? It is that this House of Commons—not the Government—should maintain the control which would enable it to enforce whatever it thinks right as to public policy by the Army Act being passed only from year to year. It might be thought at the present day that the time has passed when it is necessary to keep these old safeguards. According to my view, there never was a time when it was more important to keep these old safeguards than at the present moment. It is just the same with regard to the Budget itself, because, according to constitutional practice, we only grant Supplies for one year. Why is that done? In order that this House may have the control, which it ought to have, in directing the public policy of this country, and that theory is the right one, because as long as we retain the power of the Purse, as it was known in the old days, nothing can be done contrary to our view of public policy, because in such circumstances we would not vote the necessary Supplies.
    Let me consider the present position of this constitutional question. It is no longer the House of Commons on the one side and the Executive in the form of the King on the other. It is the House of Commons struggling—and I want to call the attention of hon. Gentlemen to this—to maintain its effective and independent control against the Executive which gets its power from the majority of the House itself. That is the great difficulty at the present day. Can we ever effectively enforce the rights of the House as against the views of the Government supported by a particular majority? In old days, when these safeguards were formed, extreme party spirit was not the dominant factor, and the House of Commons view was that we were here as the representatives of the people in order to preserve control of taxation and in order to see that the rights of those whom we represented were not unduly interfered with. I have

    2173
    been looking to see if I could find a precedent for the action of the Government in the present Bill which gives statutory effect to a Resolution, and I have looked through the constitutional law books, and I can only find one precedent anything like the present, and that only endured for a very short time, and was, in fact, temporary. That was in the time of Henry VIII. Henry VIII. was not a very squeamish monarch as regards constitutional matters, but this was an Act passed in his day and it was repealed immediately afterwards. It was in these words:—
    "The King for the time being, with the advice of his Council, or the most part of them, may set forth proclamations which shall be deemed as if they were made by Act of Parliament."
    What are we doing now? We are doing exactly the same if we substitute the words "Resolution of the House of Commons" for what were called "Proclamations" by one of the most tyrannous monarchs that ever sat upon the throne of this country. That is the only precedent I can find for putting on one side the Crown and constitutional rule, because although the House of Commons or Parliament have the sovereign power, they can only express that sovereignty in a constitutional method named in an Act of Parliament which has gone through the form, at any rate, of being agreed to by the Second Chamber, and also by the King, who represents the third element in our Constitution. In fact, this proposal as it stands is a direct attack on the prerogative of the King, because you are giving statutory effect to a Resolution in which he takes no part at all. It is also, of course, a direct attack upon the rights of the Second Chamber, even a Second Chamber in its mutilated form as it exists at the present time, because you are overruling the Parliament Act. I thought the Parliament Act gave sufficient powers to this House, and although I am very much opposed to the idea of the Parliament Act, you are now overruling that Act. It is like the "Rake's Progress," once you give too much power, you are always seeking to make it worse, you are always seeking to make it more tyrannous against the principles of freedom and liberty. What is the difference between the proposal of Henry VIII. and what you are now doing? Let me put into my own language what was done in giving the power of an Act of Parliament to the proclamation of Henry VIII. It is "this House, for the time being, with the assent
    2174
    of the majority of Members, may pass a Resolution which will be taken to have statutory effect." That is paraphrasing the brutal Act passed giving these powers to Henry VIII., and applying it to modern times. I have protested against this and shall do so on every occasion, and if you insist on doing anything of the kind, surely you ought to put in some such limitation as is suggested by the Amendment now before the House! I do not say for a moment that any limitation would reconcile me to the upsetting of the whole basic fabric of our freedom and liberty in this House and country which is involved in making a mere Resolution of any body, whether the House of Commons or any other body, to have statutory effect as regards the imposition of new taxes upon the subject. When we come to consider the point which we constantly deplore, but which we do not go to the root or reason of, namely, why it is that we are losing our popularity and our hold upon the affections of the people of the country, of course the answer is because we are sacrificing and giving up the very duties that won us the affections of the people and made us popular in past history. It is as the sole guardian of the freedom of the people of this country that the House of Commons won its position, and to the extent to which it gives up that position it loses its hold upon the affections of the people. I feel most strongly the retrograde doctrines which are embodied in this Bill. Of course I must not go into that in any detail at the present moment, but at least let us do this: Let us put it in a temporary form in order to emphasise the fact that we are dealing with a temporary difficulty owing to the dilatory action of the present Government in introducing a particular Budget. Is that any reason for sacrificing the basic fabric of the right of this House and the liberties of the subject? I deny that. I say there is no difficulty whatever in dealing with what has been suggested as regards the claims of the Treasury without bringing forward a Bill of this kind, which ought never to have been initiated and the principle of which ought never to have been admitted, having regard to the spirit of the House of Commons. I do not care whether Liberals or Unionists sit upon the Front Bench. I draw no distinction between one side or the other. It is always the interest of the Executive of the party in power to run down the rights and liberties of this House, and they have done it to such an extent by the gag and the guillotine that

    2175
    we have only got a mere fragment of our old rights in existence at the present moment. It is because I look upon the House of Commons as the sole and real guardian of right government in this country, and because I regard the House of Commons with a deep affection, and believe historically that it stands in a unique position, that I hope this temporary Amendment may be introduced in order to emphasise the fact that we are only sacrificing our liberties and our rights for a temporary difficulty brought about by exceptional conditions.
    Mr. CASSEL: I feel somewhat in a difficulty on this Amendment because I moved a similar Amendment during the Committee stage, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised to appoint a Select Committee I was beguiled into withdrawing my Amendment, and therefore in any Division on this Amendment I should not feel at liberty to vote for it. I would like to know, however, whether the

    Division No. 53.]

    AYES.

    [5.3 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Newman, John R. P.

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Ashley. W. W.

    Forster, Henry William

    Perkins, Walter

    Astor, Waldorf

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesail)

    Baird, J. L.

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Rutherford, John (Darwen)

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

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Barnston, Harry

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

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

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

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Snowden, Philip

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Bird, A.

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Blair, Reginald

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Stewart, Gershom

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Butcher, J. G.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hunt, Rowland

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

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hunter, Sir C. R.

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

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

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Jones, Leif Straiten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Touche, George Alexander

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

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Kerry, Earl of

    Valentia, Viscount

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

    Weigall, Captain A. G.

    Craig, E. (Ches., Crewe)

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

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

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Croft, H. P.

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

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

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

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

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

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

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Duffy, William J.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Hume-William and Major Willoughby.

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Mount, William Arthur

    Fell, Arthur

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Arnold, Sydney

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Government are going to appoint this Select Committee at once, because it is important that it should be appointed at the earliest moment. My desire in asking for the appointment of a Select Committee was not what the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to think. It was to ascertain whether there were not alternatives which would enable us to deal with the situation without violating the Constitution in the way which has been so eloquently dealt with by my hon. Friend. What convinces me that there must be such alternatives that no country in the world has yet been cited except the Isle of Man, which has legislation similar to this. On these grounds I hope we shall be told, before the discussion on this Amendment concludes, when the Government are going to appoint this Select Committee.
    Question put, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 118; Noes, 258.

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Malley, William

    Barnes, G. N.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Barton, w.

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Shee, James John

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

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

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

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

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Black, Arthur W.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Boland, John Pius

    Hinds, John

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hogge, James Myles

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, North)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Pointer, Joseph

    Brace, William

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Brady, P. J.

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

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

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Radford, G. H.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

    Reddy, M.

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

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Jones, H. Hayden (Merioneth)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

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

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

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

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Joyce, Michael

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Keating, Matthew

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Robertson, Sir G. S. (Bradford)

    Clough, William

    Kelly, Edward

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Clynes, John R.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Robinson, Sidney

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Roch, Walter F.

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    King, J.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Rowlands, James

    Cotton, William Francis

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Cowan, W. H.

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

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Leach, Charles

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Lewis, John Herbert

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

    Crooks, William

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

    Davies, E. William (Elfion)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

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

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

    Lynch, A. A.

    Sheehy, David

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Delany, William

    McGhee, Richard

    Shortt, Edward

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Maclean, Donald

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Dickinson, W. H.

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

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

    Dillon, John

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Donelan, Captain A

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Doris, W.

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Sutton, John E.

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Meagher, Michael

    Tennant, Harold John

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Thomas, J. H.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Millar, James Duncan

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Field, William

    Molloy, M.

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Gill, A. H.

    Mooney, J. J.

    Wadsworth, J.

    Ginnell, L.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Morrell, Philip

    Wardle, George J.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Morison, Hector

    Waring, Walter

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Goldstone, Frank

    Muldoon, John

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Munro, R.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Webb, H.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Needham, Christopher T.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

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

    Neilson, Francis

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Gulland, John William

    Nicholson, Sir C. N. (Doncaster)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Hackett, J.

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Hancock, John George

    Nuttall, Harry

    Winfrey, Richard

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wing, Thomas

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

    Hardle, J. Keir

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Dowd, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

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

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

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to take Security in Lieu of Taxes.)
    "The Treasury may accept, in lieu of any taxes due to be collected under this Act, deposit or security to such amount as the Treasury may deem sufficient, having regard to the total amount of the duties to be collected under the authority of a Resolution or of the Bill founded on the said Resolution."
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I beg to move, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
    This new Clause is intended to give the Treasury additional powers, and it is not intended to rule out those already conferred. As the House will see, its real effect is to give the Treasury power to take security from the unfortunate taxpayer instead of mulcting him at once of taxes which are not legally due. It may rather appear as if legislation on this subject in the House and the Committee were of a wonderland variety, because this is now submitted as an addition, just as the Select Committee, which might have preceded the passing of this legislation, is now to be set up as a tribunal afterwards. I submit that it is very advisable as an addition, quite apart from the fact that to give the Treasury power, if they wish it, to take security from the possible taxpayer instead of making him absolutely pay the duty in the first instance is a good alternative. It does affect the whole position, the question of which has been argued at very great length before the House and the Committee, and this Clause does permit of the revenue of the year being safeguarded without the necessity of actually exacting taxation before the Finance Act of the year is passed. That is to say it permits of a better alternative if the Treasury find it possible to apply it. One objection which may be urged against it is that, whereas it is peculiarly applicable to Customs and Inland Revenue and duties on consumption, it is not so applicable to the Income Tax. All I would submit is that so far as this alternative of taking security from traders, instead of making them pay the tax in the first instance, is not applicable to Income Tax, the objection could quite easily be met in various ways. It could quite easily be met by an extension of the Income Tax year, quite apart from an alteration of the date of the beginning of the year. When it comes to the Customs and Inland Revenue, then I submit that it forms an infinitely prefer-
    2180
    able alternative which the Treasury should have it in their power to exercise in addition to those they are at present taking under the Act. Unless they have powers of this kind, how will the Treasury or the Inland Revenue deal with the case of new duties? We have had new duties excepted from the operation of the Bill. Whatever risk there was to the revenue in regard to other taxes has now been stopped, but whatever risk has existed with regard to new duties will still continue to exist, and that in a fuller measure than ever before.
    The very fact that the House passes legislation in order to prevent a leakage of revenue in regard to old duties, or the variation of old duties, practically constitutes an inducement to the trader to object to the paying of taxes on the strength of a Resolution in the case of new Customs Duties. Consequently, the very fact that you have legislation with regard to the variation of old duties makes it all the more necessary to safeguard the revenue with regard to new duties. The alternative which I suggest meets the difficulty without raising the objections. You are not met with the difficulty of collecting taxation without an Act of Parliament in the case of the new duties. All that you do is to safeguard the revenue by taking security from traders that those duties will be paid as soon as the provision comes into force as an Act of Parliament. Therefore, the exclusion from the Act of new Customs Duties makes additional powers of this kind all the more desirable. It may be objected that it will be difficult to work such an alternative system. But, when all is said and done, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and in that financial year of difficulties 1909–10 when the Finance Act was delayed till 1910, the very procedure which I suggest was for the time being adopted by the Commissioners of Customs and Inland Revenue with perfect success. For a considerable period of that year, although they had not got legislative power, the Commissioners of Customs, I believe, did take security from traders in respect of goods that were dutiable under the Resolution. They found it to be a good and reasonable way of protecting the revenue. When the Budget of that year was rejected in December the Commissioners of Customs had to give notice that from the date of the notice the taxes would cease to be in force, and from that time they found they

    2181
    had very great difficulty indeed in collecting their revenue. But, if anyone will take the trouble to read the Report of the Commissioners of Customs for that year, they will find that in the end they were able to collect the whole of the revenue without any deficiency outstanding whatsoever. I believe there was considerable difficulty with regard to a certain amount of revenue which had to be collected in Ireland. I think I am right in stating that the collection in Scotland proceeded with due dispatch. Reluctant as persons were to pay the money, yet the naturally good financial character of the Kingdom enabled the Commissioners of Customs to get their revenue in properly.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: It was the same in Ireland.
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. and learned Member says that it was the same in Ireland. I fancy it was in the end, but they did not pay perhaps quite with the same willingness or dispatch.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: There was only one Belfast man who objected.
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: Whether he objected or not, the money in the end was got in by this means. It would not under any other means have been equally easy to get in the money, and I submit to the Government that unless they have got quite convincing reasons to the contrary it would be very wise for the Treasury to have additional powers of this kind. The objections which have been brought against the rest of the Bill do not apply to them. They do stop a leakage which even now exists, and which may exist with regard to new Customs Duties, and as far as the best advice which a private Member can get goes, they give a perfectly good and desirable alternative to the other methods which otherwise the Treasury may be obliged to employ under the powers given them by the Act. We should be glad on a point of this kind to have some answer dealing with the actual merits of the case. I admit gladly that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has met us very fairly in many cases, but the Government have not met the objections that have been urged on this side of the House with regard to some points, and practically no reason has been vouchsafed to us whatsoever. A great deal of advice has been taken in this matter and the Clause is submitted as a
    2182
    real working alternative which might be useful to the Treasury. I therefore think the House would do well to accept it, and I hope, if the Government find it impossible to do so, that we shall be furnished in some detail with the reasons which make it imperative for them to refuse.
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to second the Motion.
    The SECRETARY OF STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): As I am not in a position to accept the hon. Member's Amendment, I speak with some anxiety lest he should say that I have been unable to supply him with adequate reasons for declining to do so. I will do my best to explain why it is regarded as undesirable to give this alternative power to the Treasury. He has fairly stated that this power does not in the least bit limit the existing power of the Treasury under the Bill. It increases the power of the Treasury, because it gives two alternative methods of proceeding against the person whom the hon. Member describes as "the unfortunate taxpayer." I do not say that it would be inconvenient—it might be convenient—to the Treasury to have this additional power, but, in asking for such exceptional powers as we do ask for under this Bill, we ought carefully to safeguard the interests of the unfortunate taxpayer. Above all things the trader wants certainty. He wants to know that in the ordinary exercise of his business the routine to which he is accustomed in his dealings with Government offices will be continued. He has throughout his business experience paid his Customs Duties when taking his goods out of bond. He has not been accustomed alternatively to giving security, and he certainly would not desire that the Treasury should ever exercise a discretion and allow one trader to take out his goods on giving security whilst insisting upon another trader, whose security the Treasury might not think equally good, paying the full amount of the taxes. The taxpayer wants every-trader to be treated alike, and he wants to know definitely and certainly what is the treatment which he is going to receive. This Amendment does not touch what has been called the "vital defect of the Bill." The Bill authorises the Government to exercise powers over the citizen under a Resolution instead of under an Act of Parliament. The new Clause of the hon. Member has precisely the same vice.

    2183
    The Treasury is allowed to interfere to exact security from the trader under a Resolution.
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: The right hon. Gentleman has really misstated the position. The Amendment, if he himself had not taken exception to it, would have been put forward as an alternative, and his present argument, therefore, is hardly fair. With regard to the other points, it does not exact taxation. It avoids that objection in taking security, instead of exacting taxation.
    Mr. McKENNA: I corrected that and said that it exacts security. I quite admit that, excepting in one small particular, the hon. Member is strictly accurate, but I can only deal with this new Clause now as it stands upon the Paper as an alternative Clause.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: An additional power.
    Mr. McKENNA: I am much obliged to the hon. Member, I mean as an additional power. I quite agree that when the hon. Member moved the Clause as an alternative, I took exception to it in Committee as being out of order, but I would remind him that the Chairman of Ways and Means did not rule it out of order on the ground which I advanced, but on entirely different ground. I can only deal with this Clause as an additional power to the Treasury, and I have to ask the House not to accept it. I do not know whether the hon. Member would consider that I was treating him more fairly if I argued the case on the basis that it was an alternative to Clause 1, but I should clearly not be in order in doing so. I can only argue it as an additional power. I do not think the matter is of very serious consequence, but it would be undesirable to give the Treasury the power of dealing with different traders in different ways. I hope those are sufficient reasons why this Amendment should not be accepted as it stands, and I trust the hon. Member will not consider it necessary to press the Clause to a Division.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I thought the right hon. Gentleman meant to deal with all the points contained in my hon. Friend's speech, but unfortunately he left off just as he began to be interesting. I wanted to know particularly what the Government proposed to do with regard to the cases of new taxes.
    Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Member will look at the Amendment he will see that we cannot touch the case of new taxes, because the words are "in lieu of any taxes due to be collected under this Act." New taxes, therefore, are not included.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No doubt that is a short answer to my point, but I fancy it would be quite possible, if this Clause were read a second time, to so amend it as to cover the cases of new taxes. On the merits the Government should have some alternative plan dealing with new taxes. I realise that one cannot improvise such a thing in a day or two, and I therefore hope that this is one of the points which the Select Committee will take into consideration. It is, I think, almost doubtful whether the Commissioners of Customs have not this power already. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at Section 30 of the Customs Laws Consolidation Act, 1876, and the following Section he will find it provided that if any dispute shall arise as to the proper rate to be paid on any goods it shall be admissible for the importer or consignee or his agent to deposit in the hands of the collector of Customs at the port of importation the duty demanded by the collector, all such deposits to be paid to the general account and to bear interest, in case of recovery, at 5 per cent. What I really want to ask the right hon. Gentleman is whether it is the intention of the Government that in the interval between the proposition of a new tax and its full regulation by the Finance Act of this House, it is not intended to collect anything by any procedure in respect of it?
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I cannot imagine anything more unfair than that the Government should have the power of exercising such an alternative when dealing with Customs. It may be called an additional power, but undoubtedly it is one which will always be exercised by the rich trader. It will give him an enormous advantage over the poor trader. If he is called upon to pay a large amount of duty, he will say, "I will not pay the money until the Finance Act has been passed, and, therefore, I will give you security." He will, consequently, have no duty to pay for some months, and he will save the interest on that money, while the poor trader who has to pay cash will lose the interest on his money. I

    2185
    cannot imagine anything more unfair. The power would always be claimed by the man who can afford to deposit security. Of course where cash has to be deposited it will not matter so much. This provision must tend to the benefit of the rich trader. It is not an alternative power; it is an additional power which will always be claimed, and there will be increased cost to the Government in dealing with these things. I do not think it is a wise suggestion on the part of the hon. Gentleman opposite.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I think the Government have acted wisely in this matter. I should like to point out that the Bill of Rights has never applied to Ireland. Apart from the question of Income Tax, I have always taken the view that at common law there is, so far as Excise Duties are concerned, some such power as this. It was for this reason that I strongly held the opinion that this Bill was ultra vires. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has declined to introduce such an invidious provision into it. With regard to the Bill generally, I must say that the Amendments the Attorney-General has put down have met many of the objections I felt in the early stages of the measure.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I hope the hon. Member opposite will not press this proposal to a Division, because it would, if carried, involve very serious injury to the revenue, and inflict a grave injustice upon a very large number of small traders. Let me give an illustration showing how it would work. Take a person owning multiple shops—hundreds of shops. He would go into the market to get his tea; it is a well-known fact that sometimes persons in this position pay an enormous sum, as much as £50,000, in the form of Tea Duty. Under this scheme they would be enabled to get credit for four months as between the time of the introduction of the Resolution and the legalising of the duty by the passing of the Finance Act. What occurs? They obtain the duty from their customers week by week. The tea is sent out to the different shops throughout the country, and the duty is collected the same week and transmitted to the head office. Thus the dealer, while collecting the duty, is obtaining credit from the State for a period of four months. The same principle applies to the Sugar Duty. For hundreds of years the Inland Revenue authorities have had the power to charge the duty
    2186
    when tea or sugar or any other article subject to it has been taken out of bond. That is fair to all customers without exception, and I think it is an advantage to every customer that he should know he is equal in the eyes of the law with other men. One man should not have credit and another be compelled to pay his duty straight off. There is another thing, a large buyer might deposit securities which at the end of four months turned out to be valueless. What would occur then? The revenue would be bound to suffer the loss, while the customer would have paid the dealer the duty in the form of the increased price of tea. I think the hon. Member, under these circumstances, would be well advised not to press this Clause, even with regard to new taxes. I do not think it is possible under this Bill that any new indirect taxes can be enacted, and I do not see how, when you leave out the new taxes, to enforce them and to allow the traders to purchase goods between the time of the introduction of the Bill and its passage into law. I am quite sure, if this Clause were passed, it would involve a very severe loss to the Exchequer.
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Liability of Commissioners of Customs and Inland Revenue to be Sued.)
    The Commissioners of Customs and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue shall be liable to be sued in respect of any moneys which ought to be repaid or made good by them under this Act.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
    Mr. CASSEL: The object of this Clause is to render the Commissioners of Customs and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue liable to be sued in respect of any money which ought to be repaid or made good by them under the Act. The scheme of the Act is that the duty shall have statutory effect from the moment the Resolution is passed. If that Resolution is ultimately rejected, or if it is not embodied in the Act of Parliament, any duties which have been paid will have to be repaid. Suppose the Customs Duties have been paid and have found their way into the hands of the Commissioners of Customs and thence into the Consolidated Fund, what is the remedy of the subject? So far as I can

    2187
    see, his only remedy is a Petition of Right. It has been established that no action or mandamus would lie against the Commissioners. But the Petition of Rights is a very cumbrous procedure. It cannot be taken in the County Court. Why, in the cases where small sums are involved, should not the more simple procedure of the County Court be applicable? It certainly would be preferable, and it would be cheaper for the subject. This Clause is put forward really as a protection for small people in getting back their money. It is a fact that nowadays people pay Income Tax over and over again beyond what they are liable to pay. Hundreds of people do so, and they simply do not recover it because of the expense which would be involved in the process. We ought to have the simplest kind of procedure to recover moneys which have been paid under the provisional effect of the Resolution. With regard to the Petition of Rights, it rests with the Attorney-General to say whether or not he will allow it to proceed. It is a matter solely within his discretion. Of course, I should not suspect any Attorney-General, and least of all the right hon. Gentleman opposite, of exercising the power except with perfect fairness. But, as a matter of fact, it is simply an act of grace or favour; it is not a matter of right. I see no reason why the ordinary procedure should not be available to the subject. Why should he not have the procedure of the County Court open to him? Under the National Insurance Act a Clause was specially inserted enabling the Insurance Commissioners to be sued. If it is not below the dignity of Insurance Commissioners to be sued, why should it be below the dignity of the Inland Revenue Commissioners?
    Mr. TOUCHE: I beg to second the Motion.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I do not think there is any necessity for this Clause. The provisions of the Act are not new; there is nothing novel in the procedure which is laid down; the only difference is in the authority which is affected. These provisions have actually been in existence for a considerable time. My hon. and learned Friend knows that they are to be found in other Acts of Parliament, and I would suggest that it is neither necessary nor desirable in this particular Statute to introduce provisions for a different kind of
    2188
    procedure. I will not argue the question whether there may or may not be something to be said for enabling the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to be sued. But I am quite sure it would be very undesirable to devise a means of procedure to recover money under this Bill different from that provided for in Statutes already in existence. There may be a good deal to be said for securing a better form of procedure than the Petition of Rights. But that plan acts very well. When a Petition of Rights is presented it goes in the ordinary course before the Attorney-General, who advises first the Home Secretary and then His Majesty. That is the constitutional procedure and, if the right is allowed, then the Petition comes before the Court in the ordinary way. The fiat is always granted, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows. What I should strongly deprecate, from every point of view, is that you should introduce a special kind of procedure in regard to this Bill differing from any other under which you have to recover money from the Treasury, the Inland Revenue or Customs. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will see fit, in view of that, to withdraw the Clause. It may be a proper subject matter for discussion on a more general question on another occasion, but we certainly ought not to single out that form of procedure for application to this Bill.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: There can be no doubt that the Petition of Right as against the Commissioners of Customs is an archaic form of procedure, and very unusual when a man wants to recover money. I understand the Attorney-General's view that this is a matter which might well be considered if we were dealing with this subject as a whole, and not with this particular Bill. But my hon. and learned Friend is really well advised to raise the question here, because we are dealing with a very exceptional case, the case of money which has been paid or collected under the terms of a Resolution, which is subsequently overridden either by no Act being passed or by an Act being passed in a different form. Take the position of a person who in these circumstances, having paid the money, desires to get it back. The particular individual may be very poor, and it is utterly impossible for poor individuals to obtain a remedy by means of a Petition of Right; I think the Attorney-General will agree with that.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I know some poor people who have recovered on a Petition of Right.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: They must have had very exceptional nerve. Sometimes I have been asked to advise, and I have said, "If you do not want to get into bankruptcy you had better put up with your loss than put forward a Petition of Right, which is a very expensive form of remedy." In Section 30 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1874, which deals with all questions relating to duties and Excise, it is said:—
    "The duty paid in the first instance shall be deemed to be taken to be the proper duty payable unless an action or suit shall be commenced by the importer within three months after."
    I am not sure whether that means that the suit or action must be by Petition of Right. Perhaps the Attorney-General can tell us that. So far as the terms of the Section are concerned, they seem to contemplate an ordinary suit or action. What we are seeking to get is a remedy very much like the remedy under Section 30 of the Customs Consolidation Act. That is a case where the duty payable in the first instance is afterwards found to be wrong in amount, and then an easy form of remedy is given to the importer by which he may recover the amount from the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. If that is a true reading of Section 30 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1874, there is a stronger case for giving an easy remedy such as is suggested by my hon. and learned Friend, because the whole assumption here is that the payment has been wrongly made or the sum wrongly collected, and so wrongly collected that a subsequent Act of Parliament has determined it is so. You may have men who want to recover anything from a few shillings to a small number of pounds, and you ought to afford them the easiest form of remedy the law allows. The easiest form of remedy the law allows in respect to small sums is the County Court. Why should not a man who wants to obtain repayment of a small sum of shillings or pounds go to the County Court against the Inland Revenue Commissioners, just as he would against any other man who owes him money? The old notion is that the Inland Revenue Commissioners are the Crown. They, like every other public body who have taken money wrongly, ought to be made to refund it in the easiest possible way
    2190
    known to our law. Having regard to the exceptional circumstances of the Bill, an exceptional and easy form of remedy might be allowed.
    Mr. POLLOCK: The Attorney-General seems to overlook the fact that under this Bill he is taking exceptional powers which have never hitherto been given, and which are now being embodied in a Statute which is quite new to our present procedure and to our system of collecting taxes. I appreciate the difficulty he has foreshadowed as to our dealings with the whole question of the right to recover from the Crown. No doubt that is a very serious difficulty, and would properly be considered on broader lines than it is possible to consider it now, but we have in this Bill a provision which takes care to make it plain that where there has been a modification of the Resolution or a modification in the Act of the tax as originally introduced under the authority of the Resolution, the money which would have been payable under the new conditions shall be repaid or made good, and consequently in Clause 1, paragraph (d), any deduction is deemed to be an unauthorised deduction. The matter stops there. The Government have made it clear that where the conditions have been varied there is an unauthorised deduction or payment. What possible remedy at the present moment has the subject in respect to these payments or deductions? I take the case of the Income Tax. If he applies to Somerset House he can obtain certain forms, and after going through a considerable amount of torturous procedure he may get the money back, but he has to possess his soul in patience during weeks and months. I should like the Attorney General to say that this matter will be considered by the Inland Revenue Commissioners from the point of view of the subject, in order that they might give some notice that there was this right to claim money which could be pursued by the taxpayer. It is a matter of some importance, because it is all very well to declare a right in Act of Parliament, with which very few subjects are familiar, and to say it is a deduction which ought not to have been made and shall be repaid or made good. It is not likely to arise very often that the Resolution on Report or the Act does modify the tax, and it would be satisfactory if we could be assured that the Commissioners in these cases would, either by public notice or in some other

    2191
    way, indicate that easy facilities for the repayment of money would be given. If the Attorney-General could make some statement of that sort it would meet the difficulty. I recognise that it would not be fair to press the Government to accept the new Clause.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I should like to say one word in answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Pollock), who made a very good and reasonable suggestion. I think it is quite right that the Commissioners should make all provision they can to bring to the notice of those who have paid, if the Resolution is modified in any way, that the money can be claimed and that the Commissioners would be bound to return it. I think that suggestion is a very good one. It would not be possible to put it in the Bill, but I agree with him that it ought to be done. I will certainly take care to bring to the minds of the Commissioners that I have said it should be done, and that, whatever money has to be returned in these circumstances, great care should be taken to give very full notice. I see that the Bank of England, in the form they are now issuing, state that they are deducting the money, but if any persons object they will be bound to return the money as the law stands at present. They could easily put in a notice stating that if there is any change in the Resolution or in the Bill which is subsequently introduced which in any way gives the subject a right, that the money would be returned. That might be sufficient to bring to the notice of poorer persons that they were entitled to return the money. The Commissioners would not desire to keep one penny of the money which was not lawfully due. I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the suggestion.
    Mr. CASSEL: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and in view of his promise to take the general question into consideration, I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    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 variation of any existing tax, or for the renewal for a further period of any tax
    2192
    in force or imposed during the previous financial year, 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 the public interest 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 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 it is not agreed to by the House 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

    (b) The Resolution shall cease to have statutory effect if during the said period Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or an Act comes into operation varying or renewing the tax under the authority of the Resolution, or the Resolution is rejected by the House when considered on Report, or the provisions giving effect to the Resolution are rejected during the passage of the Bill containing those provisions through the House, and if modified when considered by the House on Report shall have effect under this Act as so modified; and

    (c) Where the Resolution so ceases to have statutory effect, or the said period terminates, before an Act comes into operation 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

    2193

    (d) Where the tax as varied or renewed by the Resolution is modified, either when considered by the House on the Report of the Resolution, or by the Act 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

    (e) 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

    (f) 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 any expression referring to the renewal of a tax shall be deemed to refer also to the reimposition of a tax.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "Commons" ["Committee of Ways and Means of the House of Commons"], insert the words ("so long as it is a Committee of the Whole House)."
    In paragraph (a), leave out the words "during the said period" ["if during the said period it is not agreed"].—[Sir Rufus Isaacs.]
    In paragraph (a), after the word "to" ["is not agreed to"], insert the words "with or without modification."—[Mr. Cassel.]
    In paragraph (a), leave out the words "when considered on Report" ["by the House when considered on Report"].—[Sir Rufus Isaacs.]
    Amendment proposed: In paragraph (a), leave out the words "of Ways and Means" ["Resolution is passed by the Committee of Ways and Means"].—[Sir Rufus Isaacs.]
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Why does the Attorney-General take out the words "of Ways and Means" here and not earlier? As a matter of drafting, I should think they ought to be left out earlier.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It is not necessary. We have already shown that it must be a Committee of Ways and Means, as we have named it. I inserted it earlier in order to meet the objection of the Noble Lord.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), paragraph (a), after the word "and" ["and if a Bill varying"], insert the word "also."
    Leave out the words "under the authority of the Resolution."
    In paragraph (b), leave out the words "during the said period" ["if during the said period Parliament is dissolved or prorogued"].
    Leave out the words "under the authority of the Resolution" ["renewing the tax under the authority of the Resolution"].
    Leave out the words "when considered on Report" ["is rejected by the House when considered on Report"].
    After the word "and" ["and if modified when considered"], insert the words "the Resolution."
    Leave out the words "when considered" ["and if modified when considered by the House on Report"].
    Leave out the words "on Report" ["when considered by the House on Report"].
    In paragraph (c), leave out the words "under the authority of the Resolution."
    In paragraph (d), leave out the words "when considered" ["either when considered by the House"].
    Leave out the words "on the report of the Resolution."
    Leave out the words "under the authority of the Resolution."—[Sir Rufus Isaacs.]
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to move to leave out the words "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."

    2195
    The Attorney-General will be familiar with these words. On the last occasion he very nearly agreed to accept them. He thought they were better than those of the draftsman, and his only objection was that in a consequential Amendment I had not provided for a difficulty which ought to have been provided for. I have taken the trouble to see that my consequential Amendments are in consonance with the Amendment that I now move. We are dealing in this paragraph (b) with the circumstance that there may be a modification, either upon Report of the Resolution or when the Act itself is brought in and carried through the House, of the original Resolution and the terms of the tax imposed by that original Resolution. When you have got the modification in the subsequent stages either of the Resolution or of the Act, you have got a difference between the tax which was originally imposed by virtue of the Resolution and the tax imposed or continued by the amended Resolution on Report or by the Act which is in fact passed. But in all these cases the tax is imposed by the authority of an Act of Parliament, and I desire very carefully to preserve not only the theory but the practice, that the tax is imposed by an Act of Parliament, and is not imposed by a mere Resolution, although for certain purposes statutory effect may be given to a Resolution. Where there has been a modification of the original Resolution the draftsman describes that situation as "new conditions affecting the tax." There never were any original conditions affecting the tax, and when the tax has been altered or modified by the Resolution on Report or by the Act that does not impose new conditions at all. It merely alters the terms of the tax that is imposed, and in the interests of careful drafting and good legislation, it is very unfortunate to use words which are certainly inapt to express what is intended. I propose to substitute words which would make the Clause read:—
    "Where the tax, as varied or renewed by the Resolution is modified, either when considered by the House on the Report of the Resolution, or by the Act varying or renewing the tax, 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
    2196
    the time of such payment shall be repaid or made good."
    If I may finish the Clause with the consequential Amendment, it would run:—
    "And any deduction made in pursuance of the Resolution shall, so far as it would not have been authorised if the said Resolution so modified or the said Act has been in force at the time of such payment shall be deemed to be an unauthorised deduction."
    Inasmuch as there are no new conditions and the tax is imposed by Statute and not really by Resolution, I submit that on this occasion the right hon. Gentleman ought to come over to the view I presented to him before and agree with me, as he did as to certainly nine-tenths of the way, that the words I propose to put in are more happy than the words chosen by the draftsman. Although I admire his continual loyalty to his draftsman, I trust on this occasion his loyalty to good legislation will cause him to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The question between my hon. and learned Friend and myself is really a very narrow one. It is entirely a matter of phraseology, and, although he says he likes his own drafting, and rather suggests that I like his drafting better than the Government drafting, I am not prepared to go quite as far as that. I am prepared to say I think his words are very apt, but I think they would require a little alteration in order to make them completely effective. But I also think the words which have been used by the Government draftsman are very apt. I have given very careful consideration to the Amendment, but I adhere to the view I expressed on the last occasion, that there is no necessity to change the words we have here, which are quite incapable of misapprehension, and, although it may be that the hon. and learned Gentleman's phraseology is a little more elegant than that in the Bill, still I think the words are really not capable of misconstruction. They are very short, and I think they are simple as they stand, and I therefore must adhere to them as they are at present.
    Amendment negatived.
    Further Amendment made: Leave out "and (f) This Act shall apply only to duties of Customs and Excise and to Income Tax."—[Mr. Cassel.]
    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 attach considerable importance to this, because this fixes the final date by which the Finance Act of the year must be passed. As the Bill stands, it is 5th September. That is too late. The 5th August is quite late enough. It is 5th September for this reason, that within one month of 5th April the Government must introduce their Resolution. The Income Tax expires on 5th April, and they have a month under Clause 2 during which payments and deductions can still be made, although the tax is not renewed either by Resolution or by the Act, so that their Resolution may be introduced as late as 5th May. That is the last date when they can safely pass their Resolution. So that they have four months from that date, which would take them to 5th September. So far as I have been able to ascertain the facts, in recent times, before the present Government, there has never been a Government which has passed its Budget later than August, and I think there have only been very few cases where the Finance Act of the year has been passed as late as August. Even the very controversial Finance Act of 1894, under which the Estate Duties were for the first time imposed, received the Royal Assent before August. The Finance Act of 1909 was quite an exceptional case, and, so far as we are concerned, we contend that it was not a Budget at all. Those provisions in it which were really contentious could very easily have been put into a separate Bill. The contentious provisions were the Land Duties and the Licence Duties, to which this Act would not have applied at all. The Resolutions to which you wish this Act to apply must necessarily be simple Resolutions, because otherwise you would not have the machinery to bring them into operation at once.
    There are two reasons why I think it is of very great importance that the Finance Act should be passed at the earliest date consonant with a reasonable opportunity for adequate discussion. In the first place, assuming that you once impose a duty by Resolution under this Act, and you ultimately vary it or do not carry the Resolution into an Act of Parliament, it is almost impossible to find out the right people to pay. So that you ought to continue the period of suspense for the very
    2198
    minimum that is possible, having regard to the necessity of adequate discussion. The other reason is that under the general Resolution that it is expedient to amend the law of Customs and Excise, the whole financial position may be reviewed, and if hardships can be shown there is an opportunity of getting them rectified, but if you carry that very late into the year a large part of the year is already gone and you cannot remedy the injustice for that part of the year. On that point the Amendments which the Government have introduced into paragraph (a) really do not help, because that only carries you into the Second Reading, and what is of importance is that the Committee stage also, when Amendments are made on cases where hardships have been discovered, should be taken in such time that advantage can really be taken of them during the current financial year. I can give the right hon. Gentleman a case where the fact that the Committee stage of the Finance Bill was taken late in the year operated with very great hardship, and that was in connection with the Licence Duties. As soon as the attention of the Government was called to a particular defect in the Finance Act of 1910, they admitted that an Amendment was necessary. They took the Finance Bill of that year so late that the Amendment really was of no use for the financial year which was under consideration. From that point of view also I submit that it is extremely important to have the Finance Bill through as early as possible, and that circumstances are hardly conceivable under which, if financial business is proceeded with with due dilgence, it would not be possible to carry the Finance Bill through by that date. If ever circumstances arise again like the Finance Act of 1909 it will be possible to deal with the contentious parts of a Bill of that kind by a separate measure, and I do not regard that as a Finance Bill at all. I think oven some hon. Members opposite, now that they have got it through, almost admit that. For any Finance Bill to be really a Finance Bill, 5th August as the limit is quite long enough to allow for its passage.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to second the Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that his object was merely to embody in this Bill what has been the practice for generations. Let me take the last generation—the period from 1880 down

    2199
    to the present time. In that period of thirty-three years it will be found that, except in 1910 and 1911, in no case has it been necessary to have so long a period as four months which would be given to the Government under Sub-section (2). Four months would bring the period up to September. The dates at which the Royal Assent was given to the Finance Act since 1880 were:—1880, 24th March; 1882 and 1883, in the early days of August; 1886, 4th June; 1887, 5th July; 1888, 16th May; 1889, 31st May; 1890, 9th June; 1891, 3rd July; 1892, 20th June, 1893, 12th May; 1894, 31st July; 1895, 30th May; 1896, 7th August; 1897, 15th July; 1898, 1st July; 1899, 20th June; 1900, 9th April; 1901, 26th July; 1902, 22nd July; 1903, 30th June; 1904, 1st August; 1905, 30th June; 1906, 22nd June; 1907, 9th August; and 1908, 1st August, Having regard to these dates it is quite clear that the practice of Parliament which is to be embodied in this Bill does not require anything like so late a period as September. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's oft repeated statement is, "I merely want to embody in this Bill the true practice which has been followed for generations and more." The dates I have given are conclusive, that in no case has it been necessary to take so long a period as is proposed in the Sub-section.
    If the Attorney-General feels any difficulty about accepting the actual form of the Amendment proposed by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cassel), what would meet the case would be to put in a date, let us say, not later than 1st August, or 5th August, or something of that sort. That would really establish and give written sanction to what undoubtedly has been the practice of the House, namely, that it should not rise for its summer interval until it has disposed of the primary duty for which it is called together—the passing of the Finance Act of the year. A great many of us feel continued deep hostility to the whole of this Bill, and one of the gravest reasons we have for that hostility is that it gives so wide a margin of time to the Government of the day. We want to establish that the Government should be under the control of this House, and that they should attend to what is their primary function, namely, the passing of the Estimates for the year, and the embodying of them in the Finance Act. I appeal to the Attorney-General not only on the grounds so ably stated by my hon. and learned Friend, but also on the
    2200
    ground that, looking at what has been the practice for thirty years and more, so long a period as is indicated in the Sub-section is unnecessary. Some words such as I have suggested are necessary to tie the Government down—whatever Government is in power—and keep them under the control of this House.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The question raised is one which has been discussed at every stage of this Bill. It was discussed on the Resolution, on Report, on the Second Reading, and in Committee. I am not complaining of that, but the House will understand that I do not propose to go at any length into this matter again. The Mover and Seconder of the Amendment dealt a good deal with the practice in relation to the various Budgets which have been brought forward, but I would remind them that the object of the Bill is to cut down the elasticity which has hitherto been given in this matter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are not extending it by any means. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out to-day, we have accepted a number of Amendments of great substance which were proposed by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, and to whom we have been indebted for suggestions which have made the Bill better than it was when introduced. The Amendment now before the House deals with a matter on which the view of the Government has already been expressed quite clearly. An Amendment which was moved by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) and accepted by the Government was a very drastic proceeding, and it is in the Bill now. It is an Amendment which helps very much to limit the facilities given to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, from whatever side of the House he may be drawn. The Resolution must be introduced first of all within one month of the end of the financial year, otherwise he does not get the protection of Clause 2. That is the first limitation. The second is that the Resolution on Report, if it is to have statutory effect, must be agreed to by the House within ten sitting days after it has been passed by Committee of Ways and Means. That is another safeguard introduced for the first time in our practice in this House. There is a third, namely, that the Bill must be read a second time within twenty sitting days of the Resolution on Report being agreed to by the House. All these are,

    2201
    no doubt, very valuable protections which have been introduced in the Bill, and which will reduce the facilities hitherto given to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When it is further proposed now to reduce the period from four to three months, the answer I would make is that when we accepted the Noble Lord's Amendment it was on the strict understanding that, so far as we were concerned, we would adhere to the four months' period. I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite are not bound by that, but it is right to state that we had that in view when we accepted the Noble Lord's Amendment. Under these circumstances the Government is bound to hold to the four months' period.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: No one would complain of the attitude taken up by the Attorney-General as to the matter of form. I admit that the Government have all through acted in a friendly and conciliatory spirit with respect to this Bill. I admit also that there would be difficulty in substituting three for four months, because it would bring the date rather earlier than has been the practice hitherto. As has been pointed out, the Royal Assent has always been given before 1st August, except in a few cases, and the exceptions are so rare that they do not show that the ordinary practice has been otherwise than to bring in the Finance Bill in time to receive the Royal Assent before 1st August. There are a certain number of cases when the Royal Assent has been given to the Finance Act during the month of July. I should have liked the Government to consider whether an Amendment naming 1st August would not have been strictly consonant to their own principles, while meeting the case submitted by my hon. and learned Friend. If a proviso were put in, "In no case later than 1st August," that would make the Bill conform to usage. I would suggest to the Government that they might conveniently put in these words in order to carry out the purpose they have in view.
    Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I had an Amendment down substantially for the same purpose as that now before the House. I thought two months instead of four should

    Division No. 54.]

    AYES.

    [6.30 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Barton, W.

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    be the period, but I shall not seek to raise that point now. The main purpose of those who support the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend is to insure that the House shall have substantial and adequate discussion during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. The Government accepted the very valuable Amendment proposed by the Noble Lord, but that Amendment stopped short in the sense that it gave a date on which you should have the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. Something more than that is necessary. Supposing you had the Second Reading of the Bill and left over the Committee stage to what is practically the holiday period, then in substance and truth we should lose that control of finance which we are all agreed the House should retain in an effective way. I think undue pressure should not be put on the Attorney-General, as representing the Government, after what has passed, to accept any other period than the one we find here, namely, four months, but I hope this matter will receive further consideration. I am afraid we shall not have much chance of discussing it here again, but I hope the Attorney-General will consider that what we want is to have a Committee stage when the conditions are such that we may hope for effective discussion.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: It really does not appear to me to make any material difference as I read the Bill. My hon. and learned Friend has suggested that 5th August might be put in, but I should have thought that it was hardly worth while to make that Amendment. I certainly am glad that the Government have said that it is their intention, so far as they can, to resort to the normal practice and conform to the conditions which previously prevailed as regards the Budget. The Attorney-General has assured us that September is not the date which the Government have in contemplation for passing the Finance Act.
    Question put, "That the word 'four' stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 266; Noes, 114.

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

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Shee, James John

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Black, Arthur W.

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Boland, John Plus

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Bowerman, C. W.

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

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, North)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Brace, William

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

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Brady, P. J.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Hinds, John

    Pointer, Joseph

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Hodge, John

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Hogge, James Myles

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

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Pringle, William M. R.

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

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Radford, G. H.

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Reddy, M.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Hughes, S. L.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Chancellor, H. G.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Clough, William

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Clynes, John R.

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

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Robinson, Sidney

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Joyce, Michael

    Roch, Walter F.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Keating, Matthew

    Roche, Augustine (Louth, N.)

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Cotton, William Francis

    Kelly, Edward

    Rowlands, James

    Cowan, W. H.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    King, J.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Crooks, William

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

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

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Samuel, J (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

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

    Leach, Charles

    Sheehy, David

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Delany, William

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Shortt, Edward

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lundon, Thomas

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Alisebrook

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Dillon, John

    Lynch, A. A.

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Doris, W.

    McGhee, Richard

    Snowden, Philip

    Duffy, William J.

    Maclean, Donald

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    MacVeagh, Jeremian

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    M'Kean, John

    Sutton, John E.

    Falconer, J.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Farrell, James Patrick

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

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Tennant, Harold John

    Ffrench, Peter

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Thomas, James Henry

    Field, William

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Meagher, Michael

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    France, G. A.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Trevelyan, Charles Philip

    Gill, A. H.

    Molloy, M.

    Wadsworth, J.

    Ginnell, L.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Mooney, J. J.

    Wardle, George J.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Morgan, George Hay

    Waring, Walter

    Goldstone, Frank

    Morrell, Philip

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Morison, Hector

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Watt, Henry A.

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Muldoon, John

    Webb, H.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Munro, R.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

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

    Murphy, Martin J.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Guliand, John William

    Neilson, Francis

    Wiles, Thomas

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Nicholson, Sir C. N. (Doncaster)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Hackett, J.

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Hancock, John George

    Nuttall, Harry

    Winfrey, Richard

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wing, Thomas

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

    Hardie, J. Keir

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Dowd, John

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

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

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

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Malley, William

    2204

    2205

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Ashley, W. W.

    Fell, Arthur

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Astor, Waldorf

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Baird, J. L.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

    Gibbs, George Abraham

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

    Barnston, Harry

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilion)

    Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Bigland, Alfred

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Bird, A.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Blair, Reginald

    Hewing, William Albert Samuel

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Boyton, James

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Butcher, J. G.

    Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

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

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)

    Cassel, Felix

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

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

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Kerry, Earl of

    Touche, George Alexander

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

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

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Valentla, Viscount

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

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

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Welgall, Captain A. G.

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

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

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

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

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Croft, H. P.

    Malcolm, Ian

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

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

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

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Denniss, E. R. B,

    Mount, William Arthur

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Newman, John R. P.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Earl Winterton and Mr. Mills.

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    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,"

    Sir A. CRIPPS: I beg to propose to leave out Sub-section (1).
    I do not think that the meaning of this Sub-section has been sufficiently appreciated. What it means is that in cases where there is a temporary tax and the power to levy such tax has to be exercised within a given time, then, although the time within which that statutory power-might be exercised had come to an end, under this Sub-section the time would be extended for one month after the date of the expiration of the existing powers to levy such a tax. It appears to me to be a very strong proposal, when this House after full discussion as to imposing a particular tax has limited the time within which the sanction for that tax is to operate, that then under the operation of a general Bill of this kind in every instance—subject to what I am going to say in a moment—the time within which that tax can be levied should be extended to the extent of a month. It may be very important, after full discussion in this House, to limit the time for the incidence of a particular tax, and when the period of time in which there is power to levy the tax has come to an end it may be of great importance for this House to

    2207
    consider whether that tax should be imposed again, either in its existing form or in a modified form. But what this Clause does is this: however carefully the House may have thought over and discussed the matter before deciding that the levy of the tax should be limited to a particular period of time, there is to be in all cases under this Sub-section power to extend the time limit after it has expired. It is a very strong proposal to override by a general provision of this sort a special provision introduced in a particular case after full discussion. This proposal is quite unnecessary. In fact it is not in accordance with the rest of the Bill; and so far as there is any difficulty it could without question be easily dealt with by merely making the tax run for a sufficient time when you impose it in the first instance. The only reason why the Government are asking for this extraordinary power of extending the time for which this House has imposed a tax, is that they do not introduce the new Resolutions as regards the new financial year sufficiently early.
    If they introduce a Resolution sufficiently early, and if they make the tax which they impose for a sufficiently long time, Sub-section (1) of Clause 2 is wholly unnecessary. One of the worst features of the Sub-section is that it enables the Resolution as regards imposition of the new tax, to be postponed for one month after the time the old tax has expired; whereas it ought to be the essence of your practice that if the Resolution is to have statutory effect, it ought to be brought into operation before the power as regards the old tax expires. Everyone must know perfectly well that there is not the least difficulty about making a provision of that kind. This really goes beyond all the suggestions which have been made as regards the power to prevent forestalling and matters of that kind. It deliberately aims at upsetting what may be the deliberate proposal of this House after full discussion. What is the good of our saying that a particular tax is to be limited to a certain time, or that Customs Duties are not to be levied beyond a definite time, if we find that in each case the Government—and I am speaking of the Government on either side—may postpone what is the proper date for introducing the new Resolutions on which to found the Budget. By postponing the date they get fresh legislative authority
    2208
    for a month in reference to powers which otherwise would have expired. In my view we have given up a good deal of our control under this Bill.
    We have deliberately fixed a limit of time, and then, merely because the Government do not introduce their Resolution sufficiently early, that time is extended for a month. It is all very well to put in a provision of this kind, but if the House does not renew the tax, in substance everyone knows that, when deductions of this kind have once been made, there is great difficulty, expense, and trouble in ever getting the sums repaid or made good, once they get into the hands of the Treasury or the Inland Revenue. I cannot see what reason there can be for this novel suggestion. It is not really wanted as regards the obligation which we are putting in the Bill. We have given this power under the Resolution to levy a tax just as though it had statutory effect, and, under those circumstances, you seek power to postpone your Resolution in order to raise your tax under a power which has expired. Our control is really being limited in every possible direction, and not only is it being limited, but it is being made a mockery. We first of all limit the period of the tax, and then we pass a general provision that the limitation is not to be observed. What is the good of legislating under conditions of that kind? We have discussed this matter more than once, and I can see no reason whatever for this Sub-section, the omission of which I move.
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I have already stated my views on this point in previous discussions and have endeavoured to make them clear to the Government, who, I think, in this Sub-section, are infringing all constitutional rights. They are deliberately and without any necessity outraging all the principles of the Constitution. They have deliberately placed the whole of the bankers of this country in a difficulty, which has existed since the 5th April. Ever since the 4th of November I have urged that it was necessary for them to deal with this question before the 5th April; they would not do it. They insisted in going on with the Home Rule Bill, the Welsh Disestablishment Bill, and the Franchise Bill, and the dislocation since the 5th April is entirely due to that. So far as this particular Bill I is concerned, they have not even the excuse

    2209
    that they had with regard to Customs Duties and the possibility of forestalments, and it is an outrage upon the Constitution.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I have listened to the speeches made by my hon. and learned Friends, and one would imagine from what they have said that we were introducing some novelty. I am quite sure if anybody had come into this House knowing nothing of what had happened previously, either in Committee or on Report or on Second Reading, would have thought, from the speeches of the hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite, that both were correct in what they said. The fact is that what is here proposed is in accordance with the practice that has existed for the last sixty years, and previous to that for perhaps 150 years; but to hear the speeches made by both hon. Members they do not seem to be aware that—except in the year 1900, which was during the war, when Sir Michael Hicks-Beach came down in March and asked this House to pass Resolutions before the Income Tax and Tea Duty had expired—it has been the practice of this House, and not of this Government only but of Unionist administrations equally, to propose Resolutions for Income Tax and the Tea Duty during the month of April or during the month of May. Except in that one instance during the war, when the their Chancellor of the Exchequer came down at the beginning of March, it has been invariably the practice after the expiration of the financial year or of the Income Tax year, to bring in those Resolutions. I do think we have just cause of complaint when we listen to the speeches made by my hon. and learned Friend (Sir A. Cripps), who must know better, and it is most startling to hear him make these observations. My hon. and learned Friend, who possibly knows as much of this subject as anybody in the House, solemnly stated that this was a novel suggestion.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: Hear, hear; so it is.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The right hon. Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) has himself told us that it was the practice in his time, and he took over that practice; and what we are doing is simply to put into statutory shape what has been rendered necessary, because of the decision which has been given in the Courts. If the hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) meant by his reiterated charges of outrages on the Constitution and
    2210
    by his strong language that this Sub-section is proposed in consequence of the decision of Lord Justice Parker, and that we have been compelled to put into statutory form what hitherto has been recognised as the usage under the Constitution, though not recognised by the Courts of Law—if that is what he meant, I agree that he is practically right; but we are not only not doing anything which is novel, but we have nothing in our constitutional usage which would prevent us from proposing the Resolutions in June or July. It was done by the Unionist Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1901 and in 1902, when Resolutions were proposed in June and July. I do not think they were Income Tax Resolutions, but they were financial Resolutions having relation to variations of the Sugar Duties; they were the ordinary Resolutions for the continuation of taxes. Anybody looking at the matter will see that you must have some provision of this kind for the collection of taxes. Let its see what we are legalising under this form. The Income Tax year expires on the 5th April, and unless you have a provision of this kind the effect would be that the banks would not be able to deduct the money for Income Tax, and the Treasury would be left to follow the persons and collect it from them. Everybody agrees that that is a very bad principle; certainly everybody who has been at the Treasury is familiar with the difficulty of following persons to get the Income Tax from them.
    The hon. and learned Member for South Bucks says that what we can do is to introduce our Resolutions before the end of the Income Tax year, but both Liberal Governments and Unionist Governments for many years have followed the usual practice, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, following this practice, which is based on sound common sense, must at the end of the financial year make a survey in order to see how matters stand before proposing his Resolutions. If he adopted what the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests, he would be in the position of having to propose the Resolutions before the end of the Income Tax year, of having to make his financial statement before he had considered what was required, before he knew whether he should lower or raise a duty, and before he knew whether he could take anything off the Tea or Sugar Duties, or had to raise those duties. Surely that is not advisable. All we ask is that we should have this

    2211
    power with regard to the reimposition or renewal of taxes which have existed in the previous year, and which are not taxes for more than eighteen months. The whole object is to confine the provision to the Income Tax and Tea Duty, which come up for discussion every year. We are not seeking by this Clause to do anything novel. The only novelty is that by Sub-section (1) we are limiting the period to one month, and we are only claiming the period of one month in order that there may be time to survey all the circumstances before dealing with the Income Tax or Tea Duty. It is admitted by almost everybody in the House that a Statute must be passed to legalise the practice which has existed, but we say that by what we are proposing we make the period more limited, and we put upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the obligation to introduce his Budget within a month, as provided by the Sub-section. I submit we are amply justified by the practice which hitherto existed.
    7.0 P.M.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I think the Attorney-General's speech is an astonishing revelation of the mind of the Government that it makes no difference that you are altering custom and usage into a Statute. I think it makes an immense difference, and that my hon. and learned Friends are justified in describing it as a complete novelty. Instead of a custom which rested on general consent you are taking coercive power by Statute which makes an immense difference. It is to miss the whole point of the discussion to say that you are leaving the thing just as it is now. My hon. and learned Friends suggest that it is not necessary and that it is a very bad thing to do, inasmuch as the Constitution depends on the authority of Parliament and certainly not on the authority of a single Resolution of the House of Commons, and therefore taxation should be paid on the authority of Parliament. Is this necessary in this particular instance, and are we driven by force of circumstances to do what the Government, I think, would agree is a very undesirable thing in itself? Surely not. Supposing you made your Income Tax or Tea Duty last for fifteen months instead of twelve months, the whole difficulty is met. The Attorney-General said it would confuse the finances. It would do nothing of the kind. The Attorney-General also used the argument that the Chancellor of
    2212
    the Exchequer would have to make up his Budget without knowing what was the return of the tax. He would not. He would know what the return was every year, which is all he wants to know.
    The fact that the tax would have legal validity for three months more would not bring about the smallest element of confusion. In some respects now that is the practice with some temporary taxes which last up to the 30th June or the 31st July. Without the Amendment what it really comes to is this, that you do alter your constitutional way of taxing by Act of Parliament, and you adopt an unconstitutional way by giving the power to tax by Resolution. The Attorney-General said that the use of the Resolutions rested on general consent. Therefore it differed from what you are doing now. You are giving the House of Commons legal authority to tax by mere decree. That is an immense novelty, and, instead of trying to cut that down and to make the innovation as small as you can, you deliberately refuse to adopt machinery which would be perfectly constitutional, and which would give you all you want without trouble or inconvenience. In the wantonness of oppression you insist on having this Clause, which is not in the least necessary, and which is an outrage on the constitutional traditions of the country. I do not think the language of my hon. Friends was at all too strong. This shows how very indifferent the Government really are as to preserving the traditions of the Constitution. The Attorney-General tells us "we accepted some of your Amendments." The Government cannot get over their moderation. Like Lord Clive, they stand astonished at their own moderation. The Supreme Cabinet has so far condescended that the suggestions of the House of Commons are not rejected altogether. Some Amendments have been accepted, and we ought to be thankful for the crumbs that fall to us from the rich man's table. We are still to try and imagine that they are our industrious servants carrying out the government in accordance with the behests of the representatives of the people. We are not yet accustomed to the servile state to which they are anxious to reduce us, and protest against their arguments.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I do really regret the language which has been used by the Attorney-General in reference to my hon. and learned Friends. It is all very well

    2213
    to talk of usage, but the usage was abused by the Government, and the Attorney-General must not be surprised if a certain number resent, and very strongly resent, the necessity of passing a Clause like this, because of the abuse by the Government of a power hitherto given to them by ordinary practice. May I also remind the House that this Clause does not merely refer to the Government deducting the tax, but it gives power to everybody to make the deduction from Income Tax—power hitherto used sparingly. That is a vital difference, and it is to me a matter of great surprise that the Attorney-General did not appreciate the observations made by my hon and learned Friend. This Clause, for good or ill, legalises any

    Division No. 55.]

    AYES.

    [7.9 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Duffy, William J.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Arnold, Sydney

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    John, Edward Thomas

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Falconer, J.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Joyce, Michael

    Barton, William

    Field, William

    Keating, Matthew

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Flavin, Michael

    Kelly, Edward

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    France, G. A.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Black, Arthur W.

    Furness, Stephen

    Kilbride, Denis

    Boland, John Pius

    Gill, A. H.

    King, J.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Ginnell, L.

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

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Glanville, H. J.

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Brace, William

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

    Brady, P. J.

    Goldstone, Frank

    Leach, Charles

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Lynch, A. A.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

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

    McGhee, Richard

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Gulland, John William

    Maclean, Donald

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

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

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Hackett, J.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Hancock, John George

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hardie, J. Keir

    M'Kean, John

    Clough, William

    Harvey, T. S. (Leeds, West)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Clynes, John R.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

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

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hayward, Evan

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Hazleton, Richard

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Cotton, William Francis

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Meagher, Michael

    Cowan, W. H.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Meehan, Francis B. (Leitrim, N.)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Crooks, William

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

    Molloy, Michael

    Crumley, Patrick

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

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

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

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

    Hinds, John

    Mooney, John J.

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Delany, William

    Hodge, John

    Morrell, Philip

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Hogge, James Myles

    Morison, Hector

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Dillon, John

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Muldoon, John

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Munro, Robert

    Doris, William

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Murphy, Martin J.

    deduction, whether by mere habit or under the authority of a Treasury Minute or how it comes to be made. Once you deduct a certain sum and call that Income Tax, that deduction is made legal. It is only fair that the House should understand what is being done, and that legality can be claimed not only for a Government Department, but by a bank or agent or any person on those grounds. I think the observations of the Attorney-General are not called for.
    Question put, "That the words, 'any payment or deduction made on account of a,' stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 266; Noes, 109.

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Neilson, Francis

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Thomas, James Henry

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Norton, Captain C. W.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Nuttall, Harry

    Robinson, Sidney

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Wadsworth, J.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Rowlands, James

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    O'Dowd, John

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Wardle, George J.

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

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Waring, Walter

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    O'Malley, William

    Samuel J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    O'Shee, James John

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Watt, Henry A.

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

    Webb, H.

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Sheehy, David

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Shortt, Edward

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Whyte, A. F.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Snowden, P.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Winfrey, Richard

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Wing, Thomas

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

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

    Radford, G. H.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Young, W. (Perthshire, East)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Reddy, M.

    Sutton, John E.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    2216

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Ashley, W. W.

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Baird, J. L.

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Royds, Edmund

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

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

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

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

    Barnston, Harry

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

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Rigland, Alfred

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Bird, A.

    Harrison-Braodley, H. B.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hewing, William Albert Samuel

    Stewart, Gershom

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Butcher, John George

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cassel, Felix

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Horne, E. (Surrey Guildford)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Touche, George Alexander

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Kerry, Earl of

    Tryon, George Clement

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

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

    Valentia, Viscount

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Lewisham, Viscount

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

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Weigall, Captain A. G.

    Croft, H. P.

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

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Lyttelton, Hon, J. C. (Droitwich)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Denniss, E. R. B.

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

    Winterton, Earl

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Malcolm, Ian

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

    Yale, Colonel C. E.

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Mount, William Arthur

    Fell, Arthur

    Newman, John R. P.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Cripps and Major M'Calmont.

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Amendment made: After the word "the" ["passed by the Committee of Ways and Means"], insert the words "House of Commons or by the."—[Mr. McKenna.]
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I beg to move, after the word "Commons" ["Committee of Ways and Means of the House of Commons"], to insert the words

    2217
    "(if that Committee is a Committee of the Whole House)."
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: As I was absent from the House just now, I think it is only right that I should take this opportunity of thanking the Government for the way in which they have met me. There was considerable feeling on both sides of the House as to the possibility of a very unfortunate precedent being set up, and I thank the Government for the action they have taken.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: After the word "tax" ["renewal of the tax"], insert the words
    "or if such a Resolution is passed within that month but ceases to have statutory effect under this Act."—[Mr. Cassel.]
    At the end of Sub-section (1), insert the words:
    "For the purposes of this provision, the expression 'temporary tax' means a tax which has been imposed or renewed for a limited period not exceeding eighteen months, and was in force or imposed during the previous financial year."—[Mr. McKenna.]
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (2).
    This is really a remarkable Sub-section. I think that what the Government meant to say was: "This Section shall apply to payments and deductions made before the passing of this Act." But instead of putting it in that way, they have adopted the involved wording of this provision. The Sub-section deals with two separate matters. The first is the Finance Act of this year. We have been accustomed to having to amend the legislation of this Government very soon after it has passed. We have had cases where their legislation has had to be amended in the same Session, and other cases where it has had to be amended in the next Session, but this Sub-section proposes to amend an Act before it comes into existence at all. It is not merely counting one's chickens before they are hatched; it is cutting their legs off before they are hatched. What is the effect of this Sub-section? It says that duties imposed by the Finance Act of this year shall have a certain effect. But they cannot have any effect until the
    2218
    Finance Act of this year is passed. What do the Government really intend so far as the Finance Act of this year is concerned? I submit that the proper procedure would be to put the Section into that Act when we know what the contents of that Act are. The Government might as well insert the words "any future Act." They have not accomplished the purpose they intended, and the bankers of the country are anxious to know what is really meant. I submit that this Sub-section does not legalise any deductions made between 5th April and 22nd April, assuming that the Income Tax Resolution is passed on that day until the Finance Act of this year is passed.
    With regard to previous years, what is the object of the Government? Some of the old Finance Acts contain provisions making them retrospective, but in a great many cases those provisions were omitted. I suppose that the reference to previous years in this Sub-section is inserted because of the apprehension that somebody might bring an action to recover sums which have been deducted in the past under those Finance Acts from which the retrospective Clauses were omitted. If that is so, I should have thought that this was really a charging section. I wonder why the Government attach such special importance to the words "Finance Act." The term has only been in use since 1894. If the proposal was necessary for those years when the Finance Act was called by that name, it would be equally necessary for the years in which it was called the Customs and Inland Revenue Act. The House is entitled to know what the Government really mean by this Sub-section.
    Mr. HOHLER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: This Sub-section by no means imposes a charge, nor is there anything in the words of the Section incorporated which imposes any charge. What the proposal does is that it legalises deductions which have been made, and it makes the operation of this Sub-section conditional upon the duties being imposed by the Finance Act of this year or of previous years. In so far as it relates to this year, all that it does is to say that if the duties are imposed by the Finance Act certain results will follow. As regards previous years it makes really the same provision, not that Income Tax

    2219
    shall be charged, but that if deduction has been made in respect of it, that it shall not be deemed to be illegal. I explained when we discussed the matter in Committee, what the main objects of this provision are, but I will explain it again as the hon. and learned Member asks me to do so. If you do not pass a Clause either in these words or to this effect, the result would be that for past years, now that the Courts have declared that the bank cannot deduct until the Act has been passed, those who are properly liable to the Income Tax would be able to claim against the banks, or the brokers, or the agents who deducted the tax as in previous years before the Act had been passed, on the ground that they had no right to make that deduction at that time. It does not affect the liability to pay Income Tax. That is imposed by previous Acts. What it does is to say that no one shall be able to claim against the bank for the past sixty years—subject to the Statute of Limitations—for acting upon what was the recognised practice during all this period, and which had continued up to the last two or three years, when it was said that the Government had begun to introduce its Budget very late.
    Take, if you do not make a provision of this kind, the case of some person who is abroad, and who at the time had securities in the hands of the bank. The bank, assuming that the Income Tax was properly chargeable, might deduct according to the practice which has prevailed, but that the Courts have now said had no validity. Consequently, if the bank were sued, the bank would be held to have made a deduction that it had no right to make. How, then, do you propose to get the Income Tax from such people? It is clear that they are liable to pay, and have paid, and it is quite clear that the new Statute which we are now passing imposes no liability which did not exist before. How do you propose to reach those persons who have gone out of the country in respect of the Income Tax for which they are properly liable? Hitherto you have rested upon the practice. Now that you cannot you must do something in order to give validity to what was the practice, and to amend an Act which was defective, though the usage was that recognised! I cannot see that anybody can suggest that all persons in these circumstances should be entitled to get back their Income Tax! That would be the effect of it if they sued the bank, and
    2220
    the bank would naturally say to the authorities, as every lawyer knows, "You must pay us back the money for which we have been sued." The Treasury would be left in the position of having nobody to recover Income Tax from, and people who were liable for it would go scoot free instead of paying their proper contribution in respect of the tax which was imposed upon them, properly validated by Act of Parliament. It is clear that it is necessary that some such Clause as this should be put in. Whether there might possibly be some other Clause devised is really hardly worth discussing.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: I think the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General has not appreciated the points of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras, or he is unable to answer them. What the hon. and learned Gentleman said was that this Section should not have any effect as regards the duties imposed by the Finance Act of this year, and until that Act had been passed. Therefore the Section is quite useless to meet the time between 5th April last year and the time the first Resolution passed on the 22nd April; it does not operate to legalise what is done during that period in any sort of way at all. What I am putting to the Attorney-General is this: The desire is to legalise, I take it, first of all in this year, duties which may be collected or Income Tax which may be deducted between 5th April and 22nd April—which we suppose is the time that the real Resolution will come into operation. This particular Sub-section then cannot have that operation at all. It does not operate or attach until certain duties have been imposed by the Finance Act of this year. The proper time to introduce any proposal of this kind would be in the same Act in which were imposed the duties. As regards the main difficulties, this does not meet them in any sort of way. In face of the explanations that the Attorney-General has given, I want to say that this proposal is not only objectionable, but very strongly objectionable.
    I wonder how many hon. Members have looked into Section 95 of the Finance Act of 1910? That was passed in a Bill which in itself was passed under very exceptional circumstances and conditions in an extraordinary week to deal with irregularities—because, as we all know, very special irregularities attached to the Finance Act of 1910. The Dissolution

    2221
    took place between the introduction of the Budget and the passing of the Act. Section 95 goes quite outside what is necessary in any normal case and is directed to extraordinary conditions which are not likely to recur. The only way in which this Section would operate would be in regard to duties imposed by any Finance Act of this year. There are no irregularities which we have got to make right. There is not the slightest question in regard to matters of this kind, nor has this point been raised. But you have here a most complicated suggestion going far beyond the necessities which the Attorney-General suggested, and having no operation whatever, because until the duties have been imposed it does not attach; whereas the difficulty arises before the duties have been imposed and, indeed, before the Resolution is passed on which these duties will be imposed. It is absolutely waste paper. The Sub-section

    Division No. 56.]

    AYES.

    [7.40 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Hinds, John

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Dillon, John

    Hobhouse, Rt. Roil. Charles E. H.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Hodge, John

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Doris, William

    Hogge, James Myles

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Duffy, William J.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Barnes, G. N.

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Hughes, S. L.

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Barton, W.

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Falconer, James

    John, Edward Thomas

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Jones H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Boland, John Pius

    Field, William

    Janes, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Jowett, F. W.

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Joyce, Michael

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Furness, Stephen W.

    Keating, Matthew

    Brace, William

    Gill, A. H.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Brady, P. J.

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Kelly, Edward

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Glanville, H. J.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    King, Joseph

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Goldstone, Frank

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

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

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

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Leach, Charles

    Chancellor, Henry G.

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

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

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

    Lundon, Thomas

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Gulland, John William

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Clough, William

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Clynes, John R.

    Hackett, J.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hall, Frederick (Narmanton)

    McGhee, Richard

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hancock, J. G.

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

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Cotton, William Francis

    Hardie, J. Keir

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Cowan, W. H.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    M'Kean, John

    Crooks, William

    Hayden, John Patrick

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Crumley, Patrick

    Hayward, Evan

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

    Davies, E. William (Elfion)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

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

    Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Delany, William

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Meagher, Michael

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    gives a sort of indemnity against irregularities which we ought never to admit in the very large and exceptional form and under the special conditions of the 1910 Act. I do not suppose a single hon. Member, except the legal Members, have looked into that Section 95. If they do they will see it goes far beyond the necessities referred to. It is a long Section, containing many Sub-sections, and belonging to abnormal conditions which attached to that year and are never likely to arise again. I entirely agree with what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend who moved this Amendment.
    Question put, "That the words, '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,' stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 246; Noes, 96.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Pointer, Joseph

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Molloy, Michael

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Sutton, John E.

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Radford, G. H.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Mooney, John J.

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Reddy, Michael

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Morrell, Phillip

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Thomas, J. H.

    Morison, Hector

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Thorne, W. (West Ham)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Muldoon, John

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Wadsworth, J.

    Munro, R.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Neilson, Francis

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Wardle, George J.

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Waring, Walter

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Nuttall, Harry

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Watt, Henry A.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Webb, H.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Rowlands, James

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    O'Dowd, John

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

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

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Wiles, Thomas

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    O'Malley, William

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Sheehy, David

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    O'Shce, James John

    Shortt, Edward

    Winfrey, Richard

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Wing, Thomas

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

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

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Snowden, Philip

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Stamen, Arthur Wellesley

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Royds, Edmund

    Bernston, Harry

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

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

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

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Bird, Alred

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Blair, Reginald

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Bridgman, William Clive

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Butcher, John George

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cassel, Felix

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Cave, George

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

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

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

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Weigall, Captain A. G.

    Croft, Henry Page

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Dalrymple, Viscount

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

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Lyttelten, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Duke, Henry Edward

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

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Malcolm, Ian

    False, Bertram Godfray

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Hohler and Mr. Denniss.

    Fell, Anther

    Nield, Herbert

    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "this" ["Finance Act of this or any previous year"].
    I move this Amendment for the purpose of endeavouring to get an explanation from the Attorney-General, which he did not give me on the last Amendment.
    2224
    This is a matter in which the bankers are very much interested. They want to know what has to be done between the period of the 5th and 22nd April. During that time the interest of millions of securities is falling due, so it is a very large question, and I should like to have an explanation, as this Act will really have no effect in

    2225
    protecting the bankers with regard to the deductions made during that period until the Finance Act of this year passes. If it does not protect them until the Finance Act of this year is passed, what is the use of putting it into the Act? It is quite a novel principle to amend an Act before it is passed. That is the arrangement which the Government is proposing. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us specifically whether the bankers can rely upon this quite apart from the Finance Act of this year, so as to be protected between the 5th and 22nd April.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: What I said of The object of this Amendment is to of this Sub-section is not to impose a charge, but to give an indemnity in respect to any deductions made. The duties imposed by the Finance Act will be legalised by Sub-section (1). Sub-section (1) would impose the duty in the Finance Act, and then the deductions made in pursuance of that will be legalised. Of course, they will not be legalised by this Sub-section until you have imposed the duties.
    Mr. CASSEL: What effect will it have?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It will have effect once the duties are imposed. It does not impose duties, because, if it did, it would be a charging Section. But what it does is to say that when the Act is passed and the precise duties have been imposed that if deductions have been made in the previous fortnight or three weeks there shall be authorised deductions, and it gives indemnity for deductions so made.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: The point really is that on the 22nd April they would be illegal, but that the subsequent enactment may make them legal. If the world came to an end on the 22nd April, these taxes would have no effect.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: And no action could be brought.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: That is true. I see no objection in putting that into the Bill, because in the interval they are illegal.
    Mr. CASSEL: In view of the explanation given, I do not press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to add the words,
    "but so as not to prejudice or affect any pending proceedings on the decision of any Court of Law, or any matter in respect of which the decision of a Court of Law was given prior to the passing of the Act."
    The object of this Amendment is to save the position of Mr. Gibson Bowles. I am sure the Government would not wish to retrospectively legislate so as to entitle the Bank of England to bring an action against Mr. Gibson Bowles, and to recover the very sum which in his action it was decided they were not entitled to. I tried to make that clear in the Committee stage, and I hope, so far as Mr. Gibson Bowles is concerned, it will be made clear.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I cannot accept the Amendment in these words, but I will accept an Amendment to give effect to what the hon. Gentleman wishes. If there is any fear that by reason of this Sub-section some action might be brought by the Bank of England against Mr. Gibson Bowles of the same nature as that in which he succeeded I have no objection to putting in words which would guard against that. There is no intention by the Bank of England of taking any such step. There are other means of reaching Mr. Gibson Bowles and compelling him to pay the tax properly due. Although I do not for a moment anticipate that such action will be taken. I am prepared to meet the hon. Gentleman to this extent, to insert words to prevent this applying to any past proceedings in a Court of Law. There are difficulties in regard to pending proceedings, but so far as I am aware there are no pending proceedings, but in view of the discussion in Committee, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise, there might be proceedings before the Royal Assent is given to the Act. I think the better words would be the words on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave), and if the hon. Gentleman moves his Amendment in this form, "but this provision shall not affect any past proceedings in any Court of Law," I shall be prepared to accept it.
    Mr. CASSEL: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. CAVE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to add the words "but this provision shall not affect any past proceeding in any Court of Law."
    Question put, and agreed to. Mtn.

    TITLE.
    "To give statutory effect for a limited period to Resolutions 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."
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, at the end to insert the words "and to amend the laws of Customs and Inland Revenue including Excise."
    I think the title must be amended by putting in the words which are in the Finance Act in regard to amending the law of Customs.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not think there is any necessity to amend the Title. All we are doing is to provide for deductions which have to be made, and for the provision and collection of taxes. It is not necessary to insert these words, and I am quite sure it is not desirable to add to the Title of a Bill any unnecessary word.
    Mr. CASSEL: I do not desire to press this to a Division if the Government refuse to take advantage of a proposal to have their Title put right for them. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next (21st April).

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland.]
    Adjourned accordingly at One minute after Eight o'clock.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.
  ADMINISTRATION (COST).
  ADMINISTRATION (COST).
  SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
  SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
  TUBERCULOSIS (ADVISORY COMMITTEE).
  TUBERCULOSIS (ADVISORY COMMITTEE).
  Civil Service (Conditions of Employment).
  Civil Service (Conditions of Employment).
  Fruits Imported.
  Fruits Imported.
  Irish Agricultural Organisation Society.
  Irish Agricultural Organisation Society.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Sale of Food and Drugs Act (Analysts, Ireland).
  Sale of Food and Drugs Act (Analysts, Ireland).
  Merchandise in Transit (Damage).
  Merchandise in Transit (Damage).
  Housing Schemes (Ireland).
  Housing Schemes (Ireland).
ROYAL NAVY.
  GOOD SERVICE PENSIONS.
  GOOD SERVICE PENSIONS.
  Rifle Range (Barnstaple).
  Rifle Range (Barnstaple).
  Middleburg Farm.
  Middleburg Farm.
  Army Ordnance Depots.
  Army Ordnance Depots.
  Pay of Prison Officials.
  Pay of Prison Officials.
  Suffragist Prisoners.
  Suffragist Prisoners.
  Committee on Irish Finance.
  Committee on Irish Finance.
  Exports and Imports (India).
  Exports and Imports (India).
  Fair-Wages Clause.
  Fair-Wages Clause.
  Indian Regimental Establishment.
  Indian Regimental Establishment.
  Small Holdings (Buildings).
  Small Holdings (Buildings).
  Live Stock Statistics.
  Live Stock Statistics.
  Cleansing and Disinfecting Schools (Scotland).
  Cleansing and Disinfecting Schools (Scotland).
  Distress in Macedonia.
  Distress in Macedonia.
  North Devon Roads.
  North Devon Roads.
  Labour Exchange Officials.
  Labour Exchange Officials.
  Sight Tests.
  Sight Tests.
POST OFFICE.
  STORES (IRELAND).
  STORES (IRELAND).
  REPAIR SHOP (DUBLIN).
  REPAIR SHOP (DUBLIN).
  SORTING CLERKS (LYNTON AND SEATON).
  SORTING CLERKS (LYNTON AND SEATON).
  ELECTRICAL STAFF.
  ELECTRICAL STAFF.
BARON RENDLESHAM.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor that the right of Frederick Archibald Charles, Baron Rendlesham, in the Peerage of Ireland, to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland, has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL.
Petition of the Manchester Ship Canal Company and of the Corporation of Manchester under their respective Common Seals praying for leave to bring in a Bill to confer further powers upon the Corporation of Manchester and the Manchester Ship Canal Company with respect to the lending and borrowing of money; to empower the said Company to raise further moneys for the purposes of their undertaking; and for other purposes; together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
BELFAST CORPORATION BILL.
(Petition for additional Provision.)
BLYTH AND COWPEN GAS BILL.
(Petition for additional Provision.)

METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
(Petition for additional Provision.)
Examiner's Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.
COLNE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
COLONIAL AND FOREIGN BANKS GUARANTEE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
ISLE OF WIGHT CENTRAL RAILWAY (GODSHILL TRANSFER BILL. [H.L.]
SLOUGH GAS BILL. [H.L.]
NORTHAMPTON CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
GOVERNESSES BENEVOLENT INSTITUTION BILL. [H.L.]
SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE MOND GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

GREENOCK PORT AND HARBOURS BILL [H.L.]
IPSWICH DOCK BILL. [H.L.]
BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Leave given to the Select Committee not to sit again till Wednesday next at half-past One o'clock.

CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not, proceeded with the consideration of the Bill the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The orders made on the 17th of March last discharged, and Bill committed.
GREENOCK HARBOUR (CONSTITUTION, &c.) BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee that it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
READING CORPORATION BILL. [H.L]
WEST HAMPSHIRE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
ROCHFORD RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
LLANTRISANT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Viscount Hood be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Craven; read, and agreed to.
GREENOCK PORT AND HARBOURS BILL. [H.L.]
IPSWICH DOCK BILL. [H.L.]
BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Savile be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Basing; read, and agreed to.

HULL AND BARNSLEY RAILWAY BILL.
Report of the Board of Trade received and ordered to lie on the Table.

SOLICITORS BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Law relating to Solicitors presented by the Earl Loreburn; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 20.)
EDINBURGH AND EAST OF SCOTLAND COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill he now read 2a.—(Lord Herschell.)
*Lord LOVAT: My Lords, I propose, before we read this Bill a second time, to raise the matters referred to in the Notice standing in my name on the Paper—viz.:
To call attention to the statements of His Majesty's Government on the defence problem at home and overseas and to the deficiencies which now exist on the land forces as organised under the Army Scheme of 1907, and to ask His Majesty's Government what steps will be taken to secure that these forces will be brought up to strength, and further to ask why the reference to the recently appointed Sub-Committee of Imperial Defence has been confined to the single issue of invasion.
I think I speak in no exaggerated language when I say that all those who interest themselves in the defence of the Empire view with growing anxiety the attitude of His Majesty's Government to the defence question at home and abroad. During the last few years we have seen strained relations between the Great Powers; we have seen vast expenditure and ordered preparation for war on the part of every Continental nation; and we have recently witnessed the downfall of a nation famed in the past for bravery, but which relied too much on improvisation at the time of the declaration of war. I think the downfall of the Turk has brought home more closely to the average man in this country than anything else the grave danger of the British Isles. It is very easy to draw an analogy between the arrangements which existed in Turkey and those in this country. In both places the
114
organisation of Second Line troops is left to the last day or the actual declaration of war. We view this state of things with grave apprehension, and on looking at what His Majesty's Government have done or are doing our alarm is in no way abated. During the last few years we have seen our military garrisons abroad decline, not only relatively, but absolutely. We have seen the number of Regular soldiers in this country reduced, and if we compare this to the increase in numbers abroad this reduction is all the more significant.
Let us look for a moment at our Second Line. In the last few years there has been created a Territorial Force on which we seem to pin the whole of our prospects of security in regard to home land defence. May I remind your Lordships that in regard to that Force the Secretary of State for War has admitted in the other House that we have "failed in achievement"; and to that admission we may add the fact that only two days ago the Council of the County Associations, the body more closely in touch with the organisation and recruiting side of the Territorial Force than any other association in the kingdom, unanimously passed a resolution declaring that—
"In view of the continued deficiency in the establishment of the Territorial Force in the country, notwithstanding the extraordinary efforts that have been made during the past five years to obtain recruits, this Council is of opinion that some system should be adopted which would provide a Territorial Force adequate for the defence of the country."
And they added that this could only be arrived at by an alteration in the conditions of service in such a way as to get more men. May I also remind your Lordships that on an inquiry by the Defence Association practically 75 per cent. of the commanding officers of the Territorial Force who were approached gave it as their opinion that the present Territorial training was not sufficient to meet the demand which might be made upon that Force.
I am not going in an Army debate to be led any distance into the question of naval defence, but what I have to say on this is germane to the subject we are discussing. I wish to bring to your Lordships' notice four outstanding facts. The first is that in battleships we had in 1904 a superiority of 190 per cent.; over the Germans to-day we have a superiority of only 80 per cent. In torpedo destroyers

115
in 1901, we had a 304 per cent. superiority; to-day the figure is 36 per cent. In regard to submarines, there were on the German side, though they had two building, no submarines in 1907; at the present moment Germany probably has something like 35 per cent. of our strength. In considering these big naval facts in their totality, I think you will admit that the relative importance of land defence stands out all the more clearly. Further, I think you will admit that with the reductions that have taken place in the Army and the failure of the Territorials the situation is indeed a grave one.
But if you turn for a moment to the question of the command of the air—a matter, if not wholly neglected by His Majesty's Government, at all events not treated in the manner we should like—you will find that the situation is even more serious. I would like to ask the noble Lord who represents the War Office to tell us the number of Zeppelins and semi-rigid dirigibles Germany has, and the number we have; and I would also like to ask him how long he anticipates it will take before we shall be able to compete on equal terms with other countries in this, to us, entirely new science. There is one point which has always been regarded as important in studying the strategy of a Power by a nation which has fears of that Power—the examination of the preparations prior to hostilities. I will give you a single example—that of the French and German frontier at the present time. We all know that on that frontier are tracts of uncultivated uplands where in remote villages there are stations with forty to fifty railway sidings showing the points at which on the outbreak of war troops will concentrate. In 1860 all but the Austrians knew by the peace preparations which were the Prussian places of concentration. If we consider this dirigible question from this point of view, we realise that the dirigible is directed against a sea rather than a land Power, and for the following reasons. The strong point of the dirigible is that it has power of flight up to 2,000 miles; it has capacity for carrying explosives up to ten tons, some even up to twenty tons; it is a most valuable asset to a Navy, for by means of wireless telegraphy it can report the whole of the movements of a Fleet. The dirigible, on the other hand, has certain grave disadvantages. It cannot fly as high or as fact as an aeroplane. It is unsuitable for
116
land operations from the fact that scouting is the main object by land. The dirigible is knocked out by its size and speed vulnerability by the aeroplane in regard to that work. But when you consider the advantages of the dirigible to a naval Power hostile to us, they stand out immediately. At the present moment Germany has between twenty and twenty-seven vessels able to fly across to these shores with dynamite sufficient to destroy any of our dockyards and arsenals, and against these we have absolutely nothing except two semi-rigids to answer the danger with which we are threatened.
Should war break out the Germans would be able to report every movement of our ships. They would be able at night to follow the great vessels as they steamed to get into safety, and they could communicate the information by wireless to their submarines. Thus they would have every facility for indicating the position of our Fleet. One further point is important. We must consider the strain that it would be on our Fleet to know that they could be watched in this way while we have no aircraft which could watch and report in our interests. We have no dirigibles and no aeroplane has yet got a wireless installation. Therefore it is clear that the dice are being more and more loaded against our one line of defence—the Navy. I ask your Lordships, Is this a satisfactory situation? I ask, Are we going to adopt once more what I might call the Canute theory of defence—the idea that by an individual's ipsi dixit, by the issue of a certain number of proclamations, airships can be prevented from blowing up our arsenals and dockyards. History relates that Canute did not believe in the protestations of his flatterers: is it quite certain that our rulers are equally clear sighted?
May I ask your Lordships to consider for a moment what has happened even within the last two months. During that period we have seen Germany vote £50,000,000 for defence purposes. We have seen France—a land in which every man almost, down to the widow's only son, is already recruited—we have seen France with enthusiasm accept a three years principle instead of a two. What have we done? No action, but an inquiry by the Committee of Imperial Defence. It would appear that we are unable to cope with a raid by 70,000 foreign troops who are

117
supposed to be able to land on these shores, and therefore it is thought advisable to reduce the number of possible invaders who can come over. I ask your Lordships to consider the reference to this recently appointed Sub-Committee of Imperial Defence, and I would like to read a couple of quotations, one from a speech by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, and the other from a speech by Lord Haldane, on the difficulty of a partial inquiry. Many of us on this side of the House believe that in confining the reference to the Committee to a single issue the Government have absolutely ruined any chance of a serious consideration of the case. Speaking in your Lordships' House on February 10 last Lord Haldane said—
"We were asked, 'Will the Government say definitely what they intend to do with the Expeditionary Force in case of war Would they all be sent abroad?' That was one question. I think any one who attempted an answer to a question which is essentially a question of circumstances would be very ill-advised. It is essentially a question to be decided according to the circumstances and the conditions which prevailed and which we cannot predict. One would be very foolish if one attempted to answer such a question with a categorical 'Yes' or 'No.' It must be a matter to be decided by the circumstances present at the moment. We might find that our naval dispositions were such that considering all the strategic positions, we might find it best to send all our Expeditionary Force abroad. Or it might be that owing to the operations of the Fleet there was not concentrated for the security of the country that amount of strength that we should desire, and we might think it better under the circumstances to keep the Expeditionary Force at home or only send away four divisions and keep two divisions at home. No one can give a categorical 'Yes' or 'No' to such a question."
And on May 15 last year Lord Crewe used these words—
"At that time I stated, and I am quite prepared to state again, that the circumstances of Europe might be such that it would not be possible to send at short notice more than four Divisions out of the country. I am prepared to go further than that. I can conceive other circumstances in which it might not be possible to send more than two Divisions. I can conceive other circumstances in which it would not be possible to send a single man out of the country, and I have not the least doubt that there is not one of the great military Powers on the Continent of Europe which would not be able to make a similar declaration as to what might happen in special circumstances on the Continent of Europe. The fact is, my Lords, we have two forces which both exist primarily, of course, for purposes of defence, but are both capable of offence—the first being the Fleet, and the second being that portion of our Army which it is possible to send abroad., Without knowing what the precise
118
circumstances are, what Powers are hostile to you in Europe at the time and what are friendly, what are their relations among themselves, and what is the position on the Continent of Europe in regard to alliances inter se—without knowing all these things it seems to me altogether impossible to lay down as a general proposition that you are prepared either to send abroad 50,000, 100,000, or 150,000 men, or, in the course of time, the whole male population of this Island which is capable of bearing arms."
When we pressed for an answer on the Expeditionary Force we are answered in this way. Then when you are inquiring into that most vital of questions, the question of what the British Army is required to face, why limit the reference to the single issue of invasion and exclude all other questions?
If Lord Crewe does me the honour of answering my remarks in the course of this debate I should like him to justify the logic by which he refused to consider the question of the numbers of the Expeditionary Force except in conjunction with all the other items which bear on the invasion problem, and yet when the Committee of Defence is to make what is called full inquiry into the defence problem a single issue only is chosen. We ask for an answer why this inquiry is confined to the single issue of invasion. We believe that with such a reference it is impossible to go fully into the subject. You cannot tell how many men a foreign Power may be able to send unless you have the rest of the considerations before you. You cannot tell what portion of our naval defence would remain at home or how many men of the Regular Army you would still have in this country. We think that this question of the reference to the Sub-Committee very seriously prejudices the whole position. Then I ask your Lordships to consider the personnel of the Sub-Committee. Far be it from me to imagine that a single civilian or Service member on that Committee is not absolutely honourable in his intentions But you must remember you have nine Ministers, with three sailors and only three soldiers. The nine Ministers must obviously have a tendency against any alteration being made. The three sailors have already come to a decision on the matter—vide Colonel Seely's statement of yesterday that so far as they are concerned the subject need not be discussed at all; and even the three soldiers in this particular case may have their views biased.

119
The majority of Englishmen who study strategy believe that the future of Europe will be derided on the Belgian frontier. They believe that the duty of soldiers is to get every available man to help the French when that time comes. I am not sure that I myself would not vote in the same way so as to free the soldiers to enable them to fight in Europe at a critical time. You are asking soldiers to give a decision on a subject which is not put fairly to them if you confine this question to the single reference of invasion. So much for the reference and the personnel of the Sub-Committee. Might I ask, before I leave that question, why Lord Nicholson was not appointed a member of the Sub-Committee. Lord Nicholson would surely speak on this subject with authority. It is true that he is in India at the present time, but your last inquiry took a year. He will be back shortly, and with his grasp of the matter he would soon be able to get level with the rest of the Committee and assist them in their decision. Again, why have we not got on this Sub-Committee General Ewart, who was the head of the Intelligence Department, or the present head? Then if this is going to be a fair inquiry, why should we not have some one like Lord Curzon or Lord Milner on the Committee? Why was Mr. Balfour chosen? We all remember Mr. Balfour's memorable statement on this question in 1905. We Back Bench Peers regard with the gravest anxiety the fact that out of all the occupants of our Front Bench in this House and in the other House Mr. Balfour alone should have been chosen.
There is one graver question than reference or personnel. Apparently His Majesty's Government have made up their mind about the whole situation. As recently as yesterday Colonel Seely made this statement in the House of Commons in answer to a supplementary Question—
"The General Stall has assured me that the troops remaining in this country would be adequate to defeat any organised invasion which, on the basis of Admiralty calculation, could elude the Fleet under the circumstances named. The number of 70,000 could only be reached by a series of isolated raids at wide intervals of time and place."
That is a statement by the Admiralty. Consequently the three Admiralty members on the Sub-Committee will vote for a reduction in the number of 70,000 possible invaders. If the number
120
of 70.000 possible invaders goes, then good-bye to all hope of reform. I would like to ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition in this House whether this matter is going to be put before Mr. Balfour, who will necessarily tie the whole Conservative Party to this bogus inquiry, and in future we shall never be able to face the question of reform. With such am enormous preponderance of feeling on the Committee, with the subject already prejudged, why should we, through the membership of Mr. Balfour, who must, after all, come not as an expert but as an amateur, risk the whole Conservative Party's being branded with the decision arrived at?
May I bring up one further point before I sit down. I would submit that the situation is so serious that the greatest care should be taken by those in authority that considered opinions are put forward with plainness and without circumlocution. We have had a series of statements which we can hardly believe represent the considered opinion of those who have made them. We have conic to a time when we should not accept any statements as facts until we sift them and see whether or not they are made in good faith. I will give one or two examples. The subject of aeroplanes was being discussed in the House of Commons the other day, and Colonel Seely claimed at that time to have 101 aeroplanes ready for use. He said—
"It may be asked, How does this compare with other countries? If you are to take aeroplanes in the same way as you take artillery, as being the necessary part of an army, to be allotted in a particular ratio, we have an enormous excess over any foreign Power, if you compare our provision of aeroplanes to-day. I do not accept the view that we ought to treat aeroplanes in the same way as we treat artillery, or that we should have the same proportion to mobilised strength as other nations, but if you do take that standard, and if you compare, let us say, the German Army with our own, and if we take the figures given by the Morning Post of 150 aeroplanes in possession of the German Army, and take our 100 to-day, if you do the same, that on the basis of an aeroplane being an integral part of the army the same as a gun, and being provided in the same proportion, taking the whole mobilised strength of the two nations, we have four times as many in proportion as Germany."
I am sure that every person who read that speech in the country came away with the idea that 150 aeroplanes was the number possessed by Germany. I ask your Lordships to consider whether that was putting forward what was true or

121
suggesting what was false. Any one making inquiries as to the number of aeroplanes which Germany has at her disposal world find that the number is 600, and probably considerably more. We pay officers at the War Office to make inquiries, and the taxpayers pay the salary of the Secretary of State for War. Is it right that he should quote the number as 150 from a. paper like the Morning Post, which was badly informed on the subject, instead of asking his military advisers how many aeroplanes Germany has available in time of war? Is it right that that should be done to bamboozle the country as to the state of affairs? I should like to know whether this statement by Colonel Seely has been taken back or not.
In the House of Commons on Friday last Mr. Bonar Law pressed the Secretary of State fur War several times as to his statement. Mr. Bonar Law said—
"All I wanted to find out was whether I clearly understood the statement the right hon. gentleman makes. Even in his last statement he qualified it. I want now to have it quite clear. What I meant by the qualification was that he said there was no danger of a blow at the heart. I accept that, but I understood him to say before—and I should like an answer to this—that in the opinion of his General staff what would he left at home after the Expeditionary Force had gone abroad would he adequate to meet a raid of 70,000 trained European troops."
Colonel Seely's answer to that was "Yes." Which leg are we going to stand on—Col. Seely's leg or the leg which Lord Haldane has so often put before us? I take it that we are not going to stand on Col. Seely's statement, because I see that in an answer in the other House yesterday we had a qualified withdrawal of this statement. I should like to ask whether we are going to have an official denial to-day. Are our Territorials so organised to-day that with the whole Expeditionary Force abroad they would be able to meet a raid of 70,000 trained European troops? As Colonel Seely has stated the opposite in another place, we are entitled to a full and public withdrawal of this statement.
I wish to give two further examples of inaccuracy. I do not think it helps debate at all to have statements made like the one we had from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack that Special Reserve battalions can be used for part of the mobile force for home defence. We must turn back to his statement of November, 1911, and ask whether,
122
in addition to the duties which are given to these wretched Special Reserve battalions, who are deprived of their officers and have no transport, it is fair to count them three times—first, for reinforcing battalions abroad; secondly, for holding the strong places of the country; and thirdly, as a force which can march out and defeat any small body of invaders. Lord Haldane said on February 10 last—
"There are 74 of these battalions, and behind them are the 27 battalions of which I do not speak further because the problem is more difficult. I do not think that against these any small raiding force would make much headway. If they succeeded in landing, what position would such a raiding force be in? It would be surrounded and eventually wiped out even if they succeeded in killing three times their numbers"
These battalions are not brigaded, but would have to light in isolated units, and, moreover, they have no transport. Is it right that statements like this should be made in your Lordships' House in order to bamboozle the country? In the present very grave situation it is not right that we should have statements like this put before the public.
On the subject of this famous figure of 70,000 Lord Haldane said—
"The figure has always been 70,000. It was 70,000 at the time the noble Viscount (Lord Midleton) was in office; it was 70,000 when the subject was discussed before the House of Commons in the debates of 1902, 1903, and 1905 in the time of Mr. Balfour, and it has remained at 70,000."
This famous figure of 70,000 has perplexed many who do not closely follow political statements. The figure of 70,000 was originally given by Lord Roberts as the minimum number with which it would be possible to invade this country. The subsequent 70,000 was a figure which was defined in 1909 in a speech by the Prime Minister. This latter 70,000 referred to the maximum that we should organise our home defence forces to defeat. There is no connection at all between the two; and it is impossible to say that the figure of 70,000 was the same then as now, because it referred to a totally different subject. Speaking in the House of Commons on July 12, 1906, when he was proposing to change the Volunteers into the Territorial Army, Lord Haldane, then Secretary of State for War, said—
"Now the Volunteers have definite functions which they ought to fulfil, and which to a large extent they do fulfil. If the nation went to war the Regular troops would go out of the garrison forts, which would then have to be

123
defended by the Volunteers. The Volunteers are also required to repel possible raids to the extent of about 10,000 men. I think such raids very unlikely, because I believe the raiders would never go back alive. There may, however, be some Power which would be enterprising enough to lose 10,000 men in order to destroy the Elswick Works or Woolwich Arsenal. They will find it very difficult, but still possible, and provision has to he made accordingly, and that is the second function which Volunteers have to fulfil. There is a third function which the Volunteers may have to fulfil, and that is to be a sort of second Reserve for the Regular Army. We propose to take the Volunteers and organise them for these three functions."
The Territorial Force was to be organised for these three functions ! In Lord Portsmouth's time and also during a portion of Lord Lucas's time at the War Office we used to have this 10,000 raid divided into two raids of 5,000. To say, as the noble and learned Viscount said the other day, that 70,000 had been the number throughout I submit does not convey to the general public the facts as I and a great many of us here believe them to be.
We have initiated many discussions in your Lordships' House on the subject of the land defences of the Crown. We consider that the situation is getting worse from day to day. May I ask, as a humble Back Bencher, Are there no noble Lords on the other side who are going to express their views on the subject? Why should we always be limited to two or three speakers on the other side of the House? In the spirit of boycott which now obtains in regard to the House of Lords, we have no official representation of the War Office in this House. If we do not get assistance in this way from the considered opinion of those in touch with the War Office, why should not noble Lords on the Back Benches opposite address your Lordships and justify the faith which is in them, or boldly come out into the open and express their honest conviction? I have searched through the debates in your Lordships' House during the past two years, and I find that with the exception of Lord Crewe, Lord Haldane, Lord Lucas and Lord Haversham, there have been only three speeches made by noble Lords on the Front or Back Benches opposite to criticise or to hack up the military policy of His Majesty's Government. This conspiracy of silence is striking, and I hope that in the course of this discussion noble Lords opposite will get up and say whether or not they are satisfied with the policy of His Majesty's Government in the present crisis.
LORD ST. AUDRIES: My Lords, I venture to join in this debate as an old soldier who, although he some time ago turned his sword into a whip, still takes a great interest, in his old profession. I propose to deal to-day very briefly with the question of the relative duties of the Expeditionary Force and of the Territorial Army. As I understand the Expeditionary Force, its numbers are based on the standard which the Government think sufficient for the defence of the frontiers of the Empire. That is the basis on which the numbers are fixed, and not on any idea of throwing a great Force on to the Continent in the event of a great European war. That the Expeditionary Force might have to go there is undoubted, but the basis is defence of the Empire and not our obligations on the Continent.
I want to examine what the Expeditionary Force can do on the Continent. To save running the smallest risk of any offensive remarks about any friendly foreign Power, I will take the case of our having to maintain our old obligation of defending the neutrality of Belgium. It is conceivable that if that neutrality were threatened it would be our business to mobilise the Expeditionary Force and to transfer it to Belgium. We cannot do that without the very gravest risk until we have absolute command of the sea. No nation has ever tried to do it on a large scale. It is true that the Japanese when they had practical, but not entire, command of the sea transported troops to Manchuria, but they lost a good many transports on the way. And I would remind your Lordships that our Expeditionary Force differs from any force in the shape of a raid which any foreign Power could send to this country, and for this reason. Supposing a foreign Power sent 70,000 men to invade these Islands and the whole of that raid were wiped out, taken prisoners, or sunk on the transports, it would be a comparatively small fraction of the great armies of foreign Powers; but our Expeditionary Force is the only-Regular Army we have, and therefore we cannot without the gravest risk send it to the Continent until we have absolute command of the sea, command so absolute that no torpedo destroyers or even submarines could get through. We should almost have to avoid the risk of foggy weather, and also the new factor of aeroplanes. In that case our Expeditionary

125
Force would have to remain at home for some weeks until we got command of the sea.
But this situation might arise. It might be so vital to send our Expeditionary Force to the Continent that we should have to take that great risk, and in that case the greater part of our Navy would be occupied in convoying that Force from here to Belgium. That is an operation which this country has not attempted to undertake for more than 100 years. In all our recent wars, wherever we have sent large numbers of troops abroad, there has never been any question or any idea of our transports being attacked at sea. They have sailed to their destination exactly in the same way as the great American and Canadian liners sail week after week. But the risk in this case would be so great that a very large proportion of our Navy would be necessary to convoy that Force abroad, and I very much doubt, great as our Navy is, whether we should have enough ships to convoy the Force, to blockade the enemy's ports, and to protect our own coast. In that case the enemy's game would be simple. They would keep on worrying our covering Fleet and at the same time make a raid on some distant part of our coast. What would the raiders meet? Nothing but our hastily-raised Territorials, who would not have had their illusory six months training, and the result would be that the Expeditionary Force would have to turn back home and remain here in order to save the country from invasion.
There is another contingency, and I think perhaps a more possible one, though I hope it may never occur. It is this. A situation might arise in India or in Egypt or in both at a time of profound peace in Europe which would necessitate our sending out large reinforcements to India and to Egypt, and which would further necessitate our reinforcing the ridiculously inadequate garrisons which are now maintained in the Mediterranean, because it is obvious that if a portion of our Force is locked up in Indian and in Egypt we must keep the sea route free in the Mediterranean. Then we will imagine that war breaks out in Europe in which we are vitally interested and in which we are bound to use our naval force. What have we at home to protect our people from raid and invasion? Nothing, again, but hastily raised Territorials with-
126
out their six months' training. And yet the six months' training on the outbreak of war was the backbone of the efficiency of the Territorial Force.
I turn to the Territorials, and I first of all must enter my very strong protest against counting the National Reserve as part of the Territorial Army. I do not know whether "fraud" is a Parliamentary word or not, but all I can say is that it is a gross deception of the British citizen to count those old soldiers as part of the Territorial Army, It is a very thin veil to cover Colonel Seely's failure to raise a Territorial Army by voluntary service. Who are the National Reserve? They are old men middle-aged men, many of them very old men, men who have done their duty to their country. Now they are asked to do it again simply because other and younger men are too slack and too idle to come forward. I will take my own case. I was asked to take command of the company of old Guardsmen in the Somerset Division of the National Reserve. Of course, I gladly assented. I am sixty; I can walk still, but I have had no instructions of any kind. I do not know what to do in case war breaks out, and I have no uniform. I understand that the penalty of being taken in arms without uniform in time of war is very extreme. I believe you are shot. When I say I have no uniform I am not quite correct, because I have several. I have my old uniform as a Grenadier, which incidentally I can still get into. I have my uniform as a Privy Councillor. I cannot afford to buy a Deputy Lieutenant's uniform owing to the burden of taxation, but I can hire one; and I have also somewhere the robes of a Baron. But suppose I was taken prisoner, it is possible that one or other of those uniforms might save me, but if I wore either of them I should be so conspicuous in the field that I am afraid I should be knocked out before any prisoners were taken at all. I want to know what the duties of the National Reserve are to be in time of war. Are they or any of them to join their old units, or are they to be units by themselves? I can conceive, it possible that some of them might be of great use for garrison duty and thereby might set free some Territorials for service in the field, but I cannot imagine anything more disastrous than the influx of a number of old soldiers, old officers, non-commissioned officers, and men into the ranks of the

127
Territorial Army, amongst young officers, non-commissioned officers, and men. You would have old men with the best possible feelings of loyalty serving under men young enough to be their sons. That system could never possibly work. I strongly protest against this National Reserve being counted as even supplementary to the Territorial Force, except in so far as some of them, quite a limited number, could do garrison duty and thereby relieve Territorials.
I believe everybody will admit that the Territorial Army is deficient both in numbers and in training. I know the local Territorials in my part of the country intimately, and I say this of them—they are very keen, they are very zealous, and they are very anxious to be efficient, but no man who has ever served with Regular soldiers in the British Army or has ever seen Regular soldiers on the Continent can honestly say for a moment that these Territorials are fit to meet foreign trained troops. They have the spirit, and I dare say in many ways they are inure intelligent, being better educated than ordinary Regular soldiers, but they have not the training, and to send them to fight trained Continental troops would be mere butchery. In fact, the Government themselves have admitted that, because they estimate that to defeat foreign trained troops we should require a majority of three to one. That must logically involve the idea that a much larger proportion of our men than of the enemy are going to be killed.
We seem to be in rather a haze about this question of a raid. It is not very difficult to see why, because it changes from day to day. Last Friday it was 70,000 men; yesterday it was little parties of men landing in small bodies in various parts of the country, apparently in a most obliging way exactly where the Territorials were prepared to meet them. I recollect when this question was first raised, and I heard Mr. Balfour's speech. He gave it as the deliberate opinion of the Defence Committee, including the opinion of the sailors, that 70,000 was the most which any Power could land on our coast in one Army—I do not mean to say exactly at the same place, but 70,000 men landed so close together that they could concentrate in a few hours. I believe that is the view of the Committee of Imperial Defence now. Of one thing I am quite certain—that
128
Colonel Seely's opinion is mistaken. No foreign Power would be mad enough to attempt to invade this country by a kind of system of parcel post. What we have to reckon on is a concentrated army of 70,000 men, with artillery and with horses; and to meet them, to crush them, because a raid must be crushed—we cannot afford to take any risk at all—you must have a preponderance of three to one. In other words, you must have 210,000 men. How are you going to get them? The present Territorial Force is 260,000 men, but if you deduct the men required for garrison purposes, the men who are absent, the men who are sick, and the men who have not been to camp and have not passed the musketry test, you will not have more than 160,000 left. And you must remember this. The enemy are not going to advertise and tell us exactly where they will land. It will be done by surprise. They will know our dispositions, and we shall not know theirs. I wonder how long it would take us to concentrate 210,000 Territorials in one spot to meet this raid. The result is obvious. While we are concentrating our men the enemy will advance through the country. We shall either have to retreat and concentrate, or else we shall have to be beaten in detail.
While we are rushing about expecting a landing here and expecting a landing there the enemy will have made a landing, and we shall not have a Force sufficient to meet them. It is absolutely necessary that we must have, not only a large Force, but a Force which can be stationed in different parts of the country, so that wherever the enemy lands we can be able to bring against them a force of three to one. I believe that what we really want is not less than 500,000 men, and not only do we want the men, but they must be trained. Nobody now believes in the six months' training at the outbreak of war. Nobody believes we shall have time for it. Long before the expiration of six months the crisis of any great European war will have passed. The men will be perfectly useless to us then. Nobody believes that our men at the outbreak of war are capable of putting up a fight against foreign troops. It is all very fine to go to Territorial dinners and make complimentary speeches and pat them on the back and say what good fellows they are. They are good fellows, but they are very indifferent soldiers.

129
Then take their horses. We all know how difficult it is to get horses for the Regular Army, and it is getting more difficult every year. I do not know whether your Lordships have ever seen the animals which are used by the Territorial Army. Last summer I was going out of London one Sunday, presumably the horses' clay of rest, and I overtook some of our mounted Territorials. They were mostly riding, I should judge, horses which on week-days took the butcher round. Some of them, no doubt, may have moved in the more humble growler, and one or two others showed signs of being acquainted with au omnibus. The horses certainly were very poor, and the riders were in that elementary stage of the knowledge of the art which I think was best described by a little child who was asked how she was getting on riding. She said, "First-rate; the pony used to bump me, now I bump the pony." The Territorials whom I saw had not got beyond the stage of being bumped by the pony. I give your Lordships another instance. I was down in my county the other day, and saw fifteen or sixteen horses being driven along the road. They were of all sizes, all shapes, all kinds of breed. They only had one thing in common—they all looked gaunt, thin and weary. I asked the man in charge to what particular knacker's yard they were being taken, and the answer I got was that they were training with the Devons last week and were now out with the Somerset Horse Artillery. That is the class of animal on which our Territorials have to depend, and you cannot expect them to be efficient and do good work as long as they are horsed in that way.
More training for the Territorials is absolutely essential. The very least they ought to do is a compulsory month in camp instead of the go-as-you-please fortnight or week which they have now; in fact, in many cases the men do not go at all. Those men are perfectly useless in time of war, and I can say, as an old soldier, that I believe a month in camp is the least which would make men really efficient as Territorials. I am well aware that if you make it a month in camp that will reduce the number of men who come up for voluntary enlistment, because they cannot afford the time away from their employment, and the whole difficulty of the Territorials is very largely one of employment. The fact is this. If you
130
cannot get sufficient numbers of well-trained men by voluntary enlistment then you must fall back on some form of compulsion. I know that the Secretary of State for War the other day, in passionate tones, expressed his great attachment to the voluntary principle. We all like the voluntary principle, but I venture to say that we must put safety before sentiment. I am quite certain that before very long the country will insist that every young man on reaching the age of eighteen shall become liable for service in the Territorial Army. I do not mean to say that he should be bound to go into it, but he should be liable to go into it if called upon.
I am in great sympathy with the National Service (Territorial Force) Bill which was introduced in another place last Friday, but I think it has two defects. One is that it would produce the men but would not produce the training; the other is that the very hint physical standard—the way in which the numbers are kept down within reasonable limits—is very hard on two classes in the community, the miners and the agricultural labourers, because they are physically the finest men in the country, and certainly as regards agricultural labourers they are the men we can least spare in August, which is the training time. But certainly under that Bill or under any scheme of the kind you get the men, and the problem is how adequately to train them. I believe there always will be a large proportion of volunteers in the Territorial Army even if you give this month in camp, but there will be a deficiency, and that must be made up by some system of compulsion. The simplest method of all is the old system of the ballot. But it has disadvantages. It interferes with men getting employment, and it is not quite fair as between one man and another. It is all very well to say that you punish an employer who does not let his employee when he is a Territorial go to camp, but you cannot force an employer to take a man who is a Territorial into his employment. But it is not outside the power of the people of this country to devise some modified means of compulsion to cover the deficit between the number of voluntarily enlisted men and the quota which ought to be required from each county to make up a Territorial Army.
I have heard it suggested that as the difficulty is one of employment it might

131
be possible to make the great landowners and the great employers of labour furnish a certain number of men for the Territorial Force in proportion to the total number of men they employ in their industries. I should exempt all the small employers because, of course, where a man employs only a few men you would ruin him if you, took away the few men he employed; but with regard to the great employers of labour and the great landowners, who, after all, are the people who stand to lose a great deal from a successful raid of this country, I think it would be possible to make them furnish for the Territorial Force a proportion of the men they employ. I believe it is possible to build up a perfectly sound Territorial Army on this principle. In the first place, a sound military recruit drill in all our elementary and secondary schools. I am not a bit afraid of the charge of militarism. I look upon that as all humbug. The mere fact that a youth is taught to take an interest in drill is not going to make this country into a warlike swashbuckling nation, always wanting to fight with their neighbours. My own belief is that it would have the reverse effect. The advantage of it would be that when you had given every young man in this country years of really first-class recruit drill at school you could afford, on their joining the Territorial Force, to dispense with the recruit drill which is so irksome. In the second place, I should insist upon a month's annual camp for four years. I do not say that then you would get a perfect Army, but at all events you would get a very much better Army than you have now—bigger in numbers, and all trained.
There is an old argument which is very often used. It is said, "What is the use of our having half-a-million of armed men in this country? for if we temporarily lost command of the sea we should be starved because we have not enough food or raw material here to last us three weeks." I admit that if we permanently lost command of the sea there would be only one thing to do, and that is to surrender; but the position would be different supposing we temporarily lost command of the sea but had half-a-million well-trained armed men at home fighting for breathing time, fighting until our Fleet could be pulled round or come back from some distant part of the Empire. I wonder
132
whether it would pay the great nations whose best commercial customers we are, whether it would be in their interests to see Great Britain utterly crushed and ruined, stripped of her Colonies, and with a huge war indemnity to pay. I do not think it would pay them to lose so good a customer. And, after all, it is very difficult to effectively blockade so large a coast line as ours. I think it would be well worth the while of those great nations to run the undoubted risk of supplying us with a certain amount of food and of raw material, and I believe they would do it if they saw half-a-million of men fighting desperately to gain time. But I am very sure they would not take that risk and come to the assistance of a nation too lazy, too selfish, and too cowardly to take upon themselves even a very small part of that burden which is gladly undertaken by every other Great Power in Europe and by our own subjects in our Dominions across the seas.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, I am sorry that I missed a considerable portion of Lord Lovat's speech, but I came in towards the end of his remarks and heard him say that he had searched the Army debates in your Lordships' House for the last two years and had been very much disappointed in the want of fertility of rhetoric which had characterised noble Lords on this side who were not directly responsible to the Government. for their military views; and he said he would very much like to hear some noble Lord on this side not actually connected with the Government either criticise or support the military arrangements of the present Administration. I am not going to succumb to that invitation. I am a man of peace myself, although I served for some years without distinction in the Army. But I have always been interested in the horse question, which was introduced by the noble Lord who has just sat down and whom we heard with great pleasure. To some extent I think my experience is the same as his. I saw some mounted Territorials in my part of the country last summer, and I confess that neither the riders nor the horses filled me with very great confidence; but I am bound to say the riders seemed to be enjoying themselves a great deal more than the horses. They were hammering them down the hard road as fast as they could go and laughter was carrying them along, but perhaps they

133
were coming home from some elaborate operations.
But whether or not the noble Lord opposite is right in his views about the horses, only last week some very reassuring figures were given in another place as to the horse census. I expect that one of the debates to which Lord Lovat looked back may have been a debate on horses, in which possibly one or two noble Lords on this side of the House took part. At all events, I remember very well when the census soulagement to our horse difficulties was first started, and it was pointed out that it would be very important to get the horses carefully classified, and so on. I am rather tired of what we hear about horses, so I did not read very carefully what was said the other night in another place; but as far as I remember it was stated that this census was based on these particular classifications. We were to be told exactly the condition, the character almost, the height, and the age of the horses available for our difficulties should we ever find ourselves in any. I invite the noble Lord below me who will later on respond in this debate to repeat those figures in as precise and accurate a form as possible; and I ask that for this reason. With all respect to the House of Commons, their time is limited; ours is not. And although I know quite well that there are a great many people in the I louse of Commons who live in country districts and are fond of and understand horses, at the same time I believe that in this House, from the nature of our particular occupations, or professions as I must now call them, of country gentlemen, we are in a better position to sift the figures that are produced than Members of the House of Commons may be. I hope, therefore, even at the risk of repetition, that when the Government come to reply on the whole question they will give us these figures again in such a form that later on we may be able to test them in a debate.
I go about the country a good deal, and from force of habit I cannot help looking at a horse whenever I see one, and I really do not know where the horses are which this wonderful census has provided for. My impression is that if you had to pull them out you would find them as difficult to get at as Missing Vicars and Dark Ladies. Although I believe the noble Lord opposite did not make that specific point, I think it would he an advantage if we heard some-
134
thing about this horse census, so that, if we see fit later on, we may test the figures in a debate.
*THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I hope the House will forgive my intervening at so early a period of the debate, but I am afraid I shall not be able to take part in it at a later stage. I will, if noble Lords will allow me, leave the discussion of the more purely technical points which have been raised to my noble friend who represents the War Office here (Lord Herschell), and deal, quite briefly, with some of the more general considerations which have been advanced in the two interesting speeches with which the debate opened.
The noble Lord, Lord Lovat, complains in the first place, in the course of his Question, that the reference to the recently appointed Sub-Committee of Imperial Defence has been confined to the single issue of invasion. I confess that I was somewhat puzzled when I saw that sentence in the noble Lord's Question, because I did not understand, and I confess I still do not understand, how the noble Lord was aware what the reference to the Sub-Committee—supposing there to be a Sub-Committee—actually is. I am not aware that any publication has been made of its terms, and it appears to me exceedingly unlikely that any such statement can have been made. I remember that my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War, in alluding to this further inquiry on the invasion question, stated that the whole subject was being reconsidered by the Committee of Imperial Defence, but I do not think that my right hon. friend limited in terms the subject into which further inquiry was being made.
*LORD LOVAT: We had a debate on this subject on February 10, and Lord Herschell made a statement that the inquiry was going to be made into the invasion question. I spoke half an hour after Lord Herschell and protested against the inquiry being confined to the single issue of invasion. The statement I then made was not contradicted, and I presumed it was so. If the noble Marquess will now tell us that the reference is not confined to the single issue of invasion our fears will be greatly relieved.
*THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I cannot help thinking that the noble Lord somewhat misapprehends the functions and powers of the Defence Committee. He is apparently anxious that questions of European policy in all their bearings should be considered by that body, because it is impossible, as I understand him to say, without entering into the most intricate and intimate questions of European policy, to consider in what form an invasion of this country might be attempted or the force by which such an invasion would be made. Of course, all military problems and all naval problems come in their turn, or are liable to come in their turn, within the purview of the Defence Committee, but the noble Lord must remember that the questions which are considered by that Committee are strategical questions—they are in no sense political questions; and if he will bear that in mind I think he will see that the large area which, as I understand, he desires should be covered in this inquiry is not one which at any time could be undertaken by any body except the Government of the day who are responsible for the policy of the country.
The noble Lord went on to complain—if that is a fair word to use; I certainly do not want to misrepresent him—that His Majesty's Opposition were not more fully or differently represented on this particular inquiry, and he considered that the presence of Mr. Balfour there might, as I understand, have a hampering effect from the point of view of his Party. It is not for me in any way to interfere in a domestic matter of that kind. But with regard to the presence of Mr. Balfour on this inquiry I need only say this, that it must be remembered that the Committee of Imperial Defence is a Committee called together by the Prime Minister. It is the Prime Minister's Committee, upon which he asks any person to serve, official or other, as he desires; and I take it that the presence of Mr. Balfour, which he is good enough to give, on this Committee is due to the fact that as Prime Minister and previous Chief of the Committee of Imperial Defence he conducted an inquiry into this question of invasion. It therefore was not merely an act of courtesy, but also an act of service to the general public interest, that Mr. Balfour should be invited to take a place in this particular inquiry. The House will remember that it was in 1905 that
136
Mr. Balfour made an announcement to Parliament and the country conveying the conclusions of the Committee of Imperial Defence in the inquiry on the subject of invasion which had taken place, I think, during the years 1903 and 1904. The question was raised again by Lord Roberts in 1908—raised first, in fact, to Mr. Balfour himself, if I remember aright—and on that occasion Mr. Balfour was again good enough to take some part in the inquiry into a subject which he had previously made his own.
On this general question of invasion I certainly do not complain, and I do not think that anybody ought to complain, that critics like noble Lords opposite take the most untoward possible combination of circumstances as the foundation on which to build their case. I do not at all dispute their right to do that. Nobody has a right to take impossible circumstances, but so long as the circumstances in which noble Lords think the danger would present itself are conceivably possible we cannot complain if they choose to take them as their instance. But I think the House ought to guard against the assumption that there now exists a complete novelty of conditions, that our liability to a possible invasion is something in its essence altogether new, and also that the circumstances in which we may desire to send a large force away from this country are also new. The conditions of offence and of defence are, of course, perpetually modified in details of varying importance. Gradually changes take place both in the materials and methods of offence and defence which profoundly alter the circumstances of different countries; but human nature and human passions remain the same as they have remained throughout history.
Consider for a moment the use of the term "Expeditionary Force," which has come into being since the reconstructive changes made by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack in 1907. We have always had an Expeditionary Force; we have had it for 800 years, ever since this country began to take any part whatever in Continental affairs. The Expeditionary Force is simply that part of the fighting Forces of the country which can go abroad. It was an Expeditionary Force that went to the Peninsula, and an Expeditionary Force which went to the Crimea; and Expeditionary Forces, as your Lordships

137
know, have proceeded abroad on countless other occasions. The phrase "Expeditionary Force" is a convenient technical description. It is in no sense the expression of a new policy, or of a new series of intentions on the part of His Majesty's Government. When toy noble and learned friend on the Woolsack was Secretary of State for War he vastly unproved the organisation for mobilisation and transport and for other matters connected with the sending of a Force abroad. It may be said that an entirely new condition of things has now arisen, because formerly we were able to act with deliberation, and now we may have to send our Expeditionary Force abroad in circumstances ofhaste some of which were mentioned by Lord St. Audries. Have conditions changed? Can anybody conceive any state of things in Europe which could make the rapid despatch abroad of our Regular troops more imperative than the state of things that arose in March, 1815, when Napoleon landed from Elba and was acclaimed once more by France; and. if you take events on the other side of the world, can anybody imagine any state of things in any part of the world which would cause us more promptly to desire to send troops front this country than what happened in May, 1857, when the Cavalry of the rebels broke from Meerut and captured Delhi, and, as we know, Cawnpore rose almost immediately afterwards. There is nothing new under the sun in those respects, and. the possible absence from these shores of the Regular forces of the Crown may confront us, as we know from more recent experience than any I have mentioned, in 1899 and 1900. Therefore all I ask is that the House should not be misled into considering the remote contingency of the hasty departure of the Regular Army as representing a normal state of things. People really become the slaves at last of the phrases which they use, and the tendency in the controversy which we see carried on in newspapers and elsewhere is to speak of the Expeditionary Force as a Force which is always on the eve of starting on an expedition, and not, as it ought to be regarded, as that portion of the Regular troops normally in this country which are capable of being sent abroad, at short notice, it is true, but only in very special or abnormal circumstances.
It is right and wise in this matter of invasion that from time to time we should go through a stocktaking process and renew
138
and revise these inquiries through the body which, in view of the fact that when all is said and done the Government of the day must be the ultimate responsible authority in these matters, is the best which we believe could be devised for considering these technical questions. I will first say a word with regard to the shortage in the Territorial Force, which was so strongly impressed upon the House by Lord St. Audries. It cannot, I think, be disputed that some of the advocates of national service and of general compulsory service have succeeded in inflicting no small measure of discouragement upon the Territorial Force. It has been part of the case of the more extreme advocates of general national service that the Territorial Force as it exists is altogether useless for the purposes of defence, and it surely stands to reason that if you announce that a Force in its composition and in all its elements is a useless body for the purposes for which it is nominally intended, you are not setting the right way to work to get people to join it. The path on which to tread in speaking of this question of national defence is, I admit, a very narrow one, and one on which it is necessary to walk with' delicacy. Some years ago, on the motion of my noble friend Lord Wemyss, who we are sorry to think does not now attend our deliberations, the House passed a Resolution, the precise terms of which I forget, but in effect it was that the defensive Force of this country ought to he such as to prevent any enemy from ever setting foot on our shores. That Resolution was passed with acclamation by the House. If such a Force existed every man who joined it might be told beforehand that in joining it he was not running the risks which an ordinary village policeman runs, because if no enemy would ever dream of setting foot on these shores it is quite clear that the members of the Territorial Force would in no circumstances see a shot fired. That shows the danger of importing too much argument and too much logic into this question of national defence, a question with which you are dealing, not with fixed and agreed data, as is shown by the speeches we have already heard this evening, but in connection with which it is possible to form conceptions themselves of a most extravagant character on which elaborate and convincing arguments can be based.
It stands to reason that those people who think that compulsory service, or

139
compulsory training, or whatever you like to call it, is in itself a thoroughly good thing, welcome what they choose to consider the breakdown of the voluntary system. But in saying this, I certainly desire to distinguish most carefully between those more extreme advocates of the system of compulsion and those gentlemen connected with the Territorial Army, many of them members of your Lordships' House, many of them members of the Opposition, and some, I daresay, individually far from being indisposed to a compulsory system for home service, who at the same time have worked most strenuously, most unselfishly, and most efficiently on behalf of the Territorial Force. It would be a most ungrateful and unfair attitude on the part of any member of His Majesty's Government, while feeling himself obliged to draw attention to the fact that some part of the national service propaganda has discouraged, and I think in some cases has been meant to discourage, the Territorial Force as it now exists, to refrain from expressing his sense of the debt which not merely the War Office but the country as a whole owes to those who, without any Party inducement, or indeed any inducement of any kind, have given so much unselfish service to the Territorial Force.
It is impossible not to regard the shortage in the Territorial Force as a grave matter in itself. So far as the immediate recruiting of that Force is concerned, I understand that there is a slight tendency towards improvement. But the reduction in numbers and the failure to reach the general standard of establishment which was aimed at when the Force was instituted cannot, of course, he regarded as otherwise than a grave matter in itself. But in relation to the particular issues raised by the noble Lord opposite we have to ask, assuming that the margin of safety which was aimed at in the original fixing of the establishment of the Territorial Force has been formidably reduced, does this reduction in margin so endanger the safety of the country as to require an immediate and heroic remedy? That, I take it, is the question which the Government have to answer, and it stands to reason that a violent remedy can only be required as such if the national safety is regarded as being in any sense in danger.
We have to return to the consideration of what the possible danger to this country
140
might be in certain circumstances, even those which ought to be regarded as only remotely possible; and we have to-day once more come into close contact with the ancient figure of 70,000 as mentioned by the noble Lord opposite, and also with the distinction between an invasion and a raid. The situation is somewhat further complicated by the introduction during quite the last week or two of an entirely new phantom into the picture—namely, that of a raid of 70,000 men. This, as I say, is an entirely new phantom, because it is a departure from the terminology which was found to be convenient and has been employed from the earliest stages of this discussion—namely, that the arrival on these shores of anything which could be called an army, with its guns and horses and all the paraphernalia of a Regular force should be described as an invasion, whereas an attack by a far smaller force, perhaps free from all impedimenta of any kind, should be described as a raid. Nobody ever spoke of the British and French forces which landed in the Crimea as a raiding force. People always spoke of the invasion of the Crimea, which indeed is the title of the famous work by Mr. Kinglake on the subject.
In discussing this subject, I think it is convenient to keep the two terms entirely separate, speaking of invasion when you mean the arrival of a force—leaving out for the moment the question of its numbers —of which the object and intention is the conquest of the country, and speaking of a raid as a descent on the shores of this country by a force, presumably smaller, but again without connoting any special figure, of which the object is to do damage or create alarm, with the possibility of returning after the damage has been done, it may be, but with the risk also in view that the force may be slain or captured after having done the particular work which it was sent to do, in which case the hostile country would be prepared to face the sacrifice of the number of men engaged. The case that was put by the Admiralty was this. I think it was not quite accurately stated by Lord St. Audries when he mentioned the figure of 70,000 men. The figure of 70,000 men was, as Lord Lovat accurately stated, named first in 1905 as the lowest figure with which an enemy would think it worth while to come in order to carry out the invasion and possibly the conquest of the country. As

141
home defence then was—assuming, as noble Lords are assuming now, the worst possible position, the position of the second year of the South African War—it would not have been thought worth while by a hostile country to invade us with less than 70,000 men. That, as the noble Lord quite accurately said, was the original genesis of that figure, and that is why in the course of those discussions no figure has been mentioned between the figure of 70,000 and that of a small dashing raid, which might make a temporary attack and do local damage and create general alarm. Then the Admiralty said that if it is the case that the enemy will not come with less than 70,000 men, because it is useless for a serious object to come with fewer, we can always engage to intercept the fleet of transports. That was the Admiralty's statement, and that is still the Admiralty's statement—that an invading force of 70,000 men would be intercepted by the Fleet. In my view it only confuses and darkens the subject to use the figure of 70,000 in connection with a series of small raids of 5,000 or 10,000 men each, landing one in the North of Scotland, another in the West of Ireland, another in the South of England, and so on. The figure of 70,000 in that connection does not, I should have supposed, represent a serious probability. But assuming, for the sake of argument, that those 70,000 men land indiscriminately at different times and places in various parts of the United Kingdom—
*LORD LOVAT: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Marquess, but this matter is most important. My point was this. The noble Marquess, I take it, says there are now two classes of 70,000 raiders—one class of 70,000 wishing to conquer, and another class of 70,000 who have no wish to conquer the country. That is what the noble Marquess is implying, and I would ask him what authority he has for saying that this 70,000 raid is now going to be divided up in little raids all over the country. Where does he get that from?
*THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: So far from the noble Lord having to apologise for interrupting, I must say he has really done me a service in asking me that question, because I confess I have not the least idea why the figure of 70,000 should be mentioned in that connection,
142
except from the fact that 70,000 is the old invading figure.
*Lord LOVAT: I am sorry to interrupt again. The original figure of 70,000 was the pronouncement made by the Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, in the other House, I think, on July 29, 1909. The second figure of 70,000, which the noble Marquess I presume is referring to, is a figure which is only five days old. It is the figure which was mentioned by Colonel Seely the other day. We on this side have had nothing to do with these figures at all, and, as I say, Colonel Seely prejudged the whole of this discussion which is coming on before the Defence Committee by saying that that 70,000 could only land in small bodies scattered all over the country at long intervals of time. That is our difficulty. We do not know when or how this decision of the Admiralty was arrived at. We must presume, therefore, that the Admiralty have already come to the conclusion which the Defence Committee is going to arrive at. It seems to me clear that the case has been prejudged.
*THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My impression is that Colonel Seely made the observation to which the noble Lord alludes in reply to a question in which some gentleman, whose name I unfortunately do not remember spoke of a raid of 70,000 men. That phrase, as I have already said, is an entirely new one introduced into the discussion by some one who has, I think, not followed the whole course of the various discussions on the subject. The phrase is to me altogether unmeaning, and I think it is unmeaning to everybody who has studied the subject. What I think was in the gentleman's mind was an invasion of 70,000 men by an organised force landing on the coast. But it is important to remember what I have already often stated from this place, that the Admiralty have never admitted that 70,000 men arriving in transports with their horses and proper complement of artillery and their transport would not be intercepted. The Admiralty have always said that they could intercept a far smaller force than that. It is important to remember that point, because it has frequently been assumed that it is a matter of general knowledge and admission that a complete army of 70,000 men might

143
conceivably be dumped down on our shores at any point, and that the Admiralty might possibly not be able to prevent its being done.
It is desirable to state that the General Staff are of opinion that in those worst circumstances which noble Lords have suggested—namely, the complete absence from this country of the Regulars composing the Expeditionary Force—the attack by means of raids, again without mentioning a particular number of small raids landing in different parts of the United Kingdom, which might possibly evade the Navy, could be satisfactorily dealt with by the forces left in the country—that is to say, by what is left of the Regular troops and the Territorial Force at its present figure. Those raids could be dealt with, and would not have a chance of succeeding. In view of that statement the situation, which I describe as being in itself a grave one—that of the shortage in the Territorial Force—cannot be described as so seriously imminent as to oblige us to take heroic remedies on the spur of the moment, remedies, that is to say, which we do not think reasonable in themselves. But it is quite clear that if a considerable margin is to be maintained over the minimum which we regard as necessary to ensure the safety of the country in the worst conceivable conditions, the military authorities must carefully consider the present condition and the prospects of the Territorial Force and see what steps they can take, still working on the voluntary basis, in order that that margin may be properly maintained. This is not the moment and I am not the person who ought to venture to discuss the methods, whether they be methods of larger expenditure or methods of added attractiveness, which may in the future be found necessary to maintain the Territorial Force at its requisite strength. But I am quite certain that my right hon. friend the Secretary of State will do his best, and do it with energy, to carry on the work which was started by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack.
I listened with close attention to the outline of the scheme put forward by Lord St. Audries, and he will forgive me if at this time of the debate I do not attempt to discuss it in detail. Ire, I think, fully recognises the difficulty of a general system
144
of compulsion, and also the particular difficulties attaching to the introduction of a system of the ballot which has been so long advocated by the noble Earl of whom I have already spoken, Lord Wemyss, and which I know finds favour with a number of people who are not taken by the prospect of general compulsory service. I confess, however, that I am deeply impressed by the profound social change which would he involved in this country by the introduction of any form of compulsion in our system of home service. The act of setting the ball rolling in this country as our social conditions now are might lead to consequences little foreseen by those who started it. It seems in some way a curious paradox, but I am sure it is the case, that the introduction of some system of compulsory home service would have been an infinitely simpler matter in the days when the noble Earl, Lord Wemyss, was quite a young man than it is now when he is so advanced in life. I confess, therefore, that apart from general objections which may be advanced from different quarters against the system of compulsory service, I think that before any Party, even the Party of noble Lords opposite, undertook an enterprise of that kind they would have to weigh most carefully what the ultimate consequences of such a far-reaching change would be likely to be.
We are not, as I venture to think, confronted by any present necessity which obliges us by hook or by crook to drive up the number of our Force to a far higher figure. The shortage from the establishment originally laid down for the Territorial Force, an establishment., I think it fair to state, which was fixed rather upon a notion of general sufficiency and upon the previous numbers of the Volunteers than from any definite calculation of a particular number of men who would be required to meet a particular number of invaders—that shortage, deeply as we regret it, is not a large percentage of the whole. In those circumstances I think that the country will regard it reasonable to wait and leave my right hon. friend the Secretary of State and his advisers to make such proposals as they think wise with regard to possible improvements or the possible enlargement of the Force before desiring to embark upon an altogether unknown sea and on a voyage of which it is not easy to see the end.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I was glad to observe that the noble Marquess at the outset of his speech explained that he did not make any complaint of us for having brought on this debate. It is a discussion which seems to me quite appropriate to the Bill upon the Table, which deals primarily and mainly with the question of the maintenance of a body of troops sufficient to ensure the safety of the United Kingdom and the safety of His Majesty's Dominions abroad. It is precisely because we have misgivings as to the sufficiency of the Force at present provided that we desire to raise a discussion upon some of the points that have been mentioned. That uneasiness, which I think prevails generally, is due partly to the knowledge of facts which are notorious arid indisputable, and I must add that it is also due partly to the perplexing character of Ministerial utterances—utterances which, if the noble Marquess will forgive me for saying so, have not always shown a quite sufficient appreciation of the gravity of the case, have not always been quite so precise as we should have wished, and have not always been quite consistent with one another.
If we are a little perplexed, it is not due to any special dulness of comprehension on our part, because some of the most ardent friends and supporters of the Government are equally puzzled. I happened the other evening upon a passage in a journal which is a very able and a very consistent supporter of noble Lords opposite. Commenting on a speech just delivered by the Secretary of State for War, the Westminster Gazette said—
"There must be a state of permanent fog at Whitehall. We get from this speech the impression of Secretary of State and military advisers groping about in a dim light, afraid of the public on the one side, afraid of themselves on the other; wishing to do one thing, driven by circumstances to do another; and all the time without any grip of principle or clear understanding of the system they are called upon to administer."
I should not have ventured to say anything half so severe of noble Lords opposite and their colleagues, but I trust that the discussion which has been begun this evening may be the means of perhaps partly lifting the fog which so much perturbs the writer of this article.
The sum of our complaint can be expressed in a very few words indeed.
146
We believe that there has been a failure on the part of the War Office to provide a force which in 1907 was regarded as, if not vitally necessary, at all events desirable in order to secure the safety of this country, and we believe that this failure has taken place in spite of the fact that all the conditions of the problem have in the time which has since elapsed altered greatly to our disadvantage. I always like, in a case of this kind to search in the first place for points on which we are agreed, rather than points with regard to which we differ, and there is, I believe, a certain amount of agreement amongst us as to matters of first principle. Above all things, we all recognise that this country is a maritime Power, and that our first defence must be defence by sea. We are none of us prepared to bear the triple burden of an invincible Navy, an Army sufficient for the purposes of the Empire, and another Army besides that on the Continental scale for use in other parts of the world. It is, however, important that we should hear in mind what our liabilities admitted by His Majesty's Ministers with regard to service abroad really amount to. We have had in the most distinct and precise terms from the Government the admission that in circumstances which they are able to conceive it may be necessary to send an Expeditionary Force numbering 160,000 men out of this country. The noble Marquess told us just now that we have always contemplated an Expeditionary Force of some kind. That is quite true, but I can remember the time when the Expeditionary Force was assumed for argument to be a force of 50,000 men, and later of 70,000. It has now grown to 160,000 men. It; is admitted that that Force might have to be sent abroad at short notice and at the very outbreak of hostilities. On the top of that, the Secretary for War has intimated with the utmost distinctness that, after the Expeditionary Force has left, there must still remain a force adequate for the purpose of home defence. There is no doubt that that is the general purport of the language used by the heads of the War Office.
The noble Marquess said just now that we were too fond of selecting a combination of conditions of an abnormal character and not likely to present themselves actually. But, my Lords, the combination of conditions upon which we base our argument is not an invention of ours; it is the case as stated by the responsible Government,

147
stated not once but many times. We are assured that that adequate Force exists, and we are entitled to ask questions as to its adequacy, as to its numbers, as to its efficiency, as to its organisation. What are the materials out of which this Home Force is to be constructed? It is quite clear that when the 160,000 men have left these shores, virtually the whole of the Regulars and I think about twenty-seven battalions of the Special Reserve will have been accounted for. What remains? There is the Territorial Force and what I should he justified in describing as not much more than a handful of Regulars—about 30,000—of whom more than half will be recruits or men under 19 years of age. There will be the Army Reserve, and there will be seventy-four battalions or thereabouts of the Special Reserve. That will surely be a very heterogeneous force, without much organisation or training or cohesion, and very badly officered. Yet it is out of these materials that you would have to provide for the obligatory garrisons, for local defence at various points, and, lastly, for that central striking force which, in the language of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, is "to swoop down upon the invaders and destroy them." Do not let us lose sight of the fact that in these circumstances there will be no means of giving the Territorial Force that stiffening of Regulars which we used always to postulate when we contemplated making use of the old Volunteers; nor, if the Expeditionary Force is to leave on the outbreak of hostilities, will there be any means of giving the Territorial Army that six months' training the necessity of which we have always assumed.
I come now to the particular danger with which this very imperfectly composed Home Army will have to deal. We have heard a good deal this evening about that force of 70,000 for the reception of which we are to provide—I will not for the moment call it either a raid or an invasion. It is a force which is assumed to have eluded the Fleet. If it eludes the Fleet as successfully as it eludes our comprehension, it is extremely likely to make its way across. The number of different characters in which this force of 70,000 appears from time to time is extraordinary. Sometimes it is assumed that it remains at home though longing to invade us because it is intimidated by the knowledge that the "swooping"
148
force is waiting to destroy it; sometimes it is assumed to have gone on board ship, and is then destroyed by the British Fleet. Sometimes it arrives, but, to use a classical phrase of the Secretary for War, it is "eaten up" by the 400,000 Territorial Army which will be opposed to it. This 70,000 force reappeared again last night in an entirely new disguise, as my noble friend Lord Lovat pointed out. It was the old dog in a new doublet. The 70,000 appeared last night, not as a force at all, but as an aggregate of small raiding parties, perhaps totalling 70,000 altogether, and landing on these shores at wide intervals of time and space. That new hypothesis has really been sprung upon a bewildered public with splendid audacity. And there is this further feature in the case. The 70,000 are to arrive in fragments and sections without artillery and without cannon. I beg leave to say that this is a complete and entire departure from everything that has ever been suggested in this House or elsewhere by the accredited representatives of the War Office. The locus classicus on this question is the speech delivered by the Prime Minister in 1909. Mr. Asquith said—
"No one will undertake the task of invasion with a smaller force than something like 70,000 men. I do not believe 70,000 men would ever get here at all; but you must have in these matters an ample margin of safety. Our conclusion was that, in order to ensure that margin, the force for maintaining home defence should be one capable of dealing with an invading force of 70,000 men."
That is not a raid or a number of sporadic raids delivered at different points. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack said the same thing. He said—
"If so, all that has to be done is to provide against a force of 70,000 men at the outset and against those small and subsidiary operations of war called raids, whose purpose is the secondary one of effecting, not a great defeat, but disturbance and damage."
The noble and learned Viscount distinguished clearly between the two things—the large raid or invasion of 70,000 men on the one hand, and the minor and sporadic raids on the other. Now it appears that a larger attack is to be left out of account 'altogether, and that we are to consider nothing but small and sporadic incursions.
I venture to assert with some confidence that up to the present time the official

149
view of His Majesty's Government has been that the force at home was to be sufficient to deal with an invading force, organised and properly equipped, of 70,000 men and to tell us, as the noble Marquess told us just now, that these were matters only of terminology, is, I think, to give a very misleading idea of their importance. I venture to insist that, even on this new hypothesis, you are not absolved from maintaining in these Islands a force strong enough to deal with 70,000 invaders. Why is it that we are told that only small bodies will come? Why is it that the 70,000 will remain at home? Because, we are told, we are to have a Home Force strong enough to deter the larger force from coming. But a force which is strong enough to deter a foreign army from coming must be strong enough to beat that army when it does come. The noble Marquess told us just now that we must not import too much logic into the discussion of these questions. I venture to think that that is a piece of logic which it is difficult to dispute.
Then we come back really to the old question, Is our Home Force sufficient to deter or defeat a body of 70,000 invaders? We have been obliged to criticise and discuss the present position of the Territorial Force. The noble Marquess repeated to-night what has very often been said from the Benches opposite, that our criticisms of the Territorial Force are ungenerous. They are also sometimes called unpatriotic because they are believed to discourage the Territorial Associations. That is an argument which to my mind is most unconvincing. I venture to think that those are unpatriotic who, because they have at the back of their minds a dread or dislike of some form of compulsion, are content to slur over the difficulties and the weakness of the force with which we are now provided.
We call attention to these defects, believe me, not because we fail to appreciate the services which members of the Territorial Army have rendered to the country. I do not think any words of commendation would be too strong for the officers and men who have taken on their shoulders a burden which many of them feel ought to be more widely distributed. What are the indisputable facts with regard to the Territorial Force? The Territorial Force is over 53,000 below the strength
150
which was considered necessary in 1907. The noble and learned Viscount, referring to the point with his usual serenity the other day, said he was not alarmed. I am alarmed, and I think the Secretary for War is alarmed, because he has dealt with the question of shortage with much more appreciation of its gravity. Let me call the attention of the House to the admissions which have been made by the right hon. gentleman. He says—
"So far as numbers are concerned we have failed in achievement,"
And then he uses these remarkable words—
"We cannot well bear that any part of our defensive forces, which by universal consent were decided to be, if not vitally necessary, desirable, shall remain below the proper establishment."
That, if I may be allowed to say so, is a very proper frame of mind in which to approach the subject, and I hope we may take it that that sentence expresses the views, not only of the Secretary of State, but of the Cabinet.
The question is not only one of numbers. There are the equally serious questions of training, musketry, attendance at camp, and complete absence of training in large bodies. My noble friend Lord Lovat referred to uneasiness on the part of Territorial officers themselves When we are taxed with discouraging the Territorial Force it is well to know that the Force is not itself satisfied with the existing condition of things. I understand that quite recently the Council of Territorial Associations adopted unanimously two resolutions which show that the Associations themselves share the uneasiness which some of us have ventured to express. I will read them to your Lordships—
"That in view of the continued deficiency in the establishment of the Territorial Force in the country, notwithstanding the extraordinary efforts that have been made during the past five years to obtain recruits, this Council is of opinion that some system should be adopted which would provide a Territorial Force adequate for the defence of the country. This Council is further of opinion that only by a considerable improvement in the terms and conditions of service is there any likelihood of success in respect of numbers being achieved on a voluntary basis, and urges the necessity of steps being taken to this end, in which case it will be prepared to submit a scheme."
Those resolutions were considered by more than half of the larger Associations throughout England and Wales, and of these all

151
but two have expressed their adhesion to the resolutions. So that your Lordships will see that the Territorial Associations themselves share the uneasiness which some of us have ventured to express in this House.
What in these circumstances are His Majesty's Government going to do? I have listened attentively to the speeches made, and I have been unable to gather that anything particular is likely to happen. Language has been used to the effect that we ought to redouble our efforts, and generalities of that kind; but I cannot learn that it is intended to take any concrete steps for the purpose of really improving the situation. There is one thing which might be done. I refer to the possibility of resorting to what is generally described as physical training in schools and continuation schools. There is an extraordinary amount of agreement with regard to the desirability of making this change. I have on another occasion ventured to explain to your Lordships the reasons for such a change in our educational system, and I will not go over the ground again now. Suffice it to say that I believe that, this kind of physical or quasi-military training would be extremely good for the lads who receive it, and would give them ideas of discipline, manly character, and obedience to orders with which many of them might with advantage be indoctrinated; and further, that if it, were generally carried out it will be the means of giving to an immense number of men while they are still boys or young lads some knowledge of the rudiments of military training. They would become partly-made soldiers and would be likely to form invaluable recruits for the Territorial or Regular Armies. Some plan of this kind was recommended by the Poor Law Commission; and it was recommended in a Resolution passed in this House, a Resolution affirming the propriety of giving as large a part as possible of the population a sound groundwork of military training. The necessity for training of this kind is borne in upon one when one considers the immense number of lads who present themselves as recruits for the Army and are rejected on the ground of physical unfitness. These are the lads who go to swell the ranks of casual labourers, who enter "blind alley" employments, and whose presence has the effect of bringing down the rate of wages in the labour market.
152
The Secretary for War has expressed himself as decidedly favourable to what I think he called "physical and disciplinary training," and went so far as to say "we are really agreed and need not discuss this further." The noble and learned Viscount has also more than once commended such a training. There is a passage in his preface to Sir Ian Hamilton's little book on "Compulsory Service" in which he says—
"The principles of organisation so admirably illustrated by the Cadet and Boys Brigade systems, and by Sir Robert Baden-Powell's Boy Scouts, appear to me to be altogether good and proper for adoption by the State."
If they are good and proper for adoption by the State, why does the State not adopt them? Why do they not, for example, get rid of that very mischievous little Amendment which they accepted in 1907 when the Territorial Act was before Parliament, and which, as the noble and learned Viscount well remembers, placed it out of the power of the Territorial Associations to give training to lads below sixteen so long as they were in schools receiving Government grants. I was impressed by the general disposition to support a change of this kind, and it was with the deepest regret that I heard the noble Lord opposite who represents the War Office tell us the other evening that although those were his sentiments and the sentiments of those with whom he acts, no plan for giving effect to this idea was under the consideration of His Majesty's Government.
I ought, perhaps, before I sit down to say one word with regard to the Committee of Imperial Defence, to which reference was made by my noble friend Lord Lovat and by subsequent speakers. The noble Marquess dealt with the question raised by my noble friend, why the reference to the sub-Committee was restricted to the subject of invasion, but I am bound to say that his explanation did not seem to me to give us much illumination; perhaps we shall learn later what the reference really is. I feel sure that even if the inquiry is primarily directed to the question of invasion it will he difficult to restrict it closely to that subject, which is really allied to a number of other problems, naval, military, and political. Then my noble friend said something about the personnel of the Committee, and I rather understood him to make a personal appeal to me with regard to the circumstances in which Mr. Balfour was

153
chosen. The Committee of Imperial Defence is, as the noble Marquess has told us, a body to which the Prime Minister can summon any one whose advice or assistance seems to him desirable. I am bound to say that I doubt whether any living statesman has given closer attention to all these great problems of Imperial defence than Mr. Balfour has given, and I can well understand that the Prime Minister should desire his assistance. My noble friend was a little bit perturbed by his knowledge of opinions expressed on former occasions by Mr. Balfour. Let me say that in my belief there is no one more likely to bring an unprejudiced judgment to the consideration of any subject that comes before him than Mr. Balfour, or less likely than he to be biased or to adhere obstinately to views he may have previously expressed perhaps in wholly different circumstances. My noble friend suggests that Air. Balfour's presence on the sub-Committee might have the effect of committing, I think he said, the whole Unionist Party.
LORD LOVAT: Perhaps I did not express myself quite clearly. What I wished to bring out was, and I think it is generally accepted—it certainly has been referred to in our debates here—that there are two sections of the Conservative Party, one of which believes that the present arrangements for defence are most unsatisfactory, and I say it is very unfortunate that that section of the Conservative Party is not represented on the sub-Committee. I did not intend in the least to raise any objection to the selection of Mr. Balfour. I think it is a most admirable selection, and I am very glad to see him there—but not Mr. Balfour alone.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am glad to hear what my noble friend has said about Mr. Balfour, but the selection of members to sit upon the Committee does not rest with those who sit upon these Benches.
The only other observation I desire to make is this. I have been deeply impressed by the arguments to the effect that not only are our present military arrangements and preparations inadequate, but that circumstances have changed greatly to our disadvantage since those arrangements were originally provided for and conceived. My noble friend dealt so fully with that part of the case that I will not follow him. He was able to point out, with regard to the Navy,
154
that our superiority as compared with the other Great Powers has become very much less than it was. We know that in regard to the Army we have undertaken heavier liabilities than those which we assumed in former days, and that our relative inferiority as compared with Continental Powers is much greater than it. was—our inferiority in numbers, and our inferiority in preparedness for war, a very important point.
Then there is the new peril occasioned by aviation, with regard to which I fear we can come to no other conclusion than that we have in the race for efficiency in this respect been badly out-distanced at the outset. With regard to all these matters we have waited, and waited in vain, for anything to prove to us that the steps taken by His Majesty's Government are likely to grapple effectually with the problem which confronts them. All we are promised is this inquiry by the sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence, and it is, perhaps, remarkable that in the face of that promise the Secretary of State for War should have thought it proper to speak with such extraordinary confidence as to our present safety from these perils. I trust that His Majesty's Government will show a little more courage and a little more decision in facing these questions. The country requires to be reassured, and I venture to suggest to noble Lords opposite that one of the least effectual means of reassuring the country is to minimise the dangers to which we are exposed. The Secretary of State has told us that we ought to redouble our efforts. That is very good advice; but I do not think that you will deceive any one by halving the extent of the peril by which you are threatened.
LORD HERSCHELL: With your Lordships' permission I will confine my remarks this evening to dealing with some of the details which have been raised in the course of the debate up to the present. The first subject on which I should like to say a word is that of military aeronautics. First of all, dealing with the question of aeroplanes, the statement of the number in our possession which was made in another place by the Secretary of State was perfectly correct, but it must always be remembered that a proportion of aeroplanes are in hospital owing to damages received while flying is being practised. For example, during one period of ten

155
days there were no cases of damage, but during the ensuing ten days there were no less than seven, and these damages may take anything from three days to a month to repair. At the same time it should be pointed out that if no such damage occurred it would only prove that the aeroplanes were not being used for practice as they should be. It is on the same lines as if you have a flotilla of torpedo destroyers and always keep them in harbour. They are there safe from any casualties, but it is essential that they should be used and that practice should be undertaken by them. Again, we have a certain number of machines for instruction which, though admirably adapted for the purpose, are necessarily of a slower type than would be required in time of war. Then, again, we have a certain number of monoplanes, most of which do not comply in all respects with the conditions recommended by the War Office Committee on Monoplane Accidents. These monoplanes are of the same types as are now being flown by foreign armies, and are quite fit for use in war, but it is not considered desirable to use them in practice in peace time until certain alterations have been made. At the same time we have a number of pilots capable of flying these aeroplanes, but I may state that at present the War Office has no intention of acquiring any further aeroplanes which do not sufficiently meet the requirements of the Committee for safety as to permit of their being used for practice.
It may also interest your Lordships to know that the qualities shown by the biplanes recently constructed have proved that in every essential particular they are capable of achieving good results comparable to monoplanes: and in respect of range of speed—a most vital point in any war machine—they have shown marked superiority. I would also state that the programme of construction is being considerably accelerated, but it must be borne in mind that in carrying out a programme we have not only the number of aeroplanes and pilots to consider but also various other requirements. For example, the question of transport. Much difficulty has been found in providing the technical transport required for the military wing, but a satisfactory design has now been arrived at and large orders have been placed. In the meantime arrangements have been made for providing the necessary
156
transport prior to purchase of those squadrons which are so far completed in other respects as to be able to join the Expeditionary Force in the case of mobilisation. These arrangements are constantly revised as the growth of the Flying Corps makes a larger contingent possible.
Another point to be considered is the question of barracks. A considerable amount has already been spent in the provision of barracks for the school and for the military wing and it must be remembered that for this new corps at its inception there was practically no accommodation available. On the provision of barracks the growth of the corps is largely dependent, for it is useless to supply great numbers of aeroplanes if we have not sheds to house them and barracks for the officers and men who have to attend to them. Arrangements are in progress, and some have been completed, for stations specially adapted for experimental work. Again, the provision of workshops and tools is another serious consideration. Yet it is absolutely necessary that these should be provided at an equal rate to the aeroplanes for the repair of which they are necessary. In fact, it would be detrimental to the efficiency of the Flying Corps to provide a large number of aeroplanes unless at the same time the other essentials which I have mentioned—that is, transport, barracks, and tools—were simultaneously forthcoming. At the same time, as I have already stated, the Secretary of State has given orders for the programme to be accelerated.
Now, my Lords, I would say a word with regard to airships. The airship in its present state of development is designed, among other things, for reconnaissance, and under this head I would consider it from the point of view of our Expeditionary Force and then from the point of view of home defence. From the first, with regard to the Expeditionary Force, we met with a very serious difficulty. Airships, and especially large airships, and most of all rigid airships, require sheds to house them, and as our Expeditionary Force is designed for service oversea in any part of the world it is clear that the provision of airship sheds is a very serious problem. If we were to undertake the building of sheds for large airships in the theatre of war it is probable that the campaign might be finished before the sheds were erected.

157
Continental nations with land frontiers coterminous with their probable enemy are able to build in peace time airship sheds at strategical points near enough to any probable theatre of operations to permit of the airships based on them being used for reconnaissance purposes with the Army in the field. We are unable to carry out such a policy. We are therefore concentrating our efforts for the present on the provision of efficient portable airships which can be packed up and transported by sea, and which are of such moderate size that they could be housed in sheds also of a portable nature which could be rapidly erected. When we come to consider the question of airships for home defence, we again meet with a difficulty. Our policy of home defence is to a large extent a policy of passive defence so far as the Army is concerned—that is to say, we have to await an attack and to make our arrangements so as to be able to meet that attack from oversea. We therefore require oversea reconnaissance, and this requirement in the considered judgment of the Government should be the function of the Admiralty in accordance with the broad principle to which I shall refer before leaving this subject.
With regard to the preparations which are being made to meet the danger from aerial attack, I would say that this is a matter which has been engaging the earnest attention of those concerned for many months. Your Lordships will realise that it would be obviously contrary to the public interest to give details with regard to this matter. All that I can say is that the War Office, in conjunction with the Admiralty, are taking every possible step to provide against this danger. But it must be remembered that the whole problem changes from day to day. The possibilities of the aeroplane, both as a scouting and a fighting machine, are really at present only in their infancy, and those who are engaged in the expert examination of this question tell me that from day to day fresh points of view come under their notice. On one day some point may appear which tends to show the great power of the large dirigible. On the following day an equally serious point may indicate the vulnerability of these same vessels. Above all, it must be realised that the problem is one essentially of brains and of scientific thought, and we are taking every possible step to secure the co-operation of
158
all that is best and most original in scientific thought in this country. I cannot help feeling that one is apt to lose sight of the fact that this question is an entirely new problem.
I will now state what is the broad principle on which the Government have decided regarding aerial construction. It is this. The Air Service, both naval and military, is one, but the Government have decided that there shall be a broad line of division, and that the lighter-than-air service should be the care of the Navy, and the heavier-than-air the function of the Army. Like all broad rules this has exceptions. On the one hand, the Army still retain, at any rate for the present, the small portable airships for the Expeditionary Force. On the other hand, the Navy will deal with such part of the hydro-aeroplane service as is essentially necessary for naval purposes. But the main principle remains as I have stated—namely, that the Navy and Army co-operate completely in the whole problem of aeronautics as applied to war.
LORD LOVAT: Is not the noble Lord going to answer any of the questions that I put to him on the subject?
LORD HERSCHELL: I am afraid I cannot answer as to questions of defence, for obvious reasons.
LORD LOVAT: About the numbers I asked for?
LORD HERSCHELL: As I have said, the numbers given by the Secretary of State in another place are correct.
LORD LOVAT: I asked for the number of lighter-than-air ships and rigid and semi-rigid dirigibles, and also whether the figure of 150 aeroplanes for Germany, quoted by the Secretary of State for War in another place, was correct.
LORD HERSCHELL: I am afraid I have not the figures before me that the noble Lord asks me for, but I will endeavour to get them before Monday and send them to him. The next point I would like to say a word upon is with regard to the horses. The noble Lord, Lord Ribblesdale, raised this question. Considerable strides have been made, though, of course, it will be necessary to go on persevering in this particular line. As your Lordships no doubt know, twenty Remount Circles have been formed in charge of Deputy Assistant Directors of Remounts. The services of a

159
number of Territorial Adjutants and of Regular officers are provided during the spring months in order that a classification of horses may be made within these circles, and from these classified lists horses are allotted to each separate unit in order to complete it to its war strength on mobilisation. Local gentlemen in every district have agreed to undertake the duty of buying these horses when called upon. They are to he annually provided with a list of the stables from which the horses are to be bought and the dates and places of delivery.
The position at present is that, after allotting not more than 50 per cent. of any one stable, and after deducting 25 per cent. for errors of classification and changes in the equine population, we have now such a number of horses as to be able more than to provide for the requirements of the Territorial Force and the Regular Army on mobilisation. With regard to the Cavalry, after deducting those horses which are under six years of age and the unfit, and after bringing in boarders, there is a deficiency of sixty to be made up in each regiment to bring it up to war strength. This year we are adding 30 horses to each regiment, 20 in barracks and 10 boarded out. It is intended that in about two years' time the whole of the Cavalry shall be able to take the field on mobilisation on trained and seasoned horses without any animals having had to be impressed for the purpose. As to the reserve set aside for the use of the Artillery, it has been represented that the supply of light draught horses in the country is being very seriously diminished owing to mechanical traction. Accordingly an investigation has been made, and it is found that this diminution, though serious, is not so serious as had been thought. However, it was considered advisable to give some encouragement to owners of such horses, and therefore it was decided to register 10,000 of these horses in the Artillery at a registration fee of £4. The numbers which were offered were more than 10,000, and they are at present undergoing selection. When this work is completed there will be a reserve of 10,000 horses at £4 apiece for the Artillery, apart from another 15,000 horses which are specially earmarked at a small retaining fee.
The Secretary of State desired me to say a word upon the Artillery. It is true that nobody has spoken of the Artillery
160
in this debate, but as we are discussing the Army (Annual) Bill, and the debate has ranged over many subjects which are not precisely within the terms of the Bill, I hope that I may be allowed to make quite a short statement as to the position of the Artillery under the new organisation. In order to understand the exact position with regard to the Artillery it is necessary to go back for a moment to the South African War, during the course of which the number of batteries of Artillery was largely increased. The result of this increase was that the Reserve temporarily became very much lower in proportion to the number of batteries than had previously been the case. Eventually, the Special Reserve was instituted with a view to making good this deficiency. Now the Regular Reserve of Artillery is rapidly approaching its normal strength or proportion to the number of batteries. That is one factor to he borne in mind. The second factor is the introduction of mechanical transport for the Divisional Ammunition Column. This does away with a large number—nearly 5,000 men—of those who were required for that Column in the days of horse transport. The total result of these two factors is that it has been found possible to eliminate the Special Reserve and again to place the Artillery on a Regular basis. Let me at once make it quite clear that the Special Reservists actually serving will complete their term, only others will not be taken to fill their places as they gradually drop out.
The next point to consider is the return from South Africa of one Brigade of Horse Artillery and one Brigade of Field Artillery. The Brigade of Horse Artillery—that is, two batteries—is reduced, and an additional battery at home is also reduced. The place of these three Horse Artillery batteries will be taken by three Field Artillery batteries, as I shall show in a moment. The next step concerns the Training Brigades, which were six in number —that is, eighteen batteries. One of the duties of these brigades was the training of Special Reservists, and now that the Special Reserve is about to disappear it is possible to reduce these training batteries from eighteen to twelve. This sets free six batteries, of which three are reduced, and the other three take the place of the three batteries of Horse Artillery to which I alluded before. In other words, three batteries of Horse Artillery have been converted into three batteries of Field Artillery.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Might I ask the noble Lord whether the net result of that operation is that between the Horse and Field Artillery we have six batteries less than we had before?
LORD HERSCHELL: No. I think I shall be able later to explain that point to the noble Viscount. The next point is that, in addition to this, owing to the number of men set free, the whole seventy-two batteries of the Expeditionary Force can be. placed upon a uniformly higher peace establishment—that is to say, instead of having twenty-one batteries on a higher and fifty-one on a lower establishment, we have the whole seventy-two on an establishment not, it is true, quite as high as that of the twenty-one under the old organisation, but very much higher than that of the fifty-one. The result then of these changes is as follows. In the Empire we have the same number of fighting units as before, the only change being the conversion of three batteries of Horse Artillery into three batteries of Field Artillery.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but we have had a different story in this House before. Take the figure of 105 batteries. Sonic of those were made into training depots, and we were told that those training depots would have to take the field. But now those 105 units have been reduced by six. That is really the net result, as it seems to me.
LORD HERSCHELL: Not by six; even OD the noble Viscount's assumption the reduction will only be three. At the same time the necessity for this very large establishment of training depots is to a certain extent done away with by the disappearance of the Special Reserve, and we have the greater efficiency now in the fighting units and also the Regular basis. Bat as to the fighting units, there have been only three batteries of Horse Artillery converted into three batteries of Field Artillery. With regard to the fighting units at home, we have one battery of Horse Artillery less, but six batteries of Field Artillery more—that is to say, the three from South Africa and the three set free by the reduction of the Training Brigades, a total of five more fighting batteries at home. The whole seventy-two Batteries of the Expeditionary Force are on a uniformly higher establishment, and as
162
the Special Reserve disappears the whole of the Artillery will be once more upon a Regular basis.
I have one word more to say on the question of the increase of pay for officers. In the table which the Secretary of State had when he made his statement in another place there was a slight difference as compared with the letterpress, with the result that a rather important detail of the scheme was omitted. Under the proposed scheme a major on appointment gets 16 s., and the 2s. after twenty-four years' service is in addition to that. The Secretary of State has also asked me to say that with regard to the details of this particular scheme he is about to appoint a Committee, of which he has requested me to be chairman, to settle these matters of detail. The first thing we have to see to is that nobody under the proposed scheme loses anything. The next is, of course, to consider how much we can benefit people. I am very glad of this opportunity of saying that any suggestions which nap be offered with regard to the details of the scheme I shall be more than happy to receive, and that they will naturally be given the very fullest consideration.
I have given your Lordships some information on important details of Army administration, amid as regards the general problem I would only, in view of the very full statement which has been made by the noble Marquess, say a few words in conclusion in precise language on behalf of the Secretary of State. We cannot maintain that our military obligations have diminished. The defence of the Empire is a naval and military problem, upon the naval aspect of which your Lordships will not expect me to say more than that naval predominance is and will he maintained. The strength of the Regular Army does not change. Recruiting varies within comparatively narrow limits. I have indicated that in several essential respects a real advance has been made in the direction of readiness for war in our Regular Army, designed as it is for the maintenance of our vital interests oversea. On the other hand, there is a sensible reduction in the numbers of the Territorial Force designed for home defence. There is no desire to minimise in any degree the concern which is felt at this reduction in our available forces, but the Government do deny that there is any cause for panic or alarm. The

163
considered judgment of the General Staff, that the subjugation of this country by an invading force with our present naval predominance is a danger we can face without fear, prevents us from using any such alarmist language.
It would be idle, on the other hand, to say that in these times the Government view with complacence any reduction in the standard which they have previously laid down. It has been asked what they propose to do. I will first say what they do not propose to do. They do not propose to make any deduction from the forces which they have hitherto considered necessary to maintain our vital interests oversea. Secondly they do not propose at once to cut the Gordian knot by introducing compulsory instead of a voluntary system. The inquiries which are now proceeding will ere long be concluded, and it is not unreasonable to say that we are entitled to await the result of these deliberations in view of the absence of immediate danger to the security of the kingdom. But when they are concluded I can assure the House that His Majesty's Government will not shrink from taking any steps which may be necessary to ensure national safety.
The further debate adjourned to Monday next.
House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, Two o'clock.