Sitting of 22 April 1913

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Herne Bay Gas and Electricity Bill.
Swanage Urban District Water Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Titchfield District Gas Bill (by Order),
As amended, considered; an Amendment made; Bill to be read the third time.
City of London (Celluloid Regulations) Bill (by Order),
London County Council (General Powers) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
Humber Commercial Railway and Dock Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
London County Council (Tramways, Trolley Vehicles, and Improvements) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
Liverpool Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Mynyddislwyn Urban District Council Bill,
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Southampton Harbour Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

BRITISH TRADE IN CERTAIN COLONIES.
Copy presented of Reports on British Trade in British West Africa, Straits Settlements, British Guiana, and Bermuda, furnished to the Board of Trade by the honorary Correspondents of their Commercial Intelligence Branch in those Colonies [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
Copy presented of Return of Proceedings of the Irish Land Commission under the Land Law Acts, the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, and the Land Purchase Acts, during the month of February, 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Return of Advances made under the Irish Land Purchase Acts during the month of June, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

EDUCATION (IRELAND).
Copy presented of the Annual Report of the Commissioners of Education in Ireland for the year 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

COMMONS (INCLOSURE AND REGULATION).
Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix, brought up, and read;
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

NATIONAL DEBT.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 21st April; Mr. Masterman]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 82.]
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Provisional Special Order, dated 15th April, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, entitled the National Health Insurance (Pack Shepherds) Provisional Order, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 83.]
BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
Copy presented of Annual Report for 1912 of Proceedings under The Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, and other Acts. Part I. (Small Holdings) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

FINANCIAL STATEMENT (1913–14).
Copy ordered, "of Statement of Revenue and Expenditure as laid before the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when opening the Budget."—[Mr. Masterman.]
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 84.]

WOMEN SUFFRAGE.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: I beg to present a petition by representatives of certain societies having Women Suffrage as one of their objects, not including the Women's Social and Political Union, asking that they may be heard at the Bar by such number of representatives as your Honourable House shall deem proper in support of their claim for Women Suffrage. I desire that the same should be read by the Clerk at the Table.
The CLERK of the HOUSE (Sir Courtenay Ilbert) read the Petition, which was as followeth:—
"To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled.
"The humble petition of the undersigned representatives of Woman Suffrage Societies and Societies, having Woman Suffrage as one of their objects, respectfully showeth:
"That Mr. Speaker, having informed us that it is in the power of your honourable House to pass a Resolution whereby women shall be granted permission to appear at the Bar of the House, we pray your honourable House to pass such a Resolution to enable us to lay before the House the special claims of women to enfranchisement.
"Because women, being bound to obey the laws and pay the taxes in like manner as men, ought to have a direct voice in the election of those who make the laws and impose the taxes.
"Because women have always shown themselves capable of discharging competently any public duty entrusted to them.
"Because women already take a large part in the political life of the country, often at the request of honourable Members of your House, but are debarred from any constitutional and responsible exercise of political power.
"Because women's point of view in regard to many subjects is different from that of men, and therefore no Legislature can satisfactorily enact laws for both sexes unless it represents both.
"Because in all matters of social reform, and particularly in questions relating to the education of children or to domestic economy, the point of view of the woman deserves at least as much consideration as that of the man.
"Because in many cases working women are mercilessly sweated and exploited, and suffer from other grave injustice arising out of laws and conditions imposed on them by a Legislature elected by an exclusively male electorate.
"Because hopes of their enfranchisement have repeatedly been held out to women, of which they have been as often disappointed under circumstances which have not redounded to the credit of Parliament.
"Because the inequity of the present state of affairs is causing growing discontent among the women of this country, who as a sex have shown themselves far more patient and law-abiding than their male fellow citizens.
"For these and other reasons we therefore ask that we may be heard at the Bar by such number of representatives as your honourable House shall be pleased to direct."

"MILLICENT GARRETT FAWCETT, President of the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies.

"MAUD SELBORNE, President of the Conservative and Unionist Women's Franchise Association.

"FRANCES BALFOUR, President of the London Society for Women's Suffrage.

"GERTRUDE FORBES-ROBERTSON, President of the Actresses' Franchise League, and others."

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Political Offenders (Russia).
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any information as to the alleged imprisonment without trial and imprisonment of political offenders in Russia; and whether he will state to the Government of Russia, as he has already stated to the

  215
  Government of Portugal, that abuses have a very unfavourable effect upon public opinion and sympathies?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): I have received no information on the subject.
  Mr. KING: Are we to assume from this answer that a higher standard of political justice is demanded for Portugal than is expected from Russia?
  Mr. ACLAND: No, Sir.
  Mr. KING: Why not?

  Peruvian Amazon Company.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will approach either the British Ambassador at Washington or the United States Government for an explanation of the fact that on the 28th October, 1909, the British Ambassador at Washington stated that the United States State Department had no Report on the conditions of labour employed by the Peruvian Amazon Company, whereas the Report of the United States Consul Eberhardt, dated December, 1907, had already informed the United States Secretary of State of these conditions and had issued a definite warning against the Peruvian Amazon Company?
  Mr. ACLAND: I do not think any useful purpose would be served by making such inquiry.

  Naval Prize Bill.
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONESasked whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed further with the Naval Prize Bill, and, if so, during the present Session of Parliament?
  Mr. ACLAND: I cannot add to the answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Ludlow on the 20th of last month.
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to state whether reasonable notice will be given to the House if there be any intention to proceed with this measure?
  Mr. ACLAND: Certainly. I am very glad to give that assurance.

  Lake Nyasa (Murder of Rev. A. J. Douglas).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, in view of the circumstances surrounding the murder of Mr. Douglas and the entirely unjustifiable excuse given, he will represent to the Portuguese Government that an indemnity of £5,000 be paid to the Missionary Society, of which Mr. Douglas was a member, such sum to be devoted to the endowment of a hospital to his memory?
  Mr. ACLAND: The question of indemnity has been reserved for further consideration as stated in the last dispatch in the White Paper No. 6679. Whether an indemnity if asked for should be for the benefit of the Mission is a question not without difficulty, and the Secretary of State would prefer to learn the views of the Mission before finally deciding it.

  Delhi.
  Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether Mr. Lanchester was paid, or is to be paid for visiting Delhi at the request of the Viceroy; and if any payment, other than travelling expenses, has been or is still to be made, what is the amount?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): In addition to travelling and out-of-pocket expenses Mr. Lanchester received a fee of ten guineas a day, equivalent to 300 guineas a month, for the period of his engagement.
  Mr. KINGasked whether the members of the Delhi Town Planning Committee were paid or are to be paid for their services; and if payments other than travelling expenses have been or are to be paid, what are the amounts?
  Mr. MONTAGU: In addition to their travelling and out-of-pocket expenses the members of the Committee received fees as follows:—Captain Swinton, 100 guineas a month; Messrs. Brodie and Lutyens, 350 guineas and 300 guineas a month, respectively.
  Mr. KINGasked whether Mr. Lutyens and Mr. Baker, the selected architects for the New Delhi, are to be paid by salary or by commission; and what are the amounts chargeable on the revenues of India that have been or may be expected to be paid to each of these gentlemen?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The draft of the agreement which the Government of India propose to make with the architects in question has not yet been received from India. But it is understood that payment will be by commission. It is not possible at the present stage to state the estimated amount.
  Mr. KINGasked whether Mr. Lanchester, when visiting Delhi at the request of the Viceroy, was asked to confer or co-operate with the Town Planning Committee; whether the Town Planning Committee were offered his assistance and advice, if so, by whose instigation was this offer made; and what was the attitude of the Town Planning Committee on this proposal?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Mr. Lanchester arrived in India a few days before the Town Planning Committee left for England. Under instructions from the Viceroy, he met the Committee at Delhi, and informed himself fully about the scheme for laying out the new capital which they had prepared. His advice and assistance regarding the scheme was rendered at a later stage and to the Government of India.
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the sites for the new Government offices at Delhi were acquired from their late owners by purchase after negotiation or on any compulsory terms; whether, owing to the action of a ring of speculators, the Indian Government have been forced to purchase the necessary land at a large figure; and whether he will lay upon the Table the total acreage bought by the Government and the price paid for it, and the names of the persons from whom it was acquired?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State is not aware that the facts are as stated in the question. For the permanent Government offices in the new capital land will be compulsorily acquired on terms which ensure a fair price. For temporary offices very little land has been bought outright and the Government expect to recover the cost by resale.
  Mr. NEWMAN: Who is going to get the land for the town planning?
  Mr. MONTAGU: If the hon. Member is referring to the permanent site of the new Delhi, the land is going to be acquired under the Land Purchase Act in India, which ensures buying the land at a fair price.

  Steamship "Gregory Apcar."
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the fact that the B.I. steamer "Gregory Apcar" arrived at Singapore on 25th February last, with 563 passengers, chiefly Chinese soldiers and their wives returning from Tibet to China; whether he is aware that before reaching Singapore eleven passengers died and were buried at sea and that other deaths subsequently took place while the steamer was at Singapore, as many as twelve deaths having taken place in one day; whether the deaths before the steamer reached Singapore were attributed to heat-stroke; whether he can now say what was the cause of the deaths; whether he can say what provision for medical attendance was made on board this steamer; and what qualification was possessed by the medical attendant?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I have made telegraphic inquiry about the matter; but, pending the return of the vessel to Calcutta about 30th April, when full inquiry will be made, I am unable to give any further information than that a medical attendant was on board and that his qualifications, said to be those of a military assistant surgeon, were accepted by the health officer at the port of Calcutta.

  Criminal Code (India).
  Mr. MORRELLasked when the present scheme for a revision of the Criminal Code was submitted by the Government of India to the local councils; whether all the replies from those councils have yet been received; and whether the scheme contains any proposal for the stopping of the practice of torture by the police by providing that confessions shall not be admissible in evidence unless made in open Court before the judge trying the case?
  Mr. MONTAGU: A comprehensive amendment of the Criminal Procedure Code has been under consideration for some years. In July, 1911, the Government of India addressed the local governments—not the local councils—on the subject of recording confessions, and they hope to submit their recommendations to the Secretary of State before long. I would remind my hon. Friend that efforts have been made in many ways to stop maltreatment by police, and that this

  219
  object could not be secured merely by the amendment of the law which be suggests, since that would have no effect on attempts to obtain clues by undue pressure on persons supposed to have knowledge as to crimes, or on the regrettable practice of torture to procure evidence, or on a tendency to torture in order to make the prisoner promise to confess in open Court. Nevertheless, I am confident that any suggestion which will help in putting an end to or even decreasing the number of these cases will be considered, and is being considered most carefully, for the fact that they are rare and becoming rarer does not make them less horrible.
  Mr. MORRELL: Can my hon. Friend tell me whether this particular amendment is included in the scheme and also whether the scheme has yet been published?
  Mr. MONTAGU: No, Sir, the suggestion which the hon. Member makes is one of the points on which the opinion of the local governments is being taken. The matter is being considered by the Government of India. We have not yet seen the scheme in this country, but we hope to have it before long.
  Mr. MORRELL: Can the hon. Gentleman say when that inquiry is likely to be completed?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Government of India is considering the matter, and I hope it will not be long.
  Sir W. BYLES: Were not promises made by the Secretary of State a year ago that certain reforms would be carried out?
  Mr. MONTAGU: A large number of the reforms which were promised in this House are being carried out.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India the number of cases in the last six years in which police officers in India have been found guilty of torturing and ill-treating persons in their charge with a view to extorting a confession of crime; and in how many of these cases the victims have died as a result of the torture?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I gave the House a little more than a year ago the result of an elaborate statistical inquiry covering the six years previous. If my hon. Friend wishes it, I will ask the Govern-
  220
  ment of India if they can supply information up to date. But these inquiries are very onerous; it is difficult to get useful information of very recent cases because appeals may be pending, and I would prefer to wait until a comparable period had elapsed.
  Mr. MORRELL: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether the statement made in answer to an inquiry I made is correct, namely, that there were fifty-seven cases?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I believe the figures were as stated—57. That was up to 1910.
  Colonel YATE: Are not the British officers of the Indian police trying their best to put a stop to these practices on the part of their native subordinates.
  Mr. MONTAGU: Everybody concerned is trying to do his utmost.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    MANŒUVRES.
    Mr. LANE-FOXasked the Secretary of State for War whether the recent Army manœuvres showed considerable want of experience in the moving and handling of the transport, though only reduced transport on a peace basis; and whether such experience can be secured to the officers and staff responsible by actual practice in handling large transport columns?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): During the last Army manoœuvres a practical test was made for the first time of a new system of transport in the field. The test was successful, and showed that with very few exceptions the officers and staff responsible possessed the necessary ability and experience in the moving and handling of large transport columns.

    MOBILISATION (VEHICLES AND HORSES).
    Mr. LANE-FOXasked whether the Army Council have considered the desirability of practising the mobilisation of the whole of the vehicles and horses necessary in war for the six divisions of the Expeditionary Force at one time and over a period of at least several days, in order to give the staff and supervising officers the opportunity not hitherto afforded them of handling the horses and transport of such a force fully mobilised as to its equipment, and in order to prove the existence of the horses and vehicles required?
    Colonel SEELY: This proposal would involve the hiring of 42,000 horses, involving an expenditure out of all proportion to the value to be derived from the experiment.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Will the first time this transport can be seen and handled be in time of war? Will there be no previous opportunity for practising the mobilisation of the whole of the vehicles and horses?
    Colonel SEELY: I should suppose that in every army in the world complete mobilisation only takes place at the time of war.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it would not be possible to do this in the case of one division only?
    Colonel SEELY: Certainly, with a small number of men small experiments would be practicable, and that, I understand, is being done, but to do it for the whole Army is a thing that no nation in the world has ever attempted or would think of in the case of transport, especially involving the immense number of horses that must be hired.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman promise to consider the possibility of doing it with regard to one complete unit?
    Colonel SEELY: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of buying, training, and maintaining a sufficient number of horses for the purpose so as to make sure of them on mobilisation?
    Colonel SEELY: It would be quite impossible in the case of the British Army or any other army to maintain in time of peace all the animals required for transport on mobilisation.

    CAVALRY (RANGE FINDERS).
    Major HOPEasked whether Cavalry regiments are to be equipped with one-man range-finders; and, if so, of what pattern; and how many have been issued to Cavalry up to the present time?
    Colonel SEELY: The Cavalry will receive the one-man range-finder without delay after the Infantry have been completed.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE (ARTILLERY PRACTICE).
    Mr. FREDERICK HALLasked the Secretary of State for War what ranges have been set aside for use for Artillery practice of Territorial regiments in the London area; whether there have been cases in which any regiments have not carried out annual practice during the three years ended 31st December, 1912; and, if so, would he give particulars of the same, stating what periods of practice are prescribed under the War Office Regulations for Territorial Artillery units, and what steps are taken to ascertain that the Regulations are complied with?
    Colonel SEELY: All the divisional Artillery of the London Division will practice at Regular Artillery practice camps this year, the Field Artillery at Lark Hill and the heavy batteries at Okehampton. The two batteries of the Honourable Artillery Company, which practised at West Down, Salisbury Plain, in 1912, have recently applied to practice for two days at Lark Hill, and arrangements will be made, if possible, for them to do so. There have been no cases in which any units have not carried out annual practice during the last three years. Under the Regulations batteries are given an annual allowance of gun ammunition for practice during annual training, but are allowed, if so desired, to practise biennially instead of annually, thus expending two years allowance of ammunition, and devoting alternate years entirely to the instruction of the men in driving, riding, and tactics. This principle was adopted in 1910 in order that batteries should not practise without adequate preliminary training, and should be able to make use of the Regular Artillery ranges when they do practice and so benefit by the expert instruction provided. As a result, batteries practice on the average two years out of three. The practice programme is drawn up annually by the War Office.

    FIELD ARTILLERY (ABERYSTWYTH).
    Mr. VAUGHAN-DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for War the reason why the vacancies in the commissioned ranks in the battery of Field Artillery at Aberystwyth have not been filled up, suitable names having been sent in three months ago; and can he expedite the matter?
    Colonel SEELY: No names have been recommended to the War Office to fill the

    223
    vacancies, but I will make inquiries at once of the general officer commanding-in-chief concerned.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    OUTWORKERS.
    Mr. HANCOCKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there has been any prosecution of employers for disregarding Special Order No. 921 relating to outworkers under the National Insurance Act, and, if so, where were those prosecutions; and what penalties, if any, were inflicted?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The remaining parts do not, therefore, arise.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Viscount VALENTIAasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that much indignation is felt by a considerable number of railway employés resident in the city of Oxford who are unable to avail themselves, under the provisions of the National Health Insurance Act and subsequent Regulations relating thereto, of the services of a doctor who has for years attended them, and who, though willing to go upon the panel in respect of these patients and having obtained the consent of the insurance committee to do so, is precluded by the intervention of the panel doctors, in spite of his frequent assurances that every insured person has a right to choose his own doctor; and will he take steps to provide for the services of the doctor hitherto employed by these men being made available for them?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have made inquiries of the Oxford Insurance Committee on this case. As I stated in the House on 14th February, acceptance of a limited number of insured persons by a doctor on the panel is only possible where attendance by doctors on the panel is assured for all insured persons in the area, and therefore can only be granted by an insurance committee with the consent of the doctors on the panel. The responsibility for treatment of the insured persons must be a collective one, and no one doctor can be allowed to select good lives amongst insured persons with the same remuneration per head as those who accept a general average.
    Viscount VALENTIA: Will the hon. Gentleman, in view of the fact that the panel doctors have no objection to the doctor referred to in the question attending his old railway patients as long as he does not join the panel, instruct the local insurance committee to allow these insured persons to contract out in the exercise of the right promised to all insured persons that they may choose their own doctor?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no authority to do what the Noble Lord suggests. The Act of Parliament very definitely confers the discretion on the local insurance committee.
    Viscount VALENTIA: Is it not possible to give these railway men the doctor they wish to employ?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: All insured persons will be allowed their choice from the doctors allowed to serve under the Insurance Act.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: May I ask whether the hon Gentleman is aware that there cannot in this case be a question of choosing specially good lives, and whether, that being so, he cannot make some effort to give them the doctor they wish to employ?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Insurance Committee must have the consent of the doctors on the panel before they can allow such contracting out.
    Mr. JOHN TAYLORasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a certain number of insured persons connected with the Pelton Fell and other lodges of the Durham Miners' Association are desirous of changing their doctor; that, when they signed for their present doctors, it was on the understanding that it held good for three months only; and that objection is now taken by the Insurance Commissioners to the transfer on the ground that the present arrangements hold good for twelve months; and whether he will inquire into the matter with a view to the initial understanding being adhered to and the men being allowed to make the change of doctor desired?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: My attention has been drawn to the matter to which my hon. Friend refers, and I am investigating the circumstances referred to. In general, insured persons may change their doctors within the year either by consent of doctor

    225
    and patient or by consent of the insurance committee on complaint of the medical treatment received.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNE: What can be done in the cases which have occurred where doctors have refused to transfer insured persons to another doctor?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Any complaint can be submitted to the insurance committee.
    Mr. WING: Is it the fact that doctors ostentatiously said that they would only accept engagements for three months; and, if so, should not the same freedom be allowed to patients as to medical officers?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I know nothing about the circumstances, but I am sending down an inspector to investigate.

    Education (Scotland).
    Mr. PIRIEasked the Secretary for Scotland, with reference to his statement to the recent deputation on the subject of higher instruction in rural schools that he would be glad to assist any efforts emanating from local school boards, if he would take into consideration the difficulty of teaching science in many rural schools, partly owing to lack of equipment and partly to lack of teaching facilities, and in consequence will he be prepared to sanction any alternative subjects being substituted so that promising pupils may not have their educational future blocked for lack of this one subject, especially as they can readily make good an acquaintance with it at a later stage?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): As a matter of fact many pupils from small rural schools whose attainments are otherwise satisfactory have been admitted to the second year course of an intermediate school and some even to the third year without any preliminary instruction in science on condition that special arrangements for their instruction in that subject will be made in the intermediate school. But in the interests of the proper organisation of the intermediate school it is most desirable that wherever circumstances admit of it provision should be made for instruction in science in some form in primary schools which are in the habit of sending on pupils with a year's preparation to an intermediate school.
    Mr. PIRIE: Is there no change in the right hon. Gentleman's attitude towards the question of higher education in Scotland?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: There is no need for any change in my attitude.
    Mr. PIRIE: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say to the deputation which he received on the subject that there was a great change?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No. My reply to the deputation was an explanation of the facts as they were.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary for Scotland (1) how many school boards in Scotland were consulted as to the Memorandum issued by the President of the Board of Education with reference to the necessity of applicants for the position of school teachers obtaining certificates from registered dental surgeons and the nature of their reply; and (2) if he is aware that, by a circular issuing from the Board of Education, London, prescribing that every person claiming to be recognised as a certificated teacher must have a certificate from a registered dental surgeon stating that such person has undergone the necessary dental treatment, whether such order applies to Scotland, and if the Scottish Education Department was consulted thereon; and whether, in view of the hardship inflicted on many applicants in Scotland, where there happen to be no registered dentists, and the slur inflicted on gentlemen who have long enjoyed the public confidence as dentists although unregistered, he will make further inquiry into the matter?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I would remind my hon. Friend that requirements of the English Board of Education do not apply in Scotland.
    Mr. CATHCART WASON: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever seen this circular to which allusion is made, and has it been actually used in Scotland?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No. No letter of the English Education Board is used in Scotland.
    Mr. MOLTENOasked whether there was a decrease in the number of scholars on the elementary school registers in Scotland in the year 1912, as against the year 1911; and whether the decrease is due to the drain of the large emigration which is taking place from Scotland?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: There was a slight decrease of about one-eighth per cent., the figures for the year ending 31st

    227
    August, 1911, being 847,984; and for 1912, 846,890. It is difficult at present to express a certain opinion as to the cause. Probably the cause mentioned by my hon. Friend has contributed, but there is also the element of a reduced birth-rate.
    Mr. PIRIEasked the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the sympathetic attitude taken up by him to the deputation in regard to the teaching of intermediate subjects in rural schools, if he will state what practical steps he proposes to take so as to encourage school boards, by giving them equipment and teaching Grants, whereby the attainment of the intermediate certificate by a pupil may bring the same financial reward to a school board whether the pupil is trained at an intermediate or primary school?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The assimilation of capitation Grants for intermediate education in primary schools to those given to intermediate schools as seems to be suggested by my hon. Friend would, I am satisfied, be of little assistance to rural school boards. The only effective way of aiding rural school boards to make some provision of intermediate education in their primary schools is by granting them a certain proportion of the extra expense they incur for the purpose, irrespective of the number of pupils instructed. That is the principle of the small schools Grant and the Grant for equipment at present administered by the secondary education committees under Section 17 (8) and (9) of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908.
    Mr. PIRIE: I will put a further question on the Adjournment of the House.

    Fisheries (Scotland).
    Captain WARINGasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that dissatisfaction was expressed at the annual meeting of the Scottish Fisheries Association at the delay of the Departmental Committee on Loans to Fishermen in issuing their Report; and whether he can give any assurance that the Report will be presented before the end of the Whitsuntide Recess?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am aware that a resolution was carried to the effect that the Report should be issued without delay. I am informed that every effort is being made to secure the issue of the
    228
    Report as soon as possible, but I am not in a position to give the assurance asked by my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Mr. MUNRO: Has the right hon. Gentleman any means at his disposal for accelerating the very leisurely movements of the Committee?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Committee are not immediately under my control, but I believe that they are anxious to get their Report out as soon as possible. I have been in communication with them.
    Mr. COWAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Committee appointed by the English Board of Agriculture and Fisheries only last November as to State loans to fishermen in Devon and Cornwall have already reported?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: There is no comparison at all between the scope of the two Committees.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Has not the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster informed the House that the Report would not be ready until next autumn?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring to another Report.
    Captain WARINGasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received a resolution passed by the Scottish Fisheries Association on 4th April expressing their anxiety to have the Report of the Interdepartmental Committee on Herring Trawling without delay; whether practical experiments are being carried out to ascertain the damage done by herring traveling; and can he say how long it will be necessary to carry on these experiments before sufficient evidence has been secured?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have seen the resolution in question. Experiments have been and are being carried on, and, in order to secure useful results, it will be necessary to continue them throughout the summer and autumn herring season.

    Small Landholders (Scotland) Act.
    Mr. MORTONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the action of the Board of Agriculture (Scotland) in refusing to apply the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act for

    229
    the enlargement of holdings unless the land required for the enlargement of holdings belongs to the same landlord; and, having regard to the provisions of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911, whether he will take the opinion of the Law Officers on the matter?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I understand that the Board, acting upon a legal opinion, have declined to transmit to the Land Court applications for enlargement of holdings except from land belonging to the landlord from whom the applicant holds. As, however, the question of the competency of such applications seems arguable, stops will be taken to bring a test case before the Court.

    Truck Act (Amendment).
    Mr. GILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his intention to introduce a Bill during the present Session to amend the Truck Act; and, if so, how soon such Bill will be brought forward?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith): My right hon. Friend would be glad to be able to proceed with this Bill this Session, but, in view of the demands on the time of Parliament he is not in a position to make any promise on the subject.

    Idiots Act.
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked whether, having regard to the proposed repeal of the Idiots Act, 1886, it is the intention of the Government to re-enact Clause 15 of that Act, which empowers boards of guardians to receive a 4s. Grant for patients sent to institutions registered under that Act, and which will now become certified institutions tinder the Mental Deficiency Bill?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Section 15 of the Idiots Act cannot be re-enacted, because that Section merely preserved the condition of affairs existing in 1886, which was subsequently modified by the Local Government Act, 1888. My right hon. Friend is advised that neither the right of boards of guardians to send idiots to institutions—derived from Section 13 of the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1868—nor their right to receive Grants Under Section 24 (2) (f) of the Local Government Act, 1888, will be affected by the repeal of the Idiots Act.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. NEWMANasked whether any representatives of the landlord or tenant interest have been informally approached by the Government with a view to ascertaining the possibility of the Land Purchase (Ireland) Bill being introduced as an agreed-on measure?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked whether the agreements made by the parish priest of Abbeylara, county Longford, on behalf of the tenants and uneconomic holders of land, with the landlady, Mrs. Shirley Ball, or the division of the untenanted lands of Toneymore, has yet been lodged with and, if so, ratified by the Estates Commissioners; and, if not, will they cause inquiry to be made as to the cause of the delay in concluding this matter as agreed upon?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The holdings on this estate are the subject of proceedings for sale direct by the vendor to the tenants under the Irish Land Act, 1903, and the vendor has included some 137 acres of untenanted land for sale to the Estates Commissioners for purposes of division when they are dealing with the estate in order of priority. The estate will not, however, be reached in order of priority for some years.
    Mr. O'MALLEYasked whether the Congested Districts Board have yet made an offer for purchase of the Martin estate, Ross, near Oughterard, county Galway, the maps of which have been lodged with the Board some months ago; whether the Chief Secretary is aware that this estate was one of the first brought under the notice of the Board after the passing of the Land Act of 1909, and that the tenants are consequently greatly discontented with the delay in its purchase?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have not yet made an offer for the purchase of the property referred to. The maps and documents necessary for a preliminary inspection were only lodged with the Board in January last. The estate has been inspected, and the question of making an offer for it will probably be considered by the Board at their meeting next month.
    Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked whether the Estates Commissioners have considered the application of Mrs. Gallagher, of Listarush, an evicted tenant on the Wynne estate, Ballaghameehan, county Leitrim, for a grant to enable her to repair her house and stock her farm?
    Mr. BIRRELL: This application will be considered by the Estates Commissioners when they are dealing with this estate in order of priority.
    Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked whether the Estates Commissioners or the Congested Districts Board have yet purchased the Tottenham estate, Kiltubrid, county Leitrim; and, if not, whether, having regard to the fact that the tenants are all willing and anxious to purchase, they would be allowed to avail themselves of the benefits of the Purchase Act.
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board made an offer for the purchase of the estate referred to, which has not yet been accepted. If the Board purchase the estate it will be resold to the tenants under the Land Purchase Acts.
    Mr. DORISasked when Mr. Fitz-Gerald-Kenny lodged with the Congested Districts Board maps and documents relating to his congested estate near Ballyglass, county Mayo, with a view to a sale thereof through the Board; have the Board made an offer to Mr. FitzGerald-Kenny for the estate; and, if so, has it been accepted, and what has caused the delay in the negotiations and the completion of purchase?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The maps and documents necessary for an inspection of Mr. Fitz-Gerald-Kenny's estate were lodged with the Congested Districts Board in May, 1912. The Board have not made any offer for the estate pending settlement of the question of the inclusion of some untenanted lands in the proposed sale.

    Plumage Bill.
    Mr. CROFTasked the Prime Minister whether he can now state if he is prepared to give facilities for the passage of the Plumage Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The Government are aware of the importance of this question and are giving it careful consideration, but I cannot undertake to give facilities to the Bill as it stands.
    Sir CHARLES HENRY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable opposition to the Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think that the opposition might be removed.
    Mr. CROFT: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make a statement in about a week's time?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps the hon. Member would put a question again after Whitsuntide.

    Committee of Imperial Defence.
    Sir SAMUEL SCOTTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the General Staff have already given a decided opinion upon the question of invasion, into which the Sub-Committee of the Imperial Defence Committee is now inquiring, he will consider the advisability of appointing to that Committee officers, other than those serving upon the General Staff, who can investigate the problem with an open mind?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There is no ground for the suggestion that any members of the Sub-Committee are not approaching the questions submitted to it with an open mind. There are on the Sub-Committee two officers of great distinction who serve on the General Staff. It has always been my intention to invite Field-Marshal Lord Nicholson, who served on the last inquiry, to take a seat on this Sub-Committee as soon as he returns from India, and I hope he will do so.

    Suffragist Prisoners.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked on how many separate occasions the suffragist prisoner, Mr. Hugh Franklin, now undergoing a sentence of nine months' imprisonment at Wormwood Scrubbs, has been forcibly fed; has he throughout resisted the treatment; is he still continuing his protest; and is his present physical condition satisfactory?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: During the first part of his imprisonment this prisoner was fed twice a day; latterly he has been fed three times a day. The answer to the remainder of the question is in the affirmative.

    Small Holdings.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the value of the Report on Buildings for Small Holdings (Cd. 6708, of 1913), he can reduce

    233
    the cost from 11s. 3d., the price at which it is now issued, to some figure more within the roach of parish councillors and others, or, if this be not possible, whether he will permit the issue of this Report with the accompanying drawings and plans in some cheaper and abridged form, so that the valuable suggestions it contains for rural cottages and other buildings may be studied and adopted to the widest possible extent?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The price of the Report on Buildings for Small Holdings (Cd. 6708) was fixed at 11s. 3d., in accordance with the scale of prices for Parliamentary Papers laid down by the Select Committee on Form and Distribution of Parliamentary Papers in 1889. The question as to the issue of this Report in some cheaper form as a Stationery Office publication is now under consideration by the Select Committee on Publications and Debates Reports.

    Superannuation Act, 1887.
    Captain CLIVEasked whether, in view of the admitted dissatisfaction among Army officers at the deductions under Section 6 of the Superannuation Act, 1887, from the pensions that they have earned, and the comparatively small saving to the State resulting from it, the Government will introduce a Bill to abolish these deductions?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer is in the negative.
    Colonel YATEasked whether, in view of the dissatisfaction caused to pensioners by the deductions made from their pay in any appointment the pay of which is derived from a public fund, he will consider the question of altering the present rules?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If, as I assume to be the case, the hon. and gallant Member refers to retired officers of the Army and Navy employed in civil posts, the deductions are made under Statute and I have no power to alter them.

    National Debt Commissioners.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the total amount invested or available for investment by the National Debt Commissioners from Irish sources; the name of the Departments; the amounts, respectively, from which it is derived; and the manner in which it is at present invested?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The funds from Irish sources under the control of the National Debt Commissioners are invested in Parliamentary Securities created or issued under an Act of Parliament and chargeable on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, or in securities the due payment of the interest on which is guaranteed by authority of Parliament. I will circulate a statement giving the particulars.—[See Written Answers of this date.]

    Post Office, Ireland (Deposit Department).
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the total amount at present lodged in the Irish Post Office Deposit Department; and whether the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will consider the advisability of an advance being made from this account to Irish public bodies for the purpose of erecting labourers' cottages?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The estimated balance due to depositors whose accounts were opened in Ireland was, on the 31st December last (the latest date for which the figures are available), £12,823,900. The proposal that direct advances should be made to Irish public bodies for the purpose of erecting labourers' cottages is contrary to the well-established principle that the investment of Savings Bank moneys should be restricted to securities charged on the Consolidated Fund, or guaranteed by that fund, and is not, therefore, one which I could adopt.

    National Telephone Company (Arbitration).
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked whether a fee of 1,000 guineas was paid to Mr. Andrew Young, the valuer to the London County Council, for services rendered during the recent arbitration between the Postmaster-General and the National Telephone Company; what was the nature of the services and the time occupied in rendering them; and if, during the last-named period, any substitute was acting for Mr. Young in connection with his duties to the London County Council?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Under the purchase agreement approved by Parliament, the National Telephone Company's plant, property, and assets were purchased by the Post Office on what were practically "tramway terms," but the extent of the system and the amount involved were

    235
    beyond all precedents. Mr. Andrew Young, the valuer to the London County Council, had had a unique experience in the valuation of plant under the Tramway Acts; and, at the request of the Postmaster-General, the London County Council granted Mr. Young permission to advise the Post Office with regard to the valuation of the telephone system. Mr. Young's assistance was given over a period of nearly two years, and he devoted much of his leisure time to study of the numerous problems involved. He also gave valuable evidence before the Railway and Canal Commission. The honorarium to Mr. Young was on a moderate scale in comparison with the fees usually paid for expert assistance and advice in complicated technical cases. I understand that Mr. Young attended to his duties to the London County Council throughout the time when he was assisting the Post Office.

    Customs and Excise Department.
    Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the five assistant clerks who have been certified as suffering from phthisis or other tuberculous disease passed two strict medical examinations before their appointment, he will inquire into the conditions under which these men work in the Statistical Office of the Customs and Excise Department where they are employed?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am informed by the Board of Customs and Excise that, in the opinion of their medical officer, the conditions under which the men in the Statistical Office work are satisfactory, and that the illness from which the five men in question suffered cannot be attributed to their conditions of work.

    Continuation Day Schools.
    Mr. KINGasked the President to the Board of Education whether he is aware of the proposals now being made for continuation day schools, whereby children on quitting the elementary schools may be made more efficient citizens and workers; whether any estimate has been formed of the cost of the additional buildings required; what number of places will be required if continuation schools become general; what the average cost for each school place in such schools would be; and what the total cost of
    236
    buildings will be if proposals for continuation education for all are adopted?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): I am aware that proposals have been made from time to time with regard to day continuation schools. The cost of the buildings would vary in accordance with the nature of the proposals, and it is not possible for me to give the hon. Member any figures.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: In many cases, at any rate in the rural districts, will not the provision of buildings be quite unnecessary?
    Mr. PEASE: The answer is the same as that which I have just given to the hon. Member for Somerset. The provision must vary very much in different cases.

    Industrial Council.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Mr. Cuthbert Laws, general manager of the Shipping Federation, stated before the Industrial Council, on Wednesday, 16th April, that he was attending the inquiry only in an individual capacity; and whether he will, in future, ask any selected person who gives evidence before the Industrial Council to represent an organisation that such person may be connected with?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): The arrangements with respect to the taking of evidence by the Industrial Council are entirely a matter for the council, and I could not, therefore, properly give any such instruction as is suggested.

    India (Exports and Re-Exports).
    Mr. CROFTasked what was the total value of exports from India to the United Kingdom in 1885 and in 1912, and what was the amount of re-exports to foreign countries in 1912; and what was the total value of exports to foreign countries in the same year?
    Mr. BUXTON: The total value of the exports of merchandise from Britsh India to the United Kingdom in the year commencing 1st April, 1885, was £22,868,000, and in the year commencing 1st April, 1911, the latest year for which figures are available, was £40,078,000. In the latter year the re-exports of merchandise from

    237
    India to foreign countries by sea amounted in value to £1,477,000, and the total exports of merchandise from India to foreign countries by sea to £87,881,000.

    United Kingdom (Exports).
    Mr. CROFTasked the value of exports of produce and manufactures from the United Kingdom in 1912 per head of population to the following countries: Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Germany, United States, France, and Russia?
    Mr. BUXTON: The value of the exports of United Kingdom produce and manufacture from this country to the countries named in 1912, per head of the population of those countries, was as follows:—

    £

    s.

    d.

    Canada

    …

    …

    3

    3

    4

    South Africa

    …

    …

    3

    10

    4

    Germany

    …

    …

    0

    12

    2

    France

    …

    …

    0

    12

    11

    Australia

    …

    …

    7

    10

    2

    New Zealand

    …

    …

    9

    5

    5

    United States

    …

    …

    0

    6

    4

    Russia

    …

    …

    0

    1

    7

    Emigration.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked whether the President of the Local Government Board is aware that the Lambeth Board of Guardians on Wednesday selected seventeen of the Poor Law children for emigration to Canada; and if he will state the age of each child selected?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): I understand that the guardians contemplate taking steps for the emigration of seventeen children to Canada, and that the children's ages vary from ten to fifteen years.
    Mr. CROFTasked what was the net emigration from the United Kingdom in 1912 to the British Empire and to foreign countries, respectively.
    Mr. BUXTON: My right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board has asked me to reply to this question. The separate classification of emigrants, according to their intended countries of settlement, is not available for the whole of the year 1912. The excess of passengers of British nationality from ports of the United Kingdom to ports of foreign countries not in Europe over
    238
    passengers arriving from such ports was 48,506 in 1912, the corresponding figure for the balance of the movement between this country and ports of the British Empire out of Europe being 219,980.
    Mr. CROFT: Have the Government taken any steps to endeavour to keep emigration as far as possible under the Flag, as promised by the President of the Local Government Board a year ago?
    Mr. BUXTON: I can hardly answer that question without notice.

    West Ham Board of Guardians.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked whether the West Ham Board of Guardians had seven men locked up on Wednesday, 16th April, for refusing to work; whether every gate and door in the able-bodied men's place and in the labour yard was locked on them and that their belts, pipes, tobacco, and other belongings were taken away from them by the labour master; and whether the President of the Local Government Board will state whether it is the rule in all workhouses for men to be treated in that way; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: The seven men referred to were given into custody on the 16th April and were convicted of refusing to perform their work. I am informed that the only door locked was one leading to a roadway which gives access to the female side of the workhouse. Articles of clothing were taken from the men on their admission in pursuance of the regulations, and the pipes and tobacco in accordance with a resolution of the guardians prohibiting smoking in particular parts of the workhouse. Their property would, of course, have been returned on their discharge. I see no reason for my intervention.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked the number of old age pensioners residing in workhouses and other Poor Law establishments in England and Wales on the 4th of January, 1913?
    Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: The Returns show that there were on the date in question 2,847 old age pensioners in workhouses and other Poor Law establishments in England and Wales who were receiving relief which did not disqualify for an old age pension—i.e., medical or surgical assistance only.
    Mr. O'DOWDasked whether the refusal of the Local Government Board to sanction the granting of an old age pension to Peter Dowd, of Rover, Bally-farnon (No. 2) sub-committee district, county Sligo, because his name could not be found on the Census Returns of 1841 or 1851, debars the applicant from the benefits of the Act for all future time, and, if not, can the Chief Secretary say what tribunal is competent to decide the question as to when he is to receive his pension; and whether, in view of the fact that two old age pensioners have sworn affidavits to the effect that this man is seventy-two years of age, his case, owing to the evidence supporting it, will be reconsidered?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board cannot reconsider their previous decision, but it is open to Dowd to make a fresh claim whenever he considers that he has satisfactory evidence to show that he has reached the statutory age.

    Poor Law Officers (Salaries).
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the salaries of Poor Law officers and servants in 1912 were practically double those paid to similar officers in 1888; and, as the Grant-in-Aid in 1912 was based on the expenditure in 1888, an unfair portion of the increased cost falling on the ratepayers, will he remedy this grievance by securing that the Grant be based on present day expenditure rather than on the expenditure of 1888?
    Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: What the hon. Member proposes could not be done without legislation. The question bas been remitted to a Committee to report upon, and pending their report the basis of the Grant should not in my opinion be altered.

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), whether his office has attempted to form or can form an estimate, even approximately, of the total loss to Ireland in consequence of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease last year and the restrictions on the importation of Irish cattle to this country which followed?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): It is regretted that the Department are not
    240
    in a position to form an estimate in this matter. The effects of the disturbance of trade while the restrictions were in force have appeared too complex for reduction to terms of net monetary loss, especially in view of the unusually high exports subsequently.
    Mr. P. WHITE: Were the exports more than usual?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I have nothing to add to my answer.

    Post Office Transfer of Surveyors.
    Mr. AGG-GARDNERasked the Postmaster General if there are any reasons, other than that of the general practice of the Department, to justify the refusal to relieve the Post Office surveyors recently transferred from Cheltenham to Cardiff of the necessary expenses caused by such transfer?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is the practice of the Department to defray all bonâ-fide removal expenses, and the officers in question have been relieved of all expenses that can be passed as such under the Regulations.

    Abbeyleix District Council (Ireland).
    Mr. DELANYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board are prepared to reconsider their decision with reference to the surcharge of £2 10s. made by their auditor, Richard Grubb, Esq., at the last audit of the accounts of the Abbeyleix District Council, in view of the fact that the sum mentioned was expended in repairing the fences on a plot of land attached to an unoccupied cottage, and that the expenditure was made for the purpose of reletting the cottage, which was vacant from the to 15th August, 1911, to the 29th March, 1912?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The decision of the Local Government Board in this matter is final. The Board could find no valid reason for remitting this surcharge.

    Evicted Tenants (County Leitrim).
    Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked whether he will state how much money has been distributed by the Estates Commissioners on the tenants on the Tottenham estate, county Leitrim; how many tenants have been assisted; how many are on the list for future assistance; and how much money is still available for the assistance of evicted poor tenants?
    Mr. BIRRELL: In connection with the improvement of this estate, which has been purchased by the Estates Commissioners, an expenditure of some £5,500 is proposed which is to be by way of Grant. It is proposed that over 200 tenants will benefit in the expenditure of the money, of which over £3,000 has been expended. The balance of the money will not be expended until a scheme for the allotment of the turbary, on the preparation of which the inspector is at present employed, has been approved.

NATIONAL DEFENCE (BRITISH AEROPLANES).
Captain MURRAY: I desire to ask the Secretary of State for War a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely: Whether his attention has been called to a public statement made by Lord Montagu of Beaulieu that the War Office is in possession of only forty-three aeroplanes, instead of 101, as stated by him; and whether this statement is accurate?
Colonel SEELY: Yes, Sir, my attention was at once called to the statement. Lord Montagu has written me the following letter:—
"21st April, 1913.
Dear Seely,—I was very glad to receive your invitation to come to the War Office to-day, and to inspect there the documents supplied by your official advisers, and to meet the General Officer who is charged with the administration of the Royal Flying Corps.
I am now fully convinced that the number of aeroplanes you have publicly stated represents those really available. I am glad to know that the number is at the present date, in excess of the 101 you stated on March 19th were then in the possession of the War Office.
I quite appreciate the necessity for secrecy in these matters, and understand how misapprehensions may have arisen, and regret that I gave publicity to erroneous figures.
I am glad the matter has now been cleared up as regards numbers, but you will. I know, allow me to continue to urge upon the Government and upon the public in general the absolute necessity for better provision for military and naval aviation, especially in matters pertaining to housing and transport.
I shall be glad if you could read this letter to the House of Commons at the first possible opportunity.
Yours sincerely,
(Signed) MONTAGU OP BEAULIEU."
I trust, Sir, that this complete statement may put an end to reflections on the good faith not merely of myself, but of the distinguished officers and public officials on whom, as everyone knows, I must largely rely in giving figures to this House. At the same time, the House will permit me to acknowledge most warmly the characteristically prompt, frank, and straight forward manner in which Lord Montagu has dealt with this question.

SENTENCE OF DEATH (WALTER SYKES).
Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: I beg to ask the Home Secretary a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely, Whether Walter Sykes, who is under sentence of death, has been examined by a physician recognised as an alienist, who has had ample experience in mental affections, with a view to ascertaining the prisoner's mental condition, and as to how far he can be regarded as responsible for his actions, seeing that the medical officer of the prison admitted, in reply to a question, that the prisoner was to a certain extent weak-minded?
Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The prisoner has been under prolonged observation by an experienced medical officer, who has been unable to discover any indication of insanity, and the circumstances of the case do not disclose any ground for further inquiry as to the prisoner's mental condition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the usual notices standing in the name of the Prime Minister for the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule, whether we may take it that the customary practice will be observed that no other business will be taken after the necessary public business to-night, and that as far as the Government are concerned, subject to the approval of the Chairman of Ways and Means, to be subsequently obtained, they will afford us full opportunity for a general discussion of the Chancellor's Budget proposals on one of the Resolutions taken on a later day?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly. My right hon. Friend does not propose to go further to-night than to move the ordinary Resolution on the Tea Duty, and then to move to report Progress. I think the regular discussion on the Budget ought to be upon that Resolution or upon the Income Tax Resolution—it does not matter which—and will be taken on Monday next.

  BILLS PRESENTED.
    DAYLIGHT SAVING BILL.
    "To promote the earlier use of Daylight in certain months yearly; and for other purposes relating thereto." Presented by Mr. ROBERT PEARCE; supported by Sir William Bull, Mr. Fenwick, Sir Henry Norman, Sir Walter Nugent, Mr. Hancock, Mr. Stephen Collins, and Sir William Priestley; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 118.]
    CALENDAR REFORM BILL.
    "To reform the Calendar, fix Easter and other and more Bank holidays; and for other purposes in relation thereto." Presented by Mr. ROBERT PEARCE; supported by Sir William Bull and Sir Albert Spicer; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 119.]

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  WAYS AND MEANS.

    FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): In making my Budget Statement last year I framed
    258
    my Estimates upon the anticipation of a prosperous year, and the event has more than justified the forecast. The Estimates were based on a hopeful view of trade and the receipts of the Exchequer have exceeded even the optimistic Estimates which I then made. Without exception last year was the most prosperous year that British trade has probably ever seen. Judged by any test—volume of trade, profits, employment, wages—business was thoroughly sound and healthy. The chairman of the Baltic Conference a fortnight ago, in his Presidential address, stated that last year formed a red-letter year in the history of British shipping. Our overseas trade was at its highest and the home trade had never reached such dimensions. Factories, workshops, counting houses, banks, railways, docks, and, in fact, every domiciliary industry in this country was humming with business, and the tide of affluent trade rose so high that it overwhelmed three serious obstacles in its path. There was a great strike that was going on at the time I made my statement, probably the greatest strike we have ever had in this country, which dislocated almost every industry; there was a bad harvest in this country, from which agriculture has suffered severely, especially in some parts of the Kingdom; and there was a war in the East, and the still more grave complications which that war menaced to Europe.

    REVENUE FOB 1912–13.
    In spite of all these difficulties and obstacles we never had such trade in this country. The forecast which I made was a difficult one. It was difficult, in the first instance, to forecast the length of the strike, and still more difficult to predict what damage would be inflicted on trade by the strike. The estimate of my advisers was that the strike would prejudicially affect the Customs and Excise revenue to the extent of £800,000. It had already injured that revenue to the extent of £200,000 before the commencement of the last financial year. The actual loss is now estimated at £550,000. The revenue sustained another loss last year owing to the holding back of clearances of tea, sugar, and tobacco, in anticipation of some probable changes for the better which might be introduced in the financial proposals of the year. That was a very remarkable opinion, having regard to the enormous expenditure which everyone must have foreseen the Chancellor of

    259
    the Exchequer would be confronted with in the coming year. It is very odd that when I had a realised surplus of £6,500,000 to dispose of, the holding back of these dutiable commodities only came to £70,000; but when I had no realised surplus and the expenditure had gone up by millions, those engaged in these trades came to the conclusion that this was the time to reduce taxation, and held back clearances to an enormous extent. The revenue sustained a loss of £430,000 in consequence of this holding back. But the loss of 1912 is the gain of 1913. The Estimates for Customs and Excise were very accurate when one takes into account the difficulty of making a forecast owing to these exceptional circumstances, apart from the fact that you are dealing with huge sums of money and there are all kinds of things to interfere with the flow of trade and the calculations of the Exchequer.

    SPIRIT DUTIES, DEATH DUTIES, AND STAMPS.
    I should like to make one or two observations, before I leave last year, upon one or two items of revenue. The Spirit Duties were satisfactory in more senses than one, not merely from the revenue, but also from a social and economic point of view. The effect of the heavy additional duties imposed in 1909 became more manifest last year than it had been in the previous year. If the Committee will take the four years preceding the Budget of 1909, they include one year of great trade depression, 1908, but the consumption of spirits in this country only fell from 39,250,000 to 37,750,000 gals. Since the Budget of 1909, there has been a fall of about 8,000,000 gals, in the consumption of spirits in this country, but whilst there has been this drop in consumption the revenue has benefited to the extent of nearly £2,000,000. So that it is satisfactory in both ways, in the increased revenue and in the lesser consumption of spirits. Taking the whole four years together, the consumption of spirits is down, it is estimated, by 28,750,000 gals., and the revenue has profited by £5,000,000. I think it may be said that in more than one respect this is one of the most successful taxes ever imposed on the community.
    I wish to say a word about the Death Duties. These, of course, are liable to fluctuation, and apparently to very wide fluctuation. For instance, in the first half of last year, very large
    260
    estates came in, and the revenue was up, compared with the corresponding six months of the previous year, by something like £2,000,000. Taking the latter half of the year, very few large estates came in, and the revenue was down. On balance, the Death Duties did not come up to the Estimate by £202,000. Perhaps the Committee would like to know something of how the Death Duties were distributed in the course of last year. Duties were paid upon property which aggregated to £276,000,000. There were about 425,000 adult deaths last year. Of that £276,000,000 of property, one-third belonged to 292 persons, one-half to 1,300 persons, and two-thirds to 4,000 persons; while 335,000 adults died without any property upon which it was worth anybody's while to pay the few shillings to obtain the authority of the Inland Revenue legally to deal with.
    I should like to call attention also to the Stamp Duties. They reflect more surely the state of trade than probably anything else. We apprehended at the beginning of the year that they might suffer very considerably from the coal strike, but our fears were not realised. The revenue considerably exceeded the Estimate. Every branch of Stamp Duties arising from trade operations showed a large increase, including duties on the sale of real property. During the last two years the average number of sales registered at the Estate Exchange was up by 50 per cent. above the average number of the preceding three years. The most productive duties of all the Stamp Duties were the penny duties, mainly bankers' cheques. The bankers' cheques stamped at Somerset, House and the three subordinate offices came to a million for every working day. That is a considerable increase on the preceding year, and last year represented a very considerable increase on the year before that.

    INCOME TAX.
    Another tax upon which I should like to make one or two observations is the Income Tax, including the Super-tax. Certain questions were put to me last week which seemed rather to indicate a suspicion in the minds of some hon. Members that we had held back the Income Tax at the end of the year. I will give the hon. Member the figures. Last year these two taxes altogether realised £706,000 in excess of the Estimate. The Super-tax realised £100,000 more than the Estimate. This is due partly to the mode of collection. So

    261
    much for these three or four taxes to which I thought the Committee would like to have special attention called. I should like also to say something about the way in which the new taxes yielded last year—I mean the taxes of 1909. I see they are hailed already as a barren failure. They have produced nothing! They have not met the liabilities which they were intended to dispose of!

    YIELD OF NEW TAXES OF 1909.
    Let me give the Committee the figures which show the yield of the new taxes for last year. The new taxation imposed in 1909 last year yielded £25,655,000. In 1911 they yielded £24,588,000. Last year, therefore, the yield above the preceding year was £1,067,000. Later I shall be able to estimate for a still further increase in the coming year. I should also like to point out how this compares with the Estimate which was formed of the yield of these taxes. There were some taxes which we did not profess to be able to form any estimate of. For instance, there were the Spirit Duties. It was quite impossible to make any forecast of their ultimate yield, so much depended upon the habits of the people. There were one or two other taxes of a similar character. But, taking the taxes of which we could form a fairly accurate estimate in regard to their ultimate yield, I find that last year these taxes produced £3,300,000 above the estimate we formed of their ultimate yield when they had reached full maturity—and they have not yet reached that! As a matter of fact, we did not overestimate the taxes. I agree that we underestimated the expenditure. We all anticipated that the Navy would have reached the high water mark of expenditure in 1910, but circumstances over which we had no control made it impossible for us to realise that estimate. The same thing applies undoubtedly to the Estimates with regard to medical benefit and old age pensions, a half of which we expected to receive as a contribution from the local authorities. If the Estimates were fallacious they were not so in the matter of overestimating the yield of the new taxes. On the contrary, it was rather in the matter of underestimating the probability of expenditure in two or three directions. The net result in regard to last year—
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer the figures by which the Whisky Duty has exceeded the estimate of the yield?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I thought I had made that clear. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the White Paper he will see that we did not estimate the yield of the Whisky Duty except for the first year. It was quite impossible to estimate the ultimate result because it depended so very much on the habits of the people. We could not form any sort of forecast. The White Paper shows that there is nothing set off against the ultimate yield of the Whisky Duty.
    We estimated the revenue of last year on the basis of a rosy view. In spite of the holding back at the end of the year; in spite of the strike, the receipts exceeded the Estimate by £1,600,000. But for the strike and the holding back we should have received £2,600,000 more than we actually received.

    EXPENDITURE FOR 1912–13.
    Now I come to the expenditure for last year. The original Estimate of expenditure was £186,885,000. The Supplementary Estimates were unusually heavy. There was a change announced in our naval programme some time in the summer owing to the very serious change in the German Navy plans, and that involved Supplementary Estimates of something near a million. There were about two millions voted in respect of doctors; £500,000 for Uganda. A few other items, in addition, brought up the Supplementary Estimates to £4,671,000, so that instead of having to provide for £186,000,000, as we had anticipated, the Treasury had to find money to meet liabilities amounting to £191,556,000. Let me say a word about the Exchequer balances. The Committee will recollect that last year I called attention to the fact that there were very serious under-spendings at the Admiralty owing, in the main, to labour troubles, and that the programme of naval construction for that year had to a very large extent been postponed; that the liabilities which were incurred, and should in the ordinary course have been met in the year 1911, had been postponed to last year and the present year. These were not savings in the ordinary sense of the term. They were purely postponements of expenditure. The naval programme of construction for last year and for the present year was not induced by a single torpedo boat in consequence of the fact that £1,500,000 had been under-spent in the previous year. It was deferred payment. The liability was there, and would remain. Therefore it

    263
    was not the kind of surplus that could fairly have been devoted to the payment of debt. It was not the kind of money that would have been devoted in any business concern to the payment of debts. It represented under-spending which had to be met in a subsequent year.
    The House of Commons took this view, and they allowed me to set aside a million of that money for the purpose of meeting those under-spendings when they fell due, and that million was added to the Exchequer balances by the Finance Act of last year. There was another £500,000 lent to Uganda for development purposes. That sum was taken out of the realised surplus of last year and added to the Exchequer balances for the purpose of effecting that loan to Uganda. We thus took one and a-half million out altogether and added the sum to the Exchequer balances to meet those two liabilities. Owing to the savings effected in some directions and further under-spendings at the Admiralty, due undoubtedly to the very prosperous condition of the shipbuilding trade, and owing also to the fact that the revenue exceeded the estimate, we were in a position to meet all these liabilities—a million for the Navy, £500,000 for Uganda, £2,000,000 for the doctors, and sundry other additional and supplementary sums—out of current revenue, and we did not deplete the Exchequer balances by a single penny, and the million and a-half is still in those balances. I think that disposes of everything that I thought it was necessary to dwell upon in respect to last year's revenue and expenditure.

    GROWTH OF EXPENDITURE.
    4.0 P.M.
    I now come to the balance-sheet for the present year. The estimate of expenditure this year, on the assumption that the National Debt charges are fixed at the same amount as last year, comes to £195,640,000—a very colossal figure. I think I am entitled to call attention to the fact that out of this very gigantic sum there are three or four items which are very largely in the nature of capital expenditure. For instance, take naval works. We are voting £3,500,000 this year to naval works. Of that, £1,000,000 is in respect of works for which, before the change in policy effected by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, we should have borrowed. We are similarly providing £500,000 from
    264
    Army Votes for works of the same category. Then again, oil fuel reserve services are just over £1,000,000. I am not referring now to expenditure on oil which is to be used in the course of the current year, I am simply dealing with reserve, capital as it were, of our oil service. Then there is £1,000,000 which is due to under-spending in the previous year, and has been thrown upon the Admiralty in the course of the present year. There are two items of a capital character, and the other one which is under-spending, properly belonging to last year, and we shall have to bear the burden in the course of the current year.
    One hundred and ninety-five million pounds is undoubtedly a very startling figure, and I think it is very natural and necessary that it should excite a good deal of comment and inquiry. Expenditure has rushed up at a very alarming rate in practically every country throughout the world. The main cause of the increase undoubtedly in this and other countries is attributable to the growth of military and naval armaments; it is also due, to a very large extent, to the growing appreciation of the obligations which the community owes as a whole in respect of the health, the comfort, and the training and the amenities of individual citizens. If the Committee will extend to me their indulgence I should rather like to examine a little more closely this growth of expenditure. The increase in figures are striking, but what is much more remarkable and significant is the change in the character of the expenditure.

    EXPENDITURE IN 1861.
    I looked up the expenditure of this country fifty years ago. I think it was rather a good period to take; in many respects the conditions were analogous. They are both years that came after the close of a great war in which we were engaged. We were then after the Crimean War and the Indian Mutiny—wars in which, in many respects, the military equipment had been found wanting, and found wanting in almost every essential condition except the gallantry and endurance of our soldiers. In both cases there was created a demand for increased expenditure; there were the same great passions thrilling the Navy; there were the same panics and nightmares. Then the French Emperor was the bugbear. The third great panic prophesied by Mr. Cobden had taken place; we had a dis-

    265
    tinguished sailor, a distinguished fighting man—Sir Charles Napier—taking the lead in working up the excitement and nervous apprehension. He was firmly convinced that there would be an invasion of this country; he described the march upon London, and he said in this House, "when it comes, what will become of the funds, God only knows." He even fixed the date of the invasion. Enormous sums of money were spent in useless fortifications, and in twelve years the naval and military expenditure of this country doubled. There were the same calculations in comparison between fleets. We were told in every Motion in this House—and there were several Debates in the House of Lords—that the French fleet was superior in big ships and big guns. There were the same stories of secret preparation. We were told that the French were preparing huge transports for the purpose of landing troops, and we were assured that it would be the easiest thing in the world to land 80,000 men on the South Coast to march on London. It is a very interesting story, and worth studying now. Now we know the French Emperor not merely had no designs on us, but that he was exceedingly anxious to be friendly with this country, that it was the one anxiety of his life to be on good terms with Great Britain and her Sovereign. True, there were a few irascible French colonels, but we also know now for a certainty that at no time had they the remotest chance of landing anything or any troops in this country, and that our Fleet was overwhelmingly superior. At any rate, it had the effect of driving up expenditure.
    Mr. Gladstone, who believed none of these things, called special attention to the alarming growth of expenditure in 1861, almost in words repeated to-day by critics of our expenditure. I should like to quote the words he then used. He said:—
    "If there be any danger which has recently in an especial manner beset us. I confess that …. it has seemed to me to lie, during recent years chiefly, in our proneness to constant and apparently almost boundless augmentations of expenditure, and in the consequences that are associated with them. I do not refer to this or that particular charge or scheme. I do not refer to the Estimates of the year; but I think that when in an extended retrospect we take notice of the late at which we have been advancing for a certain number of years, we must see that there has been a tendency to break down all barriers and all limits …. I do trust that the day has come when a check has began to be put to the movement in this direction."
    That was in 1861; Mr. Gladstone was then submitting to this House a Budget statement which provided for £70,000,000—£2 8s. 3d. per head of the population. It
    266
    is now £4 6s. 3d., and I think it is very important—there is no more important function that this House can discharge than an examination of the National expenditure—to call attention to the direction in which expenditure has grown, so that criticism should be well informed and well directed.
    The largest increase since then has been in armaments. I pointed out that 1861 represented the high water-mark of that date of the cost of armaments. Shortly afterwards expenditure on the Army and Navy fell by something like £2,000,000 a year. It was then £28,285,000; it is now £74,544,000, an increase of £46,000,000. It was then growing at the rate of hundreds of thousands per year; it is now growing at the rate of millions a year. Since I have had the privilege of occupying my present office expenditure on armaments has grown by £15,000,000 and I see no prospect of this very menacing growth coming to an end unless there is some fundamental change in the attitude and policy of the nations of the earth.
    Sir W. BYLES: Or of the Government.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The expenditure on armaments differs from every other expenditure in two respects. One is, it is non-productive. The other is that the increase or diminution in armaments is not dependent upon the will of the individual Government that initiates the expenditure, or even of the House of Commons that sanctions the expenditure; it depends upon the concerted, or rather competitive, will of a number of great nations, of whom we constitute one of the most potent. Now armaments count for the largest, and I think the most sterile, increase since 1861. If the Committee will just follow the other items of expenditure, I think they will agree that they are much more full of encouragement and hope. There are larger sums spent upon objects which give a promise of strength and happiness to the nation. It is no use quoting details without examining the purpose of the expenditure. Whether an increased expenditure is an improvement or not depends, first of all, on the purpose of the expenditure and on the means.

    INCREASED EXPENDITURE APART FROM ARMAMENTS.
    With regard to the profitableness of the outlay, I should like to point out where the increased expenditure comes in apart

    267
    from armaments. The first is in the Post Office. Then the Post Office costs £3,000,000 a year. It is now responsible for £24,000,000 of our annual expenditure. That is an increase of £21,000,000, but, although the expenditure has increased eightfold, the profit has increased twelve-fold, and, apart from the great profit which is derived, the money has been spent upon an object which is not merely helpful, but essential to our trading community. It creates facilities which mean so much for the amenities of life, and, apart from that, it fructifies in a hundred ways in the trade and commerce and the industries of the country.
    The other large increase is in education. The money then voted was £1,200,000, and it is now £19,200,000, an increase of £18,000,000. Then there was no money voted out of the local rates for education; now £16,600,000 is voted by the localities themselves. Then the nation was spending 8d. per head upon the education of its children, now the Imperial Grants alone come to 8s. 5d. per head, and the total of the Imperial and local Grants come to 15s. per head of the population. Although there may be much to criticise in the expenditure, although there may be extravagance in some directions and we might spend less in some ways, although I am perfectly certain we could profitably spend more in others, still on the whole, taking it through and through, this is an expenditure which fertilises and enriches. Therefore I do not think there is anything for us to apologise for in either of these two increases.
    There are two items of increase of expenditure which do not even appear in the Budget of fifty years ago. The first is the Grant-in-Aid of local taxation. There were no Grants-in-Aid of local taxation then, but now they represent £11,000,000 of our national expenditure. This undoubtedly represents an enormous advance in civilisation. The other item is one which is put into a new class, and which has only been voted in the course of the last four years, the Vote for pensions, Labour Exchanges, health and unemployment insurance. This accounts for £20,000,000 of the expenditure. Take those four items together they represent an increase of £70,000,000 to the national expenditure which has occurred since 1861, but those are not an extravagance but a real economy—an economy of time,
    268
    strength, nerve, and brain. In its purpose, and substantially in its application, its represents a profitable reproductive work done in the nation. It undoubtedly increases the efficiency of the nation in every respect, and the business man who would unduly stint his outlay on repairing and renewing his machinery would be regarded as a very bad business man, and so would the Parliament which takes the same view of the nation. Take that expenditure of £70,000,000 upon these items, and deduct it out of the total of £195,000,000. That leaves £125,000,000 to compare with the expenditure of fifty years ago, an increase of £55,000,000. Out of that increase £46,000,000 is an increase in armaments alone. I do not think anyone will say that the remaining £9,000,000 is an excessive and extravagant figure when one regards the increase in population, the increase in the activities of the nation in every direction, the increase in the cost of collection which must necessarily follow. I think that £9,000,000 on the whole is a figure that is well within the comparison of the conditions of to-day with the conditions which existed in 1861.
    There is another figure I should like to give to the Committee before I dispose of this branch of the inquiry. The deadweight debt then was £821,000,000—that is, £28 per head of the population. The deadweight debt to-day is £661,000,000, or £14 per head of the population. We were then reducing debt at the rate of £1,300,000 per year; we are now reducing deadweight debt at the rate of £12,000,000 a year. When you come to the question of the means of the nation to meet this increased expenditure the income which then passed under the review of the Income Tax Commissioners amounted to £312,000,000. Last year it was £1,107,000,000. One penny on the Income Tax then adjusted to modern conditions with regard to abatements yielded £875,000; a penny to-day produces nearly £3,000,000. So that, although £195,000,000 standing alone, without any explanation, is undoubtedly alarming, there is only one item alone which creates any profound disquiet, the bulk of the remaining increases representing expenditure from which we reap more than we sow, and out of which in the future I think the harvest will be one-hundredfold what it is to-day. I am not justifying great national expenditure; I am only pleading that the examination of it should be thoroughly well-informed and well-directed, and that more

    269
    mischief and disappointment should not be created.

    ESTIMATED REVENUE FOR 1913–14.
    Now I come to the figures of expenditure and the way in which the Government propose to meet that expenditure. The expenditure is £195,640,000. Last year's receipts were £188,802,000, and that leaves me with £6,838,000 more to find this year than last year, or £7,000,000 with the slightest margin. This year the difficulties have been aggravated by a very serious drop in the miscellaneous revenue, which I shall explain later on. That makes it necessary for me to find £7,500,000 more revenue than I had to find last year from other sources. Where and how am I to find that? In coining to the Estimates of revenue there are several considerations which I have got to take into account. There are two or three causes which did not operate last year, but which fortunately for me will operate in favour of the revenue this year. Last year we had a great strike, which deprived me of £550,000. That I shall not have to deduct this year from my Estimates. At the end of last year, as I have explained already, £430,000 was held back from the revenue which would in ordinary course have fallen into the Exchequer, because a quantity of tobacco, tea, and sugar was not taken out of bond in the usual way. That means that this year I shall receive £800,000 more than I received last year.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. The two figures he has just read, £500,000 for the strike and £450,000 held back, make £950,000.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Last year the revenue lost £430,000 by holding back but gained £70,000 held back in the previous year, making the net loss £360,000. The £430,000 will come in this year, so that this year will get about £800,000 more than last.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is holding back alone.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, holding back alone. I hope that is quite clear. If these two items are added together, that is £1,350,000 which we can comfortably expect to get this year over the receipts of last year. Then there is the development of the taxes of 1909.
    270
    Last year we received £1,000,000 more than we received the preceding year from these taxes. This year we expect to receive £845,000 more than we received last year from these taxes. That brings up the sum to £2,150,000, and I have still got over £5,000,000 to find.

    TRADE PROSPECTS.
    There are two considerations which I had better take into account in forming my Estimate with regard to the balance, one is the normal growth of the revenue in times of fairly good trade a growth which every Chancellor of the Exchequer always depends upon owing to the steady increase of the population and the wealth of the population. This varies a good deal in different taxes. The second is the exceptional growth which always arises in cases of unusually good trade. Those two, I think, I can depend upon this year. There is a very considerable difference in estimating revenue between good and bad trade, and I think it is worth the Committee's while to realise what a very serious difference trade does make to the revenue. If hon. Members will take two years, one a year of good trade and the other a year of bad trade, and observe the effect upon the revenue, they will see why a Chancellor of the Exchequer always makes the most careful inquiries into trade prospects before he ever prepares his forecast. The year 1907 was exceptionally good. Though the consumption of spirits and beer was then falling, in 1907 spirits rose by 1.8 per cent. and beer fell by only.6 per cent. In 1908, which was a bad year, spirits fell by 4.8 per cent. and beer by 2.4 per cent. Thus beer dropped four times as much in 1908 as it had done in the previous year. In 1907 tea rose by 1.6 per cent. and tobacco by 3.9 per cent. In 1908 tea only rose by.5 per cent. and tobacco by.7 per cent. There is an enormous difference there. Tea rose three times as much in 1907 and tobacco about five and a half times as much. That shows what a serious difference trade makes in your calculations.
    Every year a Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) knows, has to make inquiries as to what are the trade prospects. This year, owing to the fact that there are one or two disturbing elements, I have made more careful investigations than usual, and I have made them in every quarter. The Estimate which I have formed is based, not on weighing and

    271
    balancing conflicting statements which I have received from different parts of the country, but on practically the unanimous opinion of those who are engaged in well-nigh every trade and industry in this country. Last year the greatest disturbing element was the miners' strike. It checked business for weeks, and it held up almost every industry and dislocated trade. The volume of business was undoubtedly enormously depressed for the first weeks of the financial year owing to the miners' strike. Still the tide rose so high that it swept away every barrier.
    The disturbing factor to-day is the trouble in the East, and that is the problem that I find is engaging the thought of every business man I have consulted, and I have consulted a good many in every part of the Kingdom. Up to the present it does not seem to have diminished the activity of the workshops in the slightest degree, but it has exercised a very retarding effect upon new orders coming in. New orders are more scanty and slow, and that is very natural. Business men are waiting to see what will happen before they launch out on new enterprises and new expenditure. When trade is good orders flow in, because there is a general sense of confidence.
    That general sense of confidence is undoubtedly for the moment arrested in conquence of the doubt as to what is going to happen in the East. It is not so much the actual field of conflict which is creating this nervous apprehension, but the fear that it might be extended. It is having a greater effect on the Continent than here—a much greater effect. The Rank Rate here for the last six months has been higher than it has ever been, at least for a very considerable time. It is very unusual to have a Bank Rate of 5 per cent. from October to April—it has now been reduced—but that is very largely a precautionary measure here. On the Continent there is another state of things. I am told that on the Continent there is a most unusual hoarding up of cash, and, taking France, Germany, and Austria together, there has been something like £60,000,000 of cash which has been hoarded up owing to the fear of what is going to happen. That has naturally created a very great money stringency on the Continent, much more stringency than anything which has been felt in this country. Last year all these
    272
    great Continental countries were competing with us in great new issues of capital for foreign development. This year there has been a great fall in the amount of capital which has been laid out for development in Germany and in France, and certainly in Austria. What I am told by business men is this: The order books now are full. That is what I hear from everybody. They will be full for months. There is enough work already ordered to keep the workshops and factories of this country—and I believe that is true of the Continent—in full work for months to come, and the question now is whether these orders will hold out until confidence is restored and new orders begin to flow in.
    I have naturally made inquiries of business men, and, of course, I have made very careful inquiries from what they call the diplomatic sources, and I must say there is a greater feeling of confidence and a much greater feeling of buoyancy than existed a few weeks ago. The general feeling is that the greatest danger is over, and undoubtedly that which constituted the greatest element of irritation has almost entirely been eliminated. There is a general feeling that in a very short time peace will be restored and we shall get normal conditions. The waste of war will, of course, have to be repaired, and that will take time, but the trade boom is so high, prosperity in all these countries has been so great, and the flood has taken such dimensions that it will not take long to repair the devastation of war, and the countries of Europe will enjoy a prosperity such as they have never witnessed before. That is the conclusion, I am very pleased to be able to say, to which business men have come. I am not giving my own view; I am giving what I have gathered are the opinions of business men in every quarter of this country, and that is their anticipation. There are one or two indications on the other side which I think justifies completely that anticipation. There are no indications at the present time that the trade boom has reached its climax. There are none of the usual indications. We have not yet completed the cycle. I do not say that is conclusive. For instance, wholesale prices have not reached the usual boom figure. That is one indication. There are no signs of over-production. Business is healthy; it is business to meet real needs and real demands. The foreign trade was at its highest last year, and it is still expanding. Unemployment has reached the lowest figure it has reached, I think,

    273
    in our time. It is lower even than it was in the time of the South African war, and there is this difference: employment then was very largely due to the fact that a very considerable number of Reserves had been taken away from their work, and their places had had to be filled up. There were also workmen who had to be employed upon the material and business of war. To-day, employment is due to the fact that men are engaged in productive, profitable work, and therefore to that extent it is infinitely more healthy.
    There is another factor. The harvests last year were exceptionally good. I agree that the home harvest was disappointing, but taking the world's harvest, it was a record, and everyone knows what an effect that has upon trade. Last year the cereal crops of the world were heavier by 250,000,000 quarters than in the previous year. That makes an enormous difference in business. It increases the wealth of our own customers, it reduces the cost of living here, and therefore increases the purchasing power of the people, and undoubtedly it is a factor of the greatest importance.
    Then there is another factor. In the last two years the great profits which have been made have been spent very largely upon increasing works. New works have been erected in this country, old works have been extended, old machinery has been scrapped, new machinery has been set up, so that the productive power of this country has been increased just at the time when the purchasing power of our best customers has also been expanded. There has been an enormous subscription of new capital for development abroad, not merely here, but in Paris, in Berlin, and in New York. Most of this has been spent in the countries which are our best customers—Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Russia, and Australia. There are thousands of miles of new railways being constructed in those countries now, and, as everyone knows, this capital is exported not in the form of cash and gold, but in the form of goods, and it has undoubtedly stimulated and quickened the activity of trade throughout the world. There is also the enormous production of gold in recent years. Last year it reached £100,000,000; ten years ago it was £66,000,000; and twenty years ago it was £33,000,000. Although one may very well exaggerate the effect of that upon trade and commerce, there is no doubt at all that the immediate effect is
    274
    of a quickening character. Taking all these things into account, I feel justified, upon the basis of opinions that have been given to me by some of the ablest and most experienced business men in the country, in forecasting my revenue this year on the assumption that we have entered upon the most glowing year that British trade has yet seen.

    ESTIMATED REVENUE: CUSTOMS AND EXCISE.
    I will next examine the Estimates of revenue for the year, and will take first the Customs and Excise. I have already indicated that, owing to special reasons, there will be an increase of about £1,350,000 in Customs and Excise. But perhaps, before I give the totals, the Committee would like to know what my forecast is for some of the most prominent and important ingredients of that revenue. I remember the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) pressed for details last year, and I thought I would anticipate any possible interruption of that nature this year. I come first to spirits. There was an excessive amount of duty-paid stocks in hand at the beginning of 1912–13. These have been reduced. I have also to take into account the strike of last year. From these two causes the revenue from spirits last year lost about £400,000. This year I shall budget for £400,000 more than I received last year. I propose to add to that £270,000 for normal growth, so that the spirits will produce £670,000 more than last year. Beer suffered a good deal last year from the strike and the wet and cold season. I budget this year for an increase of £252,000. Tea suffered from the holding back and perhaps from the other cause as well; certainly from the strike, and this year I anticipate an increase of £298,000. Sugar last year suffered to some extent from the poor beet-crops of the preceding year, and prices were high at the beginning of the year. There was an infinitely better harvest last year, and prices are now very much lower. Then there is the strike and the holding back last year and the normal growth to be taken into account, and therefore I budget for an increase of £321,000. Tobacco, owing to the strike and the holding back, should produce £550,000 more this year, and that I confidently anticipate can be added to the £350,000 which I propose to add this year for normal growth.
    Mr. STANLEY WILSON: How much do you expect to get altogether from tobacco?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will give the figures later on. I am dealing now rather with the increases. Perhaps the Committee would like to know what percentage I put on for normal increases. In the case of spirits we are adding 1½ per cent., and if hon. Members will cast their minds back to the figures I gave, showing the difference between a good year and a bad year, I think they will find that we are not unreasonable in anticipating in a good year 1½ per cent. increase. On beer, too, we anticipate an increase of 1½ per cent.; on tea 1 per cent., and on sugar 2 per cent. Liquor licences this year will be down by £108,000. That is partly due to the fact that houses have been closed, but mainly to the fact that there were substantial arrears from the previous year falling in the revenue of last year. Then we anticipate a substantial drop in medicine labels. This is due to the fact that the retail of patent medicines has largely and quite suddenly fallen. The explanation is quite simple: it is partly owing to the Insurance Act and partly to the revelations in a Committee sitting upstairs, which disclosed the ingredients of some of the more popular medicines. The total from Customs I anticipate will be £35,200,000, an increase of £1,715,000 upon last year. From Excise I anticipate £38,850,000, an increase of £850,000. £1,500,000 of this increase is derivable from abnormal causes, and £1,000,000 from normal growth. Here, perhaps, I may answer the question put to me by the hon. Member opposite as to the total revenue I anticipate from tobacco. It is £18,180,000.
    Mr. STANLEY WILSON: How much is the increase?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have given that figure already.

    ESTIMATED REVENUE: INLAND REVENUE.
    Now I come to the Inland Revenue. The Estate Duties last year produced £25,248,000, which was under the Estimate. The yield for the last two years would have been still larger had it not been for the fact that some delay occurred in settling up certain large estates, owing to disputes as to the valuation. The arrears from these delays rose rapidly in 1910–11 and 1911–12. They remained stationary last year. Every effort
    276
    is now being made to prevent any future increase, and next year, when the original valuation approaches completion, the arrears will be recovered and normal conditions will be resumed. The effect of the land valuation on Death Duties can best be illustrated by what happened last year. Before the valuation came into being as a result of negotiations Somerset House generally succeeded in adding about 3 per cent. to the valuations sent in for Death Duties. Last year, as a result of the land valuation, very nearly 7 per cent. was added, and, in order to show the Committee that no injustice was inflicted upon any of the parties, I may point out that as regards Great Britain, in only nineteen out of 38,246 cases was it necessary to appoint a referee, and in no case has a challange of the increased valuation as yet been carried into Court. This year the revenue will receive an increased yield, first of all, from the clearing up and settlement of certain difficulties which, as I pointed out, occurred in the adjustment of duties on certain large estates; secondly, from the abnormal growth and development of the new duties of 1909, and, thirdly, from the truer valuation of realty, which is a direct result of the land valuation in the Budget of 1909. This year we confidently anticipate that the Exchequer yield from Death Duties will be £26,750,000. As to stamps, we cannot anticipate that these will be kept at the high level of last year, in spite of the growing activity of the Estate Market. We therefore put the revenue as £9,800,000, which is a decrease of £259,000 on the sum realised last year. For Land Tax and House Duty, I estimate the same figure as last year, namely, £2,700,000.
    Now I come to the Income Tax. We do not anticipate collecting as much Super-tax this year as last, owing to the fact, as I have already pointed out, that last year contained a very considerable number of arrears from previous years. That is an effect of the rejection of the Budget of 1909. Since then the Super-tax has been in arrear, and it has rather dislocated the collection of the tax up to the present time. This year there will be fewer arrears in our collection, and, therefore, we anticipate receiving less by £350,000 from the Super-tax than last year. With regard to the Income Tax, the effect of the dislocation of machinery gradually disappeared at the end of 1911–12. Last year, for all practical purposes, was a

    277
    normal year. We received, as I have already pointed out, £600,000 more than our Estimate. As the Committee know very well, the Income Tax is assessed on the basis of the average profits of the preceding years, and this year, a very prosperous year, comes in whilst a moderately good year goes out. All that will make a very considerable difference in the amount which will be received in respect of Income Tax, and we anticipate that this year the tax will bring us in a yield of £1,500,000 more than last year. The total for Income Tax and Super-tax together we estimate at £45,950,000, as compared with £44,806,000, an increase of £1,144,000. The Land Values Duties I anticipate will show a substantial increase. The progress of the valuation has enabled assessments to be made of land remaining undeveloped, and these assessments will result in the collection of a considerable sum as Undeveloped Land Duty this year. Altogether I expect to receive from Land Values Duties £750,000, as against £455,000 last year, an increase of nearly £300,000.

    ESTIMATED REVENUE: POST OFFICE, ETC.
    5.0 P.M.
    Now I come to the Post Office. There is hardly a Department of the revenue which is more sensitive to the fluctuations of trade than the Post Office. This year we estimate that the postal services will yield £21,125,000, as against £20,300,000 received last year, an increase of £825,000 on last year's produce. The telegraph service we put at £3,150,000, an increase of £50,000 on last year. The telephone service we expect to produce £6,350,000, an increase of £575,000—total from the Post Office, £30,625,000. Crown Lands we put at the same as last year, £530,000. Suez Canal Shares and Sundry Loans, £1,370,000, a drop of £49,000 on last year's receipts. This in no way betokens any lapse in the productivity of these investments, but merely an alteration in the way of paying dividends, which brought in a certain extra amount last year. When I come to Miscellaneous Revenue, I would strike a much more dismal note, for here I am expecting a serious drop. During the years following the Coronation there had been an enormous increase in the demand for new silver coinage, and the profits of the revenue had swollen far beyond the normal yield. This demand we do not expect to keep up this year, and we are confronted with a very considerable loss in this respect. We are
    278
    also faced with another loss, which is attributable to arrangements which have been made for a local silver currency in East and West Africa. Up to the present a very large profit has been made out of the selling by the Mint of silver coinage, not merely for money purposes, but for the purposes of adornment in Africa. I believe silver coins are exceedingly popular in social circles on the East and West Coasts of Africa. The West African Colonies for a long time have been pressing for an alteration in the arrangement as to the supply of silver coinage. A Committee was appointed to look into the matter, and reported in August of last year in favour of the institution of a local silver currency, and this recommendation has been adopted. This will mean a drop of probably £300,000 in the revenue this year.
    The loss, however, is not without compensation. Experts have viewed this coining of silver for Africa with a good deal of apprehension, because at some time or other they will have to be replaced, and replaced at a very serious loss. When we are parting with what for the moment is rather a profitable business, we are also parting with a growing and a rather threatening liability. Though for the moment we are losing money by it, I think, on the whole, it is a good bargain for this country. I can, therefore, only estimate for this year, under the head of Miscellaneous Revenue, for £2,300,000, instead of £2,925,000 which I received last year. The receipts from the Mint profits instead of being £1,200,000, which they were last year, are this year £600,000. I have still another £815,000 to make up in order to meet the demand for this year's expenditure. I have already pointed out to the Committee that to the extent of £1,000,000 the expenditure of this year is attributable to the postponing of expenditure on the Navy from previous years. The expenditure which is properly attributable to this year, instead of being £195,000,000, is really £194,000,000; the other £1,000,000 was practically incurred last year, but will not be spent until the present year. The Committee will recollect that I drew attention to the fact that £1,000,000 has been set aside from Exchequer balances for the purpose of meeting these under-spendings. I propose this year to appropriate the money for that purpose. That brings the total revenue up to £195,825,000, as against an expenditure of £195,640,000, which leaves me with a balance on the right side of £185,000.

    FINANCE BILL AND REVENUE BILL.
    If the Committee will extend to me their indulgence, I have two more matters to which I wish to call their attention. This year we propose to introduce or rather to reintroduce a change in procedure with reference to the Finance Bill. It is due very largely to Mr. Speaker's ruling in respect of the Parliament Act Mr. Speaker ruled, either last year or the previous year, that certain Amendments which we had introduced into the Finance Act of 1911—I am not sure that the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) was not responsible for them—
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I do not think I was the villain in that piece.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think he was responsible, and did a good deal of mischief in that direction. Amendments were introduced in 1911 which had the effect of putting the Finance Act outside the category of Money Bills under the Parliament Act. That, of course, was a very serious ruling. A good many Amendments were moved last year. Some of them I regarded with a favourable eye, but we could not see our way to accept them, because on the analogy of Mr. Speaker's ruling in the preceding year, we felt it would convert the Bill into a Bill which was not a Money Bill. That is a very serious state of things which we cannot possibly allow, and with which we must deal, inasmuch as every year these Amendments are increasing. Some of them are quite good Amendments; some of them, Amendments we are quite willing to consider; therefore, I do not think it is fair to either the Government or the Opposition that this element should be introduced to disturb the judgment, as it were, of the House, when it comes to reflect whether or not it will add certain Amendments to the Bill. We have therefore decided this year to recur to a practice, which was only abandoned in view of the controversy between the two Houses, of having two Bills. One will be a Bill dealing with the taxes which we propose, and the other will be a Bill dealing with all the Amendments to the law which the Government propose, or which any Members of the House propose. The Amendment introduced by the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil) into the Provisional Collection of Taxes Bill has rendered this even more imperative. He has imposed upon the Government and upon the House of Commons what is practically a
    280
    time-table for Taxation Bills. I am not complaining of that, because I accepted the Amendment, and I think, on the whole, it was a very wise suggestion, but it makes it almost impossible for a Government, within the time it is laid down by that Bill, to get through its purely financial business and to give full opportunities to the House to move Amendments in reference to revenue proposals. We shall, therefore, introduce two Bills. There are certain Amendments we ourselves propose to the Licensing Provisions of the Act of 1909 and to the Land Valuation provisions of the 1909 Act. I have no doubt there are several other Members of the House who would also like to try their hands at amending those provisions.
    I should also like to point out to the Committee that this is to meet a rapidly growing difficulty, apart altogether from the ruling of Mr. Speaker. I think the Government and the House of Commons are driven to revert to the ancient practice in this respect. About ten years ago the Amendments to the Finance Bill numbered—perhaps it is a little more than ten years ago, for I have some recollection of a very pleasant evening being spent in moving a good many more Amendments to a Budget of the right hon. Gentleman opposite—but certainly, when I came to the House the Amendments to the Finance Bill of the year numbered something like a dozen or twenty at the outside. Now they number anything between 100 and 150. It will be quite impossible for any Government in the future to carry through its taxation proposals, and give facilities for a full discussion of every revenue proposal in the middle of the Session, without completely dislocating every other business. It would have the effect of strangling the business of every Government. For that reason we propose to confine our Finance Bill to the renewal of temporary taxes, and to introduce a Revenue Bill on the basis of a Resolution for the general amendment of the law. I will not now indicate the Amendments which we propose. I shall have to do so when I move the Resolution.

    NATIONAL DEBT.
    The only other matter to which I wish to call the attention of the Committee, and then I have concluded, is the provision with regard to the National Debt. This year we propose no new taxation. We cannot afford to reduce taxation. We do not propose to disturb the provision made for the reduction of National Debt. When

    281
    the present Government came into office, we were confronted with three or four classes of capital liabilities. There was the old-established National Debt, which one Chancellor of the Exchequer after another had been laboriously trying to grind down and wear out. There were the loans effected for warlike operations in South Africa; there were the liabilities for naval and military works, and works of a non-productive character. Then there were the loans for telephones and works which produced a profit. I do not propose dealing with those loans, because they were a commercial asset and produced a profit. When the Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer he reversed the policy of previous Governments in respect of naval and military loans and instead of borrowing for works of that character he placed them on the finances of the year, so that since then we have the double burden of paying off liabilities incurred for works of that character and of paying out of the finance of the year for the erection and completion of works for which formerly Governments borrowed money. This year, for instance, we have got for Rosyth, a great permanent work, and works of that character, £1,500,000 on the Estimates.
    What have the Government done since they came into office? I see a sort of suggestion that we have manipulated the Sinking Fund out of existence, and that we have managed always to defer paying debts, and at least there is one enlightened Member who is still of that opinion. Let him wait for a moment and hear what we have actually paid off. Take the actual dead-weight debt we have already paid off. Take the amount by which we have reduced other capital liabilities bearing interest—I am leaving telephones out—take the sum we have in hand now for the reduction of debt; take the sum we have provided in the Budget of this year which will be applied to the payment of debt. In the absence of any unforeseen circumstances, by this time next year we shall have reduced the national indebtedness by the sum of £102,000,000. That is a feat in debt reduction that no Government has ever approached before, and this is not a paper reduction. It is not an ingenious manipulation of figures. It means that next year we shall be paying less interest in respect of our Debt by £2,600,000 than we were paying when we came into office. The Government have reduced taxes on food by nearly £5,000,000. They have reduced taxes on small incomes and agri-
    282
    cultural and cottage repairs by £2,500,000. They have provided £12,000,000 more for National Defence. They have provided £20,000,000 to make provision for the aged poor, the sick, the infirm, and the unemployed. At the end of the next financial year we shall have reduced the debt by £102,000,000. Trade is at its best, unemployment is at its lowest, wages are at their best, profits are at their highest, home and oversea trade have attained dimensions they have never yet approached, and the business, commerce, and industries of this country enjoy a productivity and a prosperity which have rarely been witnessed in the history of this country. [Ministerial cheers.]

    TEA.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Customs Duty charged on tea until the first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirteen, shall be charged as from that date until the first day of July, nineteen hundred and fourteen, that is to say:—
    Tea, the pound … … … Fivepence;
    and it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of any Act of the present Session relating to the provisional collection of taxes."
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I imagine that most Members of the House will be glad to postpone serious examination of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Statement until they have had a little time to consider it, and I should be very glad to take that step too if it did not seem to me too great a breach with precedent and too large a departure from the custom of my predecessors. The right hon. Gentleman must, I think, be congratulated on having seen his way to finance the huge expenditure of the current year without any additional taxation. How great was the dread on his own side that he would have to impose additional taxation. I think the loudness and length of the cheers which greeted his final announcement of a small surplus were adequate to show. I want to ask the House to examine one or two of the figures and the prospects which the Chancellor of the Exchequer held out to us, but I must say first a word on the subject of the new procedure which he announced. I am not surprised altogether to hear it, but I am not quite certain that, as it must clearly

    283
    have been in his mind last week and the week before that such new procedure would be necessary, the House ought not to have been taken into his confidence before it had parted with what I hope I may call by an unofficial short title, the Bowles Bill, because really the announcement which he has made has a very material bearing upon the effect of the Amendment moved by my Noble Friend (Lord Hugh Cecil) and accepted by the Government. I pointed out then that we were trying to hustle the Chancellor, and the end of it might be that the Chancellor would hustle us. He has chosen a slightly different method, but it is not more satisfactory to the House, and certainly not more satisfactory to those who moved or supported the Amendment of my Noble Friend. The net result of the Bowles action will be that the Chancellor will divide his proposals in future into two, and that what the Chancellor wants done will have to be done in the early portion of the Session, but that the opportunity of private Members to raise the question in which they are interested will be, not the middle of the Session or even, as of old, the early part of the Session, but, as clearly indicated by the Chancellor, during the last weeks of the Session, when the loquacity, and even the zeal, of hon. Members may be expected to slacken after their fatigue, and when we hope to get through the second Bill, the Revenue Bill, with less nocturnal exertion on the part of himself and his supporters than might be the case earlier in the Session. He has really taken the butter out of the dog's mouth. Last week many of my hon. Friends—not my shrewd and suspicious Friend the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury)—thought they had obtained a valuable concession from the Chancellor. To-day by his announcement he has robbed the concession of the major portion of its value.
    I make one further observation in regard to his statement of debt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would be a magnificent writer of a prospectus for any company. Nothing that the company could lay to its credit, by hook or by crook, would be left out of a prospectus which the Chancellor might prepare. He is not content to take what the Government have done for the reduction of debt up to the present time. He is not even warned by the fact that he himself has several times interfered with the natural course of debt reduction. Not
    284
    content with taking the figures up to the present, he carries it forward to this time next year, and, assuming that nothing extraordinary has happened and that his virtue will not again be tempted, he tells us what the figure will be. You will observe that he takes in at the initial stages the balance which they inherited from their predecessors for the reduction of debt, and he forestalls the balance which, should they go out, they will hand over to their successors. I only mention that because I think it is characteristic of the Chancellor's extraordinarily sanguine methods of statement when dealing with the performances of himself and his Friends.
    I turn now to the realised results of last year. He said that in framing these Estimates he had taken an optimistic view and that the results had justified him. On this occasion last year I told him he had underestimated. I very wisely, as the result has shown, excluded Customs, but I said he had underestimated on Excise, and so he has done by £300,000, and, speaking generally, I said that the Chancellor's Estimates were low rather than high. So they are. But they present some features of interest. I think, for the first time, the Estate Duties have disappointed his expectations. Hitherto they have always done even better than he expected. This year they have fallen, by a very small amount in comparison with such huge figures—only £200,000—below his Estimate, but it is the first year in which, on that particular item, however sanguine he has been, he has not got more than he expected. I hope it is only an accident and that it is not the beginning of a change. Customs disappointed him. Even after listening to his statement I am still a little puzzled that Customs and Excise did not move together. They did not move together in the previous year, and I am not quite sure what is the process which is at work which causes the two to move irregularly instead of, as you would expect, in the same direction, together up or together down. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not tell us much about, the Land Value Duties in his last year's speech. Last year, as always hitherto, they disappointed his expectations. He only estimated for £545,000, and they brought him in £90,000 less than he estimated. He spoke in another portion of his speech with pride of the results of the Budget Taxes of 1909. Their fiscal results have been certainly extraordinary. Perhaps other results have

    285
    been not less satisfactory to him, for the peculiar feature of the Budget of that year was that it contained two sets of taxes. One set of taxes was intended to get money and the other was intended to get votes. The votes came in at once. The taxes are coming in by degrees, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Committee will observe that the taxes which were most strongly fought by him, and to which the greatest objection both in principle and in machinery was entertained, are the taxes which have only brought in votes and have never brought in money. I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer would bring up the receipts of the Land Taxes, and the estimated receipts from the same taxes next year. I will be content if he will circulate the statement with the Votes. There is only one of them which has hitherto brought in any money that is worth talking about, and that is the Mineral lights Duty. That, of course, is not a Land Duty. The originally proposed Mineral Eights Duty was on exactly the same basis as the Undeveloped Land Duty. It was to tax minerals which you were not getting in order to encourage you to get them, but before we ever got to grips with it in the House the Chancellor of the Exchequer repented. That poor little lamb he slaughtered with his own hand, and he substituted for it, not a land value comparable to any of his other Land Values or Land Duties, but a Supertax on incomes derived from minerals. That ought not to be grouped with the Land Value Duties. It ought to come under the head of Income Tax and Supertax, for it is in all but legal name an additional duty on income, and it is the only one of the so-called land values which up to this date has produced any money worth talking about at all. The rest of them—it is now four years after their enactment—are still annually costing us infinitely more than they have produced in the whole of the years for which they have been levied.
    The only other duty of last year to which I desire to call attention is the receipts from stamps. They were extraordinarily satisfactory. Stamps, I know from my own experience, and from watching the Estimates for many years, are a very difficult revenue to forecast. For many years they disappointed the authorities at the Inland Revenue and the Chancellor of the Exchequer very severely. This year there has been an extraordinarily good revenue. The Chan-
    286
    cellor of the Exchequer says that they are the best possible indications of the state of trade. I should scarcely have thought that he could have said that, at any rate, without qualification. No doubt some of them directly represent the prosperity and the activity, or the reverse, of trade, but others which I think must have been not a little productive in the last twelve months represent the activity of Stock Exchange transactions.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: They are down.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am astonished to hear it. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would be willing to give us the details of those figures too. They certainly would be very interesting. I think that concludes all I want to say about the revenue of last year. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer then passed to the balances. I confess that even now I am not perfectly certain that I understand what has happened in regard to the balances, but I think I am right in stating that the following transaction has taken place. Last year there were subtracted from the sums which would normally have gone to the Old Sinking Fund for the redemption of debt £500,000 for Uganda, and £1,000,000 for the Navy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer temporarily placed those in balances until they should be needed for those purposes, but instead of using the £1,500,000 for those purposes, he has taken another £1,500,000 from the surplus revenue of the year just concluded, and provided for Uganda and the Navy out of the surplus revenue of the last year. If that is the transaction, what is the effect upon debt redemption? If you take £1,500,000 in the year before last from the Old Sinking Fund for the purpose of financing Uganda and the Navy, and instead of using that money so deducted from the Old Sinking Fund you take another £1,500,000 from the surplus of this year, which in its turn ought to have gone to the Old Sinking Fund in redemption of debt, then in those two years you have robbed the Old Sinking Fund not of £1,500,000, of which the House approved, but £3,000,000.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): It is only £1,500,000.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Twice over you have taken it from the redemption of debt.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Really the right hon. Gentleman treats it as if it were £3,000,000. His criticism is a sound one as far as it refers to the £1,500,000, but he has counted it twice over. Let me point it out. Supposing you had not voted that £1,500,000 last year out of the Sinking Fund, what would have happened would have been that you would have had to find it out of revenue this year in a Supplementary Estimate. The complaint of the right hon. Gentleman is that I did not use that £1,500,000. I agree to that extent his criticism is perfectly germane, but he is counting it twice over.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has only spent £1,500,000 on Uganda and the Navy, but twice he has deducted £1,500,000 from the money which would have gone to the Old Sinking Fund. Instead of spending £1,500,000 he has robbed the Sinking Fund of £3,000,000 [HON. MEMBERS: "No," and "Yes."] First he took £1,500,000 from the Sinking Fund the year before last. He deducted that sum, which otherwise would have had to go to the Sinking Fund, and instead of using that £1,500,000 for the purpose for which he had taken it, he voted £1,500,000 for that purpose out of the surplus revenue of last year. But supposing he had not used the £1,500,000 out of the surplus revenue, the surplus of last year would have been not £200,000, as it was, but £1,700,000, and that £1,700,000 would have gone to the redemption of debt instead of £200,000. Although you have only spent the money once, twice over you have deducted it from the reduction of debt.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It is in the Exchequer Balances.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is in Exchequer Balances instead of having been used to redeem debt. Now I ask, not having used it for the purpose for which it was voted, are you going to use it for the redemption of debt? Are you going to put it back for its proper purpose? If you now devote it to the reduction of debt, then I agree that the debt redemption will have suffered only by the amount of £1,500,000, as originally intended. If you do not, then the net result is that in the two years £3,000,000 less debt has been paid off than would have been paid off if the normal action of the Sinking Fund had been allowed to take
    288
    place, and £1,500,000 less than the House actually intended.
    I come now to expenditure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's comparison with fifty years ago was interesting. I am not quite certain what was the object of the particular reference to the fears of Napoleonic France at that time, or of the reference to Mr. Gladstone's speech. Mr. Gladstone, we now know, thought that Lord Palmerston was wrong, and he thought so so strongly that he wrote out his resignation. He wrote it out so often that I think we have it on record in Queen Victoria's correspondence that Lord Palmerston said he had a drawer full of Mr. Gladstone's resignations. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer wish the Committee to infer that that is what has been taking place recently? That might explain why the First Lord of the Admiralty will count one "Dreadnought" twice over, or why the Secretary of State for War has not made more adequate preparations, or preparations more consonant with the principles laid down by the Prime Minister himself.
    For my part, though I think it is useful from time to time to have a comparison with past expenditure to see in what direction our expenditure has gone, I heartily agree with what the Chancellor said as regards armaments. That is an expenditure beyond our power to control. It is an expenditure fixed by circumstances which we cannot control, and in regard to which cheese-paring is the worst of all possible attempts at economy. It is not a question of a little less. It is a question of providing for safety, and nothing less than safety is any use at all. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes to the growth of our Civil expenditure, I confess the large figures there which are within our control, or at one time or another have been distinctly within our control, are matter for serious reflection. They have very largely now passed out of our control, whether you look at education, old age pensions, or insurance. Take education. I have no doubt it is true to say, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer did say, that whatever changes may be made you will not make education less costly to the taxpayer or to the ratepayer, but I think we all of us feel that a good deal of money has been wasted—has been at least applied less usefully than it might be, and is still so applied. When we see this huge increase of expenditure, and know how it grows automatically year by year by the

    289
    mere growth of population, as well as in the demand for improvement and extension, there is certainly a case for scrutinising carefully all the existing demands upon our purse under that head. When you turn to the newer social reforms, such as old age pensions and insurance, there the growth of expenditure has been incomparably more rapid and alarming, and I really cannot pass a Budget Statement which refers to these subjects without commenting on the extraordinary inability of the Government to forecast at all the expenditure which they were inviting the House of Commons and the country to undertake.
    Old age pensions, which were to cost about £6,000,000, are costing £12,000,000 or £13,000,000. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] You cheer that as if it were really a good thing, but it is not. I think the smallest portion of that increase above the Estimates is due to the increased benefit received by the individual recipient. The major portion of the increase is an error in the Estimate, and I am afraid that the same thing is true very largely of the Insurance Act. No doubt the Chancellor may say that it is partly due to the House of Commons, that the House of Commons insisted upon his scheme being amended in one respect or the other. Of course it had to be. His scheme could not be left as he introduced it, but the Estimate as I remember presented by the actuaries employed on behalf of the Government was that the cost would be about £3,500,000, and the cost, the present year, is about £6,500,000. One observation, a repetition of what has been said on previous occasions both by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and myself. I do think that this points to the undesirability of putting the Treasury in charge of great spending measures. A Department which is dealing with great social reforms of this kind needs some check upon it and when you set the Treasury to check itself, all I can say is that it is lamentably less successful than when it applies its brains and intelligence to checking the other Departments. I rather hope that the Government will consider whether it cannot wholly sever the administration of the Insurance Act from the Treasury and put this Act under the administration of another Government Department, and allow the Treasury to revert to its proper position, not as a spending department but as a financial department which will be a guardian and a check against extrava-
    290
    gance, because it is the office which in the first place can concentrate in itself all the departments and can compare the urgency of one with that of the other; and, in the second place, because it is the office on which falls the unpleasant duty of finding the money which is to pay for all these things.
    I turn now for a few moments to the Estimates for the coming year. I should certainly say that on this occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer has underestimated stamps. If his present anticipations are at all correct, if, as he is hopeful, European and international affairs pass steadily into smoother waters and trade is as prosperous and as good and the harvest as fortunate as he thinks likely, then I think that his Estimate for stamps is too low, because, even if the Stock Exchange was not very active last year, it is likely to be very active in those particular transactions which produce revenue to the State, as soon as peace is declared and the danger of extension of war is removed. Of the rest of his Estimates I do not like to speak with confidence. He has access to information and advice which are not open to me, but I am struck by some of the things which he did not say, and some of the things which, he did say. In the first place, he took credit in the coming year for the effect of the good harvest of the past year. I should have thought that the effect of that had already been seen, and that it had in the main passed away, and that what the revenue of the coming year depended on was the harvest of this year much more than that of last year. As to what the harvest of this year may be, neither he nor I can venture to prophesy. Of trade prospects in general he spoke more sanguinely than I should care to do. I hope that he is right, but I confess that as far as I can judge, I do not think that it is quite safe to base an estimate upon an extension of the boom, and, as I understood him to calculate, a very considerable extension of the boom which we have enjoyed. He dwelt with some complacency on the figures of our trade and our employment, and gave us statistics as to trades of all kinds, which are a matter for satisfaction.
    But there is another side to the picture which is not so satisfactory. After all, he himself said that one of the reasons for which he calculates that the boom has not yet exhausted itself is that wholesale prices have not risen to what he calls the

    291
    normal boom level. I am under the impression that in this boom prices were very slow to rise, and that during a considerable portion of the time our returns looked as if we were extremely prosperous. It is true that there has been a very large business, but the business was done on a very much narrower margin of profit than was usual in the past in times of similar booms. I think that that has been changed recently. Of course I know that in the case of contracts entered into recently prices have been very much better, but if prices had been as profitable as the Chancellor thinks, how does he account for the fact that wages have not risen appreciably and had hardly begun to rise until within the last few months? And was there ever a boom in our history, big or small—certainly there was never one comparable to this which we have just been enjoying—in which the wage-earning classes have not had their share of the increased prosperity in a general increase in wages? This time the absence of that general increase is the more marked and the more deplorable because the prices of the main articles of the household budget have been steadily and largely rising. I think that that gives some cause for reflection as to the character of the boom which we have enjoyed. Let me say at once that I think that there is one factor which in any examination of the wages question it is only fair to state, and which must always be borne in mind.
    Parliament has been putting increased burdens upon the manufacturers for the sake, of their workers. Where the workpeople have not got any increased wage, it must not be assumed that, apart from the rise in prices, they have had no advantage, because though they have not got in in meal, they have had it in malt. They have had it under the series of Acts by which we have protected their life and limb and taken pains to secure their comfort and make provision for them during accident, old age, or sickness; and, of course, all those Acts in greater or less measure have added to the cost of production and to the charges which the employer has to bear. The Chancellor took a comparison with the years of the Boer war, I think, in regard to the amount of unemployment. Of course we get more light as to the value of the unemployment figures from the inquiries into production which the Board of Trade have been making during recent years, and we see
    292
    that the figures on which we have been accustomed to rely are very incomplete, and that, at any given moment, as was indeed anticipated by all who have given any attention to the subject, the figures which we have used, namely, the figures returned by certain of the large trade unions, are very much less than the average of the country. But, of course, in the argument for the purpose of comparison you can test one against the other. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not quite make the comparison fair with the time of the Boer war. He said that unemployment was lower now than at any time since then, and that that was so in spite of the fact that great numbers of Reservists had been called away from their normal peace duty to the war in South Africa and their places had been filled by men who otherwise would have been unemployed. I think that we had about 300,000 men in South Africa as a maximum, though I have not been able to verify the figures.
    An HON. MEMBER: Four-hundred thousand.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Never 400,000 at one time from this country. There were the Colonial contingents and the South African Force in the field, and I think, taking the full figure, that there were never more than 300,000 people at any one time who had gone from this country. How many of them were Reservists taken from civil employment?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I did not confine my statement merely to them. I also said that in addition to that a large number of men were employed on war material, transport and other work in connection with the war.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That, of course, was true then and is true now. People very often neglect the amount which the Government itself does or can do to promote a boom in trade. Take the engineering trade, for instance. How much depends on what we vote for new construction in the Navy? I do not say that that is a reason for voting a larger construction than the defence of the country requires, but when you are obliged to vote a larger construction, as we have been, that makes the shipbuilding and engineering trade very busy, and I think it is as busy in this time of peace as ever it was during the South African war. But I would point out that when we make the fullest allowance for the number of

    293
    Reservists called out and sent away to the war in South Africa, it is nothing like the number of emigrants who, in this boom year, have left our shores under no compulsion of a call of duty.
    Mr. PRINGLE: It is always so.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is quite a mistake to think that in boom years emigration must rise. If the hon. Member will consult the figures he will find that that is so. In those years the emigration was 71,000 and 72,000. This year and the year before it was 265,000, and no conclusion can be drawn from any statistics as to unemployed, with any safety or security, until you set side by side with your emigration statistics the tremendous numbers who have gone from our shores in recent years in a heavily increasing proportion to our British Dominions over the sea, or, at any rate, have left us and been subtracted from the labour market here. In regard to the general revenue of this year, I am afraid that an examination of the figures will show that they are rather less satisfactory than the Chancellor of the Exchequer expects, or would lead one to believe. I could not, of course, following the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement, separate throughout the whole of the revenue the items which are due to normal growth and the items due to special circumstances. But I was struck with some of the distinctions which he made. Take, for instance, Customs. He estimates an additional yield of £1,117,000 for the whole year, and on Excise £856,000—together, just a little under £2,000,000 of increase. But of that £2,000,000 of increase, how much is normal? Supposing the same circumstances of prosperity continue, how much might you expect to get again? Only about £500,000. One and a half millions, he said, was abnormal, due to forestalment or to special circumstances. So again, I think, with some other taxes that he mentioned. From Land Values Duty, for instance, the revenue for this year is not normal revenue; it is a revenue swollen by the fact that this year they hope to collect for the first time three years' taxes in many cases. It is not, therefore, the normal revenue of the year. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us sufficient figures to distinguish what he would consider the normal revenue for the year, apart from the revenue he would consider as due to the preceding year.
    6.0 P.M.
    294
    One thing, I think, is clear, that it would not be sufficient to balance expenditure, and that is not a pleasant outlook for the future. Look where one will, one sees no chance of the reduction, but if one looks in many places one sees the certainty of additional expenditure. Even without any fresh extravagance on the part of the House of Commons, the normal or necessary growth consequent upon the measures we have already passed, will continue to swell our expenditure. Our Budget this year is very nearly £200,000,000. After an enormous addition, I think stated at £25,500,000, we have just managed, with good fortune, and by having a good deal of arrears of taxation to collect, to struggle through this year without any increase. I wonder if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked himself, if he is responsible, whether he will be able to get through another year without an increase. I wonder what, in his heart of hearts, he thinks are the prospects which he is leaving to his successor in future years. One thing, I think, is clear, that our expenditure is growing faster than our revenue, even with these huge additions, and the measures which the Government are responsible for passing, coupled with the increased cost of national defence, will disturb the growth of revenue which we will derive from the taxes he has imposed. I should be only too glad if I were a false prophet in this matter, but I confess that I view with anxiety—as I have said before and as I venture to repeat now—the manner in which, in these good times of abounding trade and with an expanding revenue, we are spending every penny that we get, mortgaging every penny of future increase that we can foresee, while in the good times which we are enjoying we are creating no reserve for the bad times which we may have to pass through.
    Mr. JAMES PARKER: I desire to make a few remarks about the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I must confess that I cannot wax very enthusiastic over it. It is quite true that during the time he has been at the Exchequer he and his predecessor have wiped off the sum of £90,000,000 from the National Debt. But when the right hon. Gentleman addressed the House he said that there was no chance of a reduction of expenditure during the coming year. For myself I am not anxious to see a reduction of certain expenditure, but I think we who sit on these benches believe that there is plenty of opportunity for the reduction of ex-

    295
    penditure in other directions, to the benefit of the nation and to the credit of the country all over the world. The right hon. Gentleman, in his statement, told us that we are living in exceptionally prosperous times; that trade was never so great as at the present time, and he pointed out how the revenue has been growing by leaps and bounds. He gave us a certain number of figures, which will be very useful, I can assure him, to my friends who sit on these benches when they speak in the country on the question of poverty and the problems relating thereto. The statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given to us this afternoon in relation to the amount of money which has been paid in Death Duties is instructive. He told us, in regard to the Estate Duties which came within his purview during the past year, that of the sum, £276,000,000, one-third was owned by 192 persons; so far as one-half was concerned, by 1,300 persons; and two-thirds of the total of £276,000,000 was owned by 4,000 persons. The next statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer took, preliminary to his Budget, was that there were about 360,000 persons whose estates were so small that it was not worth while for anybody to make a return. I put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and hon. Gentlemen opposite whether that is the best civilisation has to show, with a Budget reaching to nearly £200,000,000? Is that the best civilisation has to show, that out of 360,000 or 370,000 people who died in the course of the year, 4,000 of them got this enormous advantage, from the financial point of view, out of the civilisation which this country has set up? I submit that this cannot be regarded as satisfactory—at least from the point of view of those of us who sit on these particular benches.
    I desire to refer to some of the amounts which are embodied in the Budget which the Chancellor has put before us. The right hon. Gentleman made a comparison between the present year and 1861—about fifty years ago. He pointed out that of £195,640,000, the sum of £74,544,000 has been spent on armaments. He pointed out that fifty years ago there was a time scare. It was not the Germans then, it was the French, of whom fear was sufficiently strong. I suppose, to impress upon the then Chancellor of the Exchequer the necessity of increasing taxation in order to build some of those wonderful towers that
    296
    have never been used, and which are to be found on the South Coast of England. And we are now similarly wasting the taxpayers' money, I firmly and sincerely believe, in building unnecessary "Dreadnoughts." Fifty years ago, out of a total of £70,000,000, the sum of £28,000,000 and some odd thousand pounds was used for the purpose of armaments. This year, out of the total Budget sum of over £195,000,000, practically two-fifths of the entire expenditure of the nation is on armaments. Among the good things which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done since he has held his present office I would like to see him, in the remaining years during which he may occupy that position, stand up at that box and put up some fight against attempts not only from the other side, but sometimes from this side of the House, to increase this enormous expenditure on armaments.
    We want money increasingly for social reforms. It is wanted in connection with the housing problem, in connection with the problems poverty presents in many of its phases; it is wanted in connection with the welfare of the children, whose parents, working for miserable wages, find it impossible to pay the small contribution that is wanted for their education; and it is needed certainly in some of the districts such as that which I have the honour to represent. Enough money ought to be obtained from these very sources to which I have referred—those who are reaping these enormous rewards from the prosperity of the nation. Therefore I trust the Chancellor will apply his mind to checking the expenditure upon armaments. I should like the House to look at this question, not only from the financial, but from the ethical point of view. It may not be competent for me to speak in this way to the House, but that does not concern me. That which I have to state I want to state here and now. I cannot understand how we Gentlemen, coming here and listening to prayers, and saying that we believe the doctrine of the Prince of Peace, praying each day that all our works may be continued and ended under God, should be spending £70,000,000 or £80,000,000 for the purpose of that which we call defence, but which, at least, has as little to do with civilisation as anything possibly can have. It does not mean civilisation, and it must, if persisted in, send us back to a condition of barbarism as bad as that which existed in the jungle before civilisation came along.

    297
    Therefore, I am opposed root and branch to the enormous and extravagant expenditure upon armaments which we have to-day. I come now to the way in which the taxes are raised. I agree that the proportion of indirect taxation to-day is less than it was at the time when some of us came to this House six or seven years ago. I do not know whether that is because we are here or not, and possibly that would be too egotistical to say, but at least the fact remains. Even to-day, however, the total amount of indirect taxes amounts, I think, to something like £72,000,000.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that he cannot do anything to reduce the Tea and Sugar Duties this year. Why not? I can give him a reason why he should reduce them, and let me say I do not object to pay my share. I have known what it was to work for £1 per week and pay indirect taxes, and I know the difference to-day. It would be a good deal easier for me to pay £10 extra in taxation to-day than to pay 10d. at the time to which I refer, and I am not a very rich man. It is our duty to take the taxes off the poor who cannot afford to pay and impose them on the shoulders of those who can afford to pay. I am looking for the day when the Chancellor of the Exchequer will remove the whole of these three taxes, even if he has to put a very small direct tax upon each unit in the State. This indirect form of taxation in the shape of Tea Duties and that kind of thing is to my mind the very worst form of taxation that you can have. I had hopes that on this occasion we might have seen one of those ideals realised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the party with which he is identified have been preaching now for thirty years, namely, a free breakfast table. So long as our taxes are imposed on the food of the people, so long do those of us who believe in Free Trade, not only from the economic but all points of view, provide a weapon to be used against us. If it be a bad thing to put taxes on other things, such as wearing apparel or raw material and manufactured products, it is also a bad thing to impose taxes on food. I do not know what my party may do with those taxes when it comes to a vote. They are politicians like everybody else, and they have to be affected by the circumstances, not only in connection with the Budget, but with regard to all other legislation. But, speaking for myself, I say
    298
    this at least, what I may do this year I do not know, but I am satisfied that after this year I will give no more votes for food taxes in this House so long as I remain a Member.
    Sir F. BANBURY: We may be in next year.
    Mr. PARKER: And you may not. Whether you are or not, I do not know that the hon. Baronet would be an enthusiast for removing taxes from the food of the people. But whether you are in, or whoever is in, the time has come when it is the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at any rate of a Liberal Government, to remove those taxes entirely and to put the taxes on the shoulders of those people who can afford to pay.
    Mr. SANDERSON: I listened with much interest to the speech we have just heard. I am bound to say that the hon. Member and myself are actuated by the same motives in many respects, but it is just in the way of arriving at a result that we differ. For instance, he told us he was most anxious to see peace preserved, and he drew attention to the Prayers which were uttered in this House every day. Then he proceeded to say that after those Prayers we go and vote £70,000,000 in connection with armaments. I answer him that we do so for the express purpose of seeing that peace is preserved. If you did not incur that expenditure, then in all probability the result would be that you would lose your chance of peace and have to spend a great deal more than the £70,000,000. Just in the same way the hon. Member has referred to the desirability of taking off the duties on tea and sugar. I am with him entirely, but as long as you have the fiscal system which the present Government persists in you will never be able to do so. I have listened during the time I have been in this House, time after time, to appeals made by hon. Members below the Gangway opposite to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remove those taxes, but he cannot do so. The proof of the pudding is in the eating of it, and although I have no doubt he is most desirous to do so he cannot, and until you rearrange your fiscal system you will never see your taxes taken off tea.
    Mr. PARKER: Where does the hon. Member propose to put them?
    Mr. SANDERSON: I am not prepared at present to unfold my Budget, but if

    299
    he will put me in the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer I shall be very happy to oblige the hon. Member There is one point I wish particularly to refer to, and that is with regard to what I would call the Land Value Duties I know this is a subject which has been raised in this House many times, but I think it is such an important matter that we cannot raise it too often The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. Chamberlain), who spoke after the Chancellor of the Exchequer, drew attention to the fact that only one of these so-called Land Value Duties is really producing any revenue at all, and that is the Mineral Rights Duty. That is not a Land Value Duty, but is really an extension of Income Tax, because it is levied upon the income which is received by the person who receives the royalty, and therefore it is quite improper to call it a Land Value Duty. I want hon. Members to look at this matter from another point of view. I am not really speaking now from a party point of view, and I think this point is really worthy of our consideration. The one great objection to the Land Value Duties is the enormous cost to which the country is being put in making the valuation. With regard to the only one of these duties which is really producing any revenue, namely, the Mineral Eights Duty, there is not valuation required at all. The valuation expenses have amounted in two years to something like £680,000—that is excluding all the legal expenses and all the stationery expenses, which must be enormous, and so, shall we say, £700,000? The whole of that £700,000 must be allocated to the three Land Value Duties proper, namely, the Unearned Increment Tax, the Undeveloped Land Tax, and the Reversion Duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think, estimated that in respect of those duties in two years there would be produced £550,000, and do hon. Members really remember that they have produced £60,000?
    Thus in respect of those three duties for which the valuations have to be made they are, roughly speaking, producing one-tenth part of what they cost. Really is it not absurd that you should have such taxes as those continued? The axiom is that a tax, unless it is revenue-producing, ought not to be continued. I think it was Mr. Gladstone who said something to this effect: That every tax was an annoyance and worry to the taxpayer, and the only
    300
    justification for its imposition was that it produced revenue. If you get, as you have in this case, the undeniable fact that in two years the duties produced something like a tenth part of what they cost, then I submit that in all common sense those taxes ought to be dropped at once. The cost I have spoken of, £700,000, is that to the Exchequer. I am told—and I believe this is correct, though I cannot vouch myself for the figures—that up to September, 1912, there had been something like 400,000 valuations, or, to put it strictly accurately, 400,000 occasions upon which valuations had to be made. I quite agree there is a difference, but the last statement is the correct one. I think it has been estimated that there was £1 expense for each occasion as a proper and reasonable amount on the individual, so that you have got £400,000 in that way. Therefore you have these taxes, which are only producing a tenth of what they cost to the Exchequer, with this very large sum also on the individual. The defence is that the valuation has helped in respect of other matters. For instance, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the Death Duties have gone up in consequence of the improved valuation. That will not do for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because it was, I think, in October, 1909, before the Budget came into force, that he was, quite rightly, taking credit to himself that one of the first things he had looked to was to reorganise the Valuation Department. That was done before the Budget came into force, and on that occasion he said:—
    "This reorganisation has made a difference in Death Duties, and a very substantial portion of the £1,300,000 is attributable to the fact that we have got an efficient Valuation Department."
    The point, therefore, is that he had got an efficient Valuation Department before the Budget was passed and before the machinery which was set up under the Budget with all the valuers came into force, so that that defence does not do. His other defence which has been put forward is, "Oh, you must look to the future." That is all very well, but when we find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been so wrong in the past, why should we assume that he is going to be right in the future? We have found that when he said his taxes were going to produce in two years £550,000 that they produced £60,000, and why then should we assume that he is going to be any more right in the future. Of course, it is not common sense to expect us to do so. For the four years

    301
    during which this system has been in force you will find, roughly speaking, that the cost has been going up year by year. It started at something like £480,000 in 1910–1911. That went up to £531,000 for 1912–1913, and I believe it is to be a sum of £630,000 for 1913–1914. Thus in four years the Exchequer has spent something like £2,000,000 in the cost of those taxes. Therefore it must be remembered that in future, when you are calculating what will be produced, you have to set against it the interest on £2,000,000, which will mean some £60,000 a year. What possible reason is there for continuing these taxes, which, I submit, are wholly untenable? They cannot be justified by the revenue they produce; they are admittedly causing a tremendous amount of annoyance, and no one can deny that the cost of collecting them is simply enormous.
    These taxes are going further than this House ever expected them to go. Cases have been discussed several times, therefore I will not go into details now. We have heard quite recently about builders who get "fortuitous windfalls," as they are called. A man has bought a piece of land and built a house; he has used his skill and capital, and has then been taxed upon his profits. That is what it really came to. It was called a fortuitous windfall, although there was no increase in the value of the land in any shape or form. People are being taxed in respect of something which was never intended when the Budget passed. If these duties are to be continued, why should they be limited to land? Why are they not to be applied to all sorts of fortuitous windfalls? Why are they not to be extended to other kinds of speculation? I do not wish to say anything objectionable, but it must be obvious to everybody that there are other transactions in connection with which fortuitous windfalls arise besides those connected with the land. An hon. Member opposite said recently that landowners are a class of people who do more for the community amongst whom they live than any other class in the country. Yet these are the people whom you are bothering, taxing, and annoying to an unlimited extent. Other people may speculate in other directions and make fortuitous windfalls, but they are not called upon to pay 20 per cent. upon those windfalls. I submit that if these taxes are to be continued they ought not to be limited to the land.
    Mr. LOUGH: I think that the somewhat discontented speech to which we have just listened is due more to the part of the House from which it came than to any want of amiability on the part of the hon. Member himself. We always listen to the hon. Member with the greatest pleasure, and I am sure that on some other occasion, when we get to the details of the Finance Bill, his remarks, so far as there is any substance in them, will be duly considered. But the present is a somewhat different occasion. We are surveying the large field which the Chancellor of the Exchequer opened out before us. When the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) was speaking, I could not help thinking of the extreme difficulty into which the Opposition have been suddenly plunged. If any impartial stranger were regarding our proceedings, he would marvel at any speeches of complaint being made on this occasion. It was only because of the double dose of original sin with which the Opposition is afflicted that such speeches have been made. They cannot believe that anything good can ever proceed from the Treasury Bench under the present Government. Although we get a simple story—simple almost to the level of dullness—they commence the old game of attack, attack, attack, and when no ground of attack is presented they lay hold of some small grumble which has been put forward frequently before. I do not think that the attitude of the Opposition with regard to the statement made this afternoon will be reflected in the country.
    It is no use concealing the fact that we approached our business this afternoon with a considerable degree of apprehension. We knew that the country was faced with a vast expenditure of £195,000,000, a sum that would make all our old Chancellors of the Exchequer shudder. We knew also that there was a deficit of six or seven millions. I am sure that that uncomfortable feeling was shared as much by hon. Gentlemen opposite as by Members on this side. But what has happened? A complete transformation scene has taken place. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has come forward and made a speech admirable in every way—on account of its brevity, its picturesqueness, and its lucidity—by which all the alarm that we, and the nation to a great extent, felt, has been removed. We have had put before us one of the most hopeful stories ever presented by a Chancellor of the Exchequer. No new taxes

    303
    have been imposed, although we all thought there might be; nor have there been any of those larger expedients from which we shrink with so much horror, but which might have had to be adopted in order to make the revenue balance. Not only that, but we have had such a story of national expansion—expansion of revenue, expansion in trade, benefits that all classes have enjoyed—such as has never been presented to this House before. On an occasion like the present I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be dealt with somewhat apart from party politics. I have often said that when speaking from the other side of the House. We are not always engaged in party conflict, and if ever there was an occasion on which party feeling might be laid aside it is when we have to consider the picturesque and extraordinary statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid before us. I think it was a very happy thought on the part of my right hon. Friend, when considering the question of the growth of expenditure, to make a contrast with the position fifty years ago. We hear constantly about the extraordinary growth of expenditure, but nobody could listen to the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon without feeling that many of the items included in the Budget are somewhat fictitious if regarded as evidences of the growth of expenditure. For instance, the £25,000,000 expenditure in connection with the Post Office can hardly be described as national expenditure from the point of view of the burden of taxation, because a large profit is received from it, and we have on the other side £28,000,000 or £29,000,000 coming in. If we took off that single item, it would make the figures look very different.
    The part of the contrast upon which I looked with the greatest alarm, and which my right hon. Friend treated with the greatest gravity, was that connected with the growth of expenditure on armaments. The whole House is unanimous in deploring it. We never hear a Chancellor of the Exchequer make his Budget statement without his saying that this expenditure should cause a feeling of alarm not only in our Parliament, but in every country in the world. But my right hon. Friend made one observation against which I desire to protest. This is really the only critical remark I have to make. He said that the expenditure on armaments was a matter beyond our control. I do not want to be
    304
    disrespectful, but that sounds to me almost like nonsense. All expenditure is controlled by somebody, and that is true of this expenditure on armaments. What did my right hon. Friend mean? He meant that it was controlled by other Powers. But he does not exempt us altogether from being one of the Powers. It may be said that the expenditure is controlled perhaps by six Powers, perhaps by five, perhaps by four, perhaps by three. If it be true that it is controlled by three or four Powers, then at least one-third or one-fourth of the control rests with us. We cannot wash our hands of all responsibility for this great outlay. We have to take our share. For my part, I always think that this assembly is so powerful and can speak with so much influence in the affairs of the world that, if we set a better example in this matter, if we did more to curb this expenditure, it would have a far better effect on the expenditure of other nations, and finally on the prosperity of our own country, than our continuous increase of expenditure tends to have. The Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke of the growth of the wealth of the country, and the growth of population going hand in hand with the increase of the burden of taxation. I never hear a remark like that without remembering that that is not the case all through the United Kingdom. All that my right hon. Friend said is quite true with regard to Great Britain. We should never forget, however, that we have another island, Ireland, in which the increase of taxation has been nearly as great as in Great Britain, but where there has been a great decrease and not an increase of population. If we made a comparison with fifty years ago in regard to the two islands separately, we should get a very different picture. Another occasion in connection with these Debates will perhaps be more opportune for going into that question.
    Another statement which I think the House must have received with great satisfaction, is that we are to have the Budget divided into two Bills in the future. That was the old system; in fact, there were often more than two Bills. Anyone who has studied the matter, as I have been accustomed to do for many years, will feel that the way in which we have endeavoured to deal with the Budget in recent years has been almost impracticable, and that it was quite impracticable to continue it any longer. I am glad that we shall dispose of the taxes for the

    305
    revenue of the year in a very short time, and that then we shall have another Bill, the Revenue Bill, in connection with which any Amendments can be dealt with. I have some Amendments to bring forward which I should like an opportunity of discussing. When the right hon. Gentleman opposite was Chancellor of the Exchequer, I was much more successful in getting an occasional Amendment of the Budget than I am now. We are supposed to be obstructing the Government even when we mention something connected with a business about which we know something, and if we bring forward an Amendment, we are told that there is really not time for it, that the situation is too grave, and so on. We will not be told that any longer, because we will have the simple fact. If it is to be discussed late at night, which was the only fault the right hon. Gentleman found in the procedure—
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Late in the Session!
    Mr. LOUGH: Well, late in the Session, but I would rather have it discussed late in the Session or late at night, than not have it discussed at all. What I have found is that it is very hard to get an opportunity for these improvements in our procedure connected with finance. It is specially bard for loyal supporters of the Government like myself, because we do not want to give trouble, and we are troubled between our conscience on the one hand, and our loyalty to our party on the other. The Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned one point of amendment in his speech, which I think ought to be considered, and I am going to put in a word for it now as a preparation for hon. Members later. A new Clause was imported into the Budget in the Finance Bill of, I believe, two years ago, which deprived the country and the citizen of the opportunity enjoyed since the Income Tax was imposed of either paying on one year's profits or the profits of three years. There was at one time an opportunity of choosing between the two systems.
    That was filched away in one of those late Bills—of two years ago—under the sort of pressure I have described. It was one of the greatest blows at the rights of the citizen in regard to taxation. Let me point out one case, and that is in relation to businesses which have declined. Ninety-eight per cent. of the trade of the country is now done by limited companies. Many of them at times make very large profits,
    306
    and if when profits are declining the three years' system is adopted, you cheat the taxpayer, when you consider that ten years ago the profits of a particular country may have been a hundred thousand pounds, and may have dropped to £10,000. We ought to have time at any rate to discuss these things. Constantly there are points brought up out of business experience, and we ought to have the opportunity of bringing in these small Amendments which are entirely removed from any question of party. If we cannot effect great reforms we might be able to effect some very useful small reforms in this way. For this reason I welcome this change in procedure under which a second Bill will be introduced. We are much too reluctant to adopt changes of that kind in the House. I think we will find a great advantage in opportunities of this kind. But I did not get up to mention these Amendments, but generally to indicate approval of the whole statement. I have only one criticism to suggest, and I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire did not mention it. I am afraid the statement was a little too optimistic. It is almost too good to be true. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not want too much applause from the other side. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman may have meant to say it, but he spoke under very great difficulty, and the only thing that he did say with regard to the Increment Duties was that they might have been estimated higher.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that in my next sentence I did say that, generally speaking, the statement was too optimistic.
    Mr. LOUGH: Perhaps so. The right hon. Gentleman made a most interesting speech, and I had the greatest sympathy for him. I never heard him perform his ordinary duty in this House under circumstances of greater difficulty. Taking everything into account he did exceedingly well. The Budget Statement seems almost too good to be true. There was not even one sturdy Liberal that I spoke to beforehand who did not think the screw would have to be tightened a little more than we liked if we were to get through. There has been no tightening of the screw, no new tax, the future is suggested as satisfactory. I think we ought to congratulate ourselves upon the proceedings this after-

    307
    noon. We should all congratulate the country and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that on the high authority which he always takes on these occasions he has been able to put before this House, the country, and the world such a hopeful statement of the future.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: There is one thing I think we ought to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon, and that is that there is no fresh taxation. How that result has come about is another matter altogether. I can only trust that the anticipations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer may prove correct. He told us that he has consulted the very best authorities he could on the question of trade in the future. No doubt he has; but supposing their answer had been different! Supposing their answers had been adverse to him in this matter of trade prospects! Supposing they had said that we were going to have a worse time, and that the Near Eastern question was going to be a serious matter! Where would the right hon. Gentleman have been then? He would have had to come down for fresh taxation. I trust that his forecast of trade will be fulfilled, or he will find himself, if he is still Chancellor this time next year, with a deficit. We have to-day to congratulate ourselves that the Chancellor has been able to give us the statement that he has, and to come out on the right side with £185,000 to the good. The Chancellor made a comparison with expenditure now and expenditure fifty years ago. Half a century is a long time. I would rather like to make a comparison with years a little nearer. Take two years, the year before the Boer war—there was a great increase owing to the Boer war—and the last year for which the Unionist Government were responsible, namely, 1905–6. If you take those two years, you will find that you have an increase now over 1899 of £71,000,000, or 58 per cent., and if you take the second period, 1905–6, you have an increase of £38,000,000, or 20 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman went on to quote some words of Mr. Gladstone in 1861. I have got another quotation from a speech in 1861 of the same right hon. Gentleman which is extremely pertinent to the present position of our increase of national expenditure. Mr. Gladstone said:—
    "I am deeply convinced that all excess in the public expenditure beyond the legitimate wants of the country is not only a pecuniary waste …. but a great political and, above all, a great moral evil. It is characteristic, Sir, of the mischiefs which arise from financial prodigality—"
    308
    These are the words that I want to draw the attention of hon. Members to—
    "that they creep onwards with a noiseless and a stealthy step; that they commonly remain unseen and unfelt until they have reached a magnitude absolutely overwhelming."
    I believe if Mr. Gladstone were living now he would look upon the present position as very serious. I remember reading that when the expenditure of the country amounted to £90,000,000 the right hon. Gentleman was horrified. The expenditure did remain at or about £90,000,000 for a considerable period. I find that in the Unionist years, 1886–1892, the national expenditure kept about £90,000,000, which shows that if care is taken it can be kept down. That is only twenty years ago. In that time the expenditure has more than doubled. Let me say a word as to how this increase arises, because we all know that it is principally upon the Civil Service Departments. If you take into consideration the moneys which were raised by loans by the Unionist Government for armaments, and put that in as an item of expenditure—which it ought to be really, as it was an item of expenditure—you will find that the total spent on the Army and Navy in the last year of the Unionist Government was only about £1,500,000 less than now. So that you have this fact, that the great increase has occurred in the Civil Service accounts. We all know the large items for insurance, old age pensions, and education. The land valuation, which my right hon. Friend behind me spoke about, is absolutely a dead loss at present. What it may be in the future we do not know. All the minor Departments of the Civil Service show increases, which shows the general tendency as Mr. Gladstone called it, of the spirit of expenditure.
    I would like to say a word about the Income Tax, which I have not spoken about in this Committee before. It is one which I contend is a burden upon the whole country, not only on the richer part of the population, but also on the poorer. As we know, Income Tax was introduced by Pitt as a war tax at the time of Napoleon in 1799. It was taken off after the war, in 1814 I think, but reintroduced by Peel. All through its history the Income Tax has been regarded as a war tax, and now in my opinion, it is not a war tax any longer, but a constant tax. It has become a permanent tax and is liable to be raised by the Government of the day at any moment. The Income Tax payers are not a large body. I think

    309
    they number about 1,200,000 altogether, and the larger portion of these people have incomes under £700. Taking the Income Tax payers as a whole, they are a law-abiding, patient lot of people. They have no organisation or combination like other classes, or people that speak for them in this House. Turgot, the famous French Minister, defined taxation as
    "The art of plucking the goose without making it cry out."
    7.0 P.M.
    That is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing in regard to the Income Tax payer. The goose collectively cannot, cry out, though, if it did cry out, I very much doubt, owing to there being no organisation, that as a body the Income Tax payers could make themselves felt. I contend that these people being taxed principally for the purposes of the war are entitled now to some relief. It is a tax that filters down from the bearer to the people below. The question of Income Tax does not stop at persons who pay the tax. It goes down underneath on to industry and wages. I was reading a book by the celebrated modern economist, Sedgwick, a short time ago, and he contends that the burden of taxation generally seldom remains where it is first imposed, and Mr. Leckey, who was a very valued member of this House, in his book points out that there is no truth in political economy more certain than that heavy taxation upon capital which starves industry and employment, falls most heavily upon the poor. That was the opinion of the present Prime Minister when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. I remember his first Budget speech in 1906, when he said:—
    "It is the burden upon the trade of the country which in the long run affects not only profits but wages, and which helps to destroy, or at any rate to contract, the most readily available reserve upon which the State can draw in sudden and unforeseen emergencies."
    That leads me to another point. We all know that Income Tax is an engine of immense power as one of our national reserves. If you keep it at a high rate in normal times, you cannot use it in a way you would like when a national emergency comes. It is the same with the Sinking Fund. The charge upon the Sinking Fund was lowered from £28,000,000 to £24,500,000. A sinking fund for the purposes of sudden emergency ought to be kept high in order that you can reduce it and use that sinking fund in case it is wanted for national emergency. Therefore, you want the Sinking Fund high,
    310
    and the Income Tax low as two great national reserves. I put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day, asking him how the taxation of the country was divided between direct and indirect taxes, and his reply was that during the financial year direct taxes amounted to 57.61 per cent. and indirect taxes to 42.38 per cent., and it works out at a taxation per head of £3 8s. 2d. If you look at our great rivals—France, Germany, and the United States—you will find a very different system. They get the bulk of their revenue from indirect taxes. I find from the official reports in France and Germany for last year that the percentage from direct taxes in France is as low as 16.4, and that in Germany it is not much higher, amounting to 19.18, and the whole amount in Germany for every national expenditure, apart from the various States, only amount to £1 4s. 4d. per head of the whole population. In France it is more, and amounts to £3 14s. 5d. In the United States, as everybody knows, they get nearly half of their revenue from Customs Duties, and the whole taxation of the United States only amounts to 30s. per head. In connection with this, I should like to mention a point with regard to the proposed change—I do not think it will be out of order—for raising revenue in the United States. Some people in this country think that the change owing to the last Presidential election is going to lead to a great revolution in the way the United States raise their taxes. That is not so. It is not the opinion of the leaders of political life in the United States, and it is not the opinion of President Woodrow Wilson. He has edited a book containing the speeches he made during the Presidential campaign. I do not know whether hon. Members have seen it, but it is a very interesting book, and there is a passage as to what in his judgment ought to be the alteration of the tariffs of the United States; that there should be lowering of the tariffs and the abolition of monopoly and privilege, and not the doing away with Protection. He says:—
    "The Federal Government has chosen to maintain itself chiefly on indirect instead of direct taxation. I dare say we shall never see a time when it can alter that policy in any substantial degree and there is no democrat of thoroughness that I ever met who contemplates a programme of Free Trade."
    It is the opinion of the new President of the United States that their policy is not going to be a policy of Free Trade, it is not going to abandon getting revenue from indirect taxes; it is simply to be a

    311
    lowering of the very high tariff they have at present; to give small people a chance; to do away with monopoly. I beg to thank the Committee very much for having given me their attention, and I want to add my voice to the congratulations that have been offered to the right hon. Gentleman on the Financial Statement he has given us.
    Sir ALFRED MOND: I do not wish to follow the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken in his statements with regard to the United States. I am afraid I would not be in order if I followed him at length, because there are many quotations that I could make in answer to him from President Wilson's speeches; but I would like to point out in regard to the percentage of direct to indirect taxation in the various countries which he quoted that in Germany, for instance, you must add to the direct taxation the very heavy Income Tax in Prussia, and unless you add these figures to the Imperial taxation you cannot get any comparative basis. A great many of our services, in fact most of them, like education and local government services, are all State charges here, and it is impossible to compare the taxation of the two countries by taking the German Imperial taxation, which is practically confined entirely to the army and navy expenditure, and resting on that to arrive at any kind of a conclusion. I could not quite follow what the hon. Member's idea was as to what basis we are to raise our taxation from. He wanted a higher Sinking Fund and a lower Income Tax. If these methods of revenue are gone, I do not see what his basis is for raising a large amount of revenue on any fiscal system.
    Mr. S. ROBERTS: I would not be in order in going into the question of Tariff Reform.
    Sir A. MOND: I do not want to go into it, but any hon. Member who likes to go into the question would come to one conclusion: that a tax, for instance, on manufactured goods, whether a good or bad equivalent, would only produce a small revenue and would not enable a Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the Income Tax very materially. I do not think any Chancellor of the Exchequer would get revenue from it compared to our Income Tax. All the other countries of the world are going the other way. France and Germany have a heavy
    312
    Income Tax. If the hon. Member had read an article which appeared the other day he would see that the opinion of many financiers in Germany is that they have come more and more to regard direct taxation for the purposes of raising the amount of capital they need. The United States is taking the same view in respect to taxation. It is a fallacy to imagine there is no Income Tax in the United States. There is the corporation taxes and the taxes upon limited liability companies, and there are heavy land taxes in all the States throughout the American Confederation. There, again, you compare merely the services of the United States Federal Government, which are very small, with our services, which we have to render here, and that leads to an entirely fallacious result. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to be congratulated on the mildness with which his Budget is received. I think he is also to be congratulated on the elasticity of his calculations of revenue. Of course he has information which no private Member can possibly claim to criticise. I have found, on the whole, that the authorities that advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer have an almost uncanny machinery by which they can estimate so closely what the revenue is going to be. I think that, on the whole, the Chancellor of the Exchequer may fairly look forward to a very good year of business, assuming there are no foreign complications. There is no doubt that the lifting of the shadow of foreign complications on the horizon of the world's financial fields will be a very great incentive to new enterprise all over the world.
    I was rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not expect he would get any more money from stamps, because it is notorious that a very large number of company flotations have been held over for something like six months in the City of London owing to foreign complications, and that there will be a very large number of issues made which will increase the amount of stamps as soon as the international situation improves, as we may expect, in a short time. There is one thing I regret, and always will continue to regret as long as it exists, and that is that the right hon. Gentleman gave no indication whatever of his intention to abolish the Sugar Tax. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last spoke of the Income Tax as a war tax. For many years the Income Tax has become an important part of our

    313
    financial structure, but the Sugar Tax was imposed deliberately as a war tax, and only as a war tax.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, no. When Lord St. Aldwyn imposed that and other taxes he expressly stated that he did not propose them merely to finance the war, but because he thought it necessary to widen the area of our taxation.
    Sir A. MOND: I was under the impression it was certainly imposed to deal with the expenditure caused by the war at the time, and I am sure it was never intended to remain as a permanent part of our taxation; but whether it was intended or not, I think it ought not to be kept on. It is the most indefensible tax of any that exist in the whole of our system of taxation. After all, sugar is not only a prime necessity of food, particularly for children, but physiologists have come to the conclusion that a plentiful supply of sugar is of the very greatest importance to the growing child. We do not want any tax that makes the feeding of our children in any way more expensive. On the contrary, we want to improve their physical condition. Besides this, sugar is a raw material for a very large industry which has suffered by the imposition of this tax. To put a tax on an important food which at the same time is a raw material seems to me to be most indefensible, more especially in view of the relatively small amount which the Sugar Tax brings in. Surely this amount could be found in other ways. I do not see why we should place £12,000,000 to the National Debt and at the same time ask the working classes to pay a tax upon a necessary article of food. I think it is far more important that our children should get their food as cheaply as possible than that the National Debt should stand at a few millions less. There are many other ways of obtaining an equivalent revenue for that which is produced by the Sugar Tax. Our Income Tax is really a kind of hotch-potch unscientific classification. We want a more reasonable graduation of the Income Tax, and then it would easily produce the amount required to do away with the Sugar Tax. I am not sure that we have not gone too far in the direction of exemptions.
    We have been told that the reason the lower limit of exemption has not been adopted is because it is impossible on account of the cost of collection. I was discussing this matter with a high official of a foreign Government, and I asked him,
    314
    "How do you manage to collect the Income Tax on incomes as low as £45 a year?" He replied, "They are all engaged in some kind of employment, and we get the returns from their employers." I do not advocate that we should go as low as £45 a year in regard to exemptions, but I am sure that £160 is unreasonably high, and we have cut off in this way a large field of taxation if properly graduated. I do not think our Income Tax is too high. I see statements made in the newspapers that the Income Tax is 1s. 2d. in the £, but as a matter of fact it is nothing of the kind. Earned income is only taxed at 9d. in the £, but if you take those incomes under £700 a year, it comes to a lower figure still. I think we ought to deal with our Income Tax by percentages instead of by the present cumbrous method. Whatever method is adopted I feel convinced that the Sugar Tax is a great blot, more especially on a party which sets its face against taxes on food and raw materials. We ought not to be satisfied until we see the Sugar Tax taken off altogether, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider this point next year if he does not deal with it this year, because his mind is capable of conjuring up a few more millions of revenue without any grave dislocation of our national system of taxation. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has derived the amount from the Super-tax which he ought to have received, and I have an impression that there must be a large number of people escaping the payment of that tax, because the figure seems so small relating to the number of people who are supposed to be in receipt of £5,000 a year. I think there is a leakage there which I hope the Treasury will find some opportunity of filling up. One hon. Member has alluded to the Land Duties. I would like to ask, How can the hon. Member expect an Increment Tax to bring in a large amount when there has not been time for the increment to accrue? When the same kind of taxation was undertaken in Germany they put the valuation twenty years earlier than their tax, and therefore they had twenty years to go upon. The yield of the Increment Tax is bound to remain small until you have had a period long enough for the tax to develop. Therefore the statement that these duties will never increase could only be true if we came to the conclusion that the land valuation of this country is always to remain the same.
    There are other matters, such as the Increment Duty on property belonging to

    315
    corporations which is only assessed at intervals, and which has never yet come in at all. Altogether I think it is much too early to judge of the yield of the Land Taxes or to base any calculations upon the expenditure which has been incurred. Anyone who has had experience of valuation knows that the setting up of the machinery is very expensive, but when the valuation has once been made, the keeping up of the machinery is a relatively inexpensive matter. We are really not spending an annual amount but laying down a capital sum, and in a business you would charge this money to the development account and not to the revenue account, because later on your expenditure would diminish and your expenditure increase. I still have confidence that these taxes will be more valuable as time goes on, and I have hopes that this valuation may serve a far more useful purpose than the taxes already introduced. I am certain that whatever party is in power, I do not think anybody will ever go back on the principles laid down in the Budget of 1909–10. Those principles have vindicated themselves, although we have been told that Free Trade finance was bankrupt, and that we could not go on without adopting a different system. We have been able to find more money for social needs without departing from the principles of finance which Chancellors of the Exchequer from time immemorial, or at any rate for many generations, have brought before this House. I think the right hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated upon his Budget, and I am sure that the whole country will be delighted to find that, while other nations under a different system have been struggling to maintain their financial equilibrium, poor Free Trade England has been able to find all the money we required upon the simple financial lines we have followed so long and so successfully.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. Baronet the Member for Swansea, finished his speech with the assertion that we were this year following the lines we have found so successful in the past. I presume that he meant by that we were paying this year's expenses out of this year's revenue. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough), who delighted the Committee with a speech which showed that he was beaming with happiness because there were no new
    316
    taxes, congratulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the fact that he had been able to raise the necessary money this year without tampering with the Sinking Fund. It is upon that point that I wish to put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If I understood the right hon. Gentleman's figures, he finds that he has to raise, in addition to last year's revenue, something like £6,830,000, and the taxes which he expects to increase in their yield would amount to £7,200,000. He said that there were other deductions to be made amounting to £1,200,000, showing that the net increase of taxation would be about £6,000,000. But the increase of expenditure is £6,800,000, and those hon. Members of the Committee who will be congratulating themselves and the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon meeting the expenditure out of revenue, will notice if these figures are correct that a sum of £850,000 is not going to be found out of the revenue of the year, but is being obtained from another source. Therefore the estimate of income and expenditure does not balance. Far from the increased yield of the taxes being sufficient for the increased expenditure, you have an actual deficiency of £950,000.
    How is that converted into a small surplus of £150,000? It is very simple. There was a surplus last year of £1,000,000, or actually £1,500,000, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer helps himself to £1,000,000 out of that surplus and brings it into this year as if it were revenue of this year. There is no other explanation, as far as I can understand. Without going into detail, I may point out that last year there was set aside £500,000 for Uganda and £1,000,000 for the Navy, which was placed temporarily to the Exchequer balances for the purpose of being drawn upon if required. There is no doubt about that, because in this House the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the 24th June, dealing with the contingencies for which the whole £6,500,000 was held up, said that all the contingencies except the naval one had disappeared, and he did not require any part of the £6,500,000 except the £1,000,000 for the naval contingency, and he stated that he had a new object to which he wished to devote £500,000, and that was Uganda. Instead of using the £1,500,000 for those purposes, the revenue for last year was so abundant that the money was paid out of the surplus revenue of last year, and therefore that sum which was set aside remains in the

    317
    Exchequer balances The Chancellor of the Exchequer now says, "I have got a large naval expenditure this year so I will help myself to £1,000,000 out of that £1,500,000 to deal with the Navy this year." He is paying some of the ordinary expenditure of this year by using a sum of money which was freed owing to the abounding prosperity of last year, and he is not paying the expenditure of this year out of the revenue of this year. Therefore, it will not do for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say, "As I did not spend that £1,000,000 for naval purposes last year, and as that is carried forward to some extent this year, therefore I feel quite entitled to use it for this year." In dealing with this on 24th June, 1912, and speaking therefore of last year's accounts, he said:—
    "This year the additional sum for which my right hon. Friend will ask will not exceed £1,000,000, but further heavy claims will fall in subsequent years as a result of the programme which he finds it necessary to outline."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th June, 1912, col. 50, Vol. XL.]
    That particular £1,000,000 was for last year's expenditure. He knew then that there would be heavy naval expenditure in this year, and obviously and necessarily, if he is going to follow the principles which have hitherto governed Chancellors of the Exchequer, he has got to prepare for the expenditure of this year, known in advance as it was, and make the income of this year sufficient to pay for the expenditure of this year. Hon. Members have been congratulating the Chancellor of the Exchequer and themselves, so glad are they to escape from the fear of taxation which has overhung them, but, if they do congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer, let them do it knowing that he is not balancing his income and expenditure, except by resorting to a saving from last year and bringing it in as if it were income for this year, and that after having stretched the income to its utmost, for in the sums which are included as income of this year there is certainly £1,000,000 at least of arrears of taxation which is non-recurrent so far as the year is concerned. There are perhaps two other taxes which may exceed his expectations. The Stamp Duties, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) stated, seem likely to exceed his expectations, and, for myself, I believe the Death Duties may quite likely improve, because the last quarter of the year has been considerably affected by the low price of securities and probably also by the
    318
    unwillingness by those administering estates to realise estates for the purpose of paying duty during the lowness of gilt-edged securities. If there is no further war trouble, and if gilt-edged securities rise in consequence, those sort of hesitations and postponements are not likely to affect this year to the same extent. At any rate, valuations of estates coming under review this year ought to be better. We may therefore expect to find some relief from Death Duties. Giving the Chancellor of the Exchequer those two, which he has not claimed for himself, he will be bound to admit that he could not have balanced his accounts at all unless he had brought in as income of this year at least £1,000,000 of arrears which do not belong to this year really, although they do technically. I do not complain of his bringing those arrears into this year; he obviously is entitled to do so, but nevertheless they are not income arising in this year. They come from a previous year. Even then he could not have balanced if he had not borrowed £850,000 from the surplus of last year.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    The hon. and learned Gentleman is always ingenious, but there is one statement he has made which is not quite accurate. He says that the income and expenditure of the year do not balance, and that we have had to go elsewhere for money in order to make up the deficiency; but, as a matter of fact, the £1,000,000 required by the First Lord of the Admiralty is not properly expenditure of this year at all. It is true that there is a good deal which has to be met this year, but it is not really expenditure of this year, and, inasmuch as it is expenditure of the past year, it is perfectly legitimate and proper that the income of the past year should meet it.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Has that ever been done before?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to reply to that question without inquiry, but it is done in every other business in the world. He talks about it only technically belonging to this year, but what is technical is that you should have to go through all this process in order to do it. In any other business 31st March does not carry the consequences which it does in our national finances. I dare say you balance at the end of the year in order to see what is

    319
    your position, but you carry forward both income and expenditure, and it is purely a book-keeping transaction. We are taking this £1,000,000 out of the year when the expenditure was incurred in order to meet it in the year when the expenditure has to be discharged. That is all. As far as the real expenditure of the year is concerned, the income is adequate to meet it. We are only taking £1,000,000 to meet expenditure which is proper to the year when the £1,000,000 was received. That is exactly the position, and I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise it is so. That is what happens in every other business in the world except ours. I have always felt that the consequences of 31st March were carried very much too far, and that our rules were infinitely too rigorous. I am not at all sure that the rules which apply to 31st March should not be reconsidered. I am not at all sure that they do not very often lead to increased expenditure of the Departments. You have the Departments with certain sums of money voted to them, and they know that if they do not spend them by the end of the year they have got to go back. I do not say that they constantly apply their minds to spending them, but there is not the same incitement to apply their minds not to spending them that there would be if they knew the money by some arrangement would be carried forward. I am sure in many cases that would lead to economy and to greater efficiency in the Departments. I have only one other point I wish to make, because I propose to follow the course this year, and to move that we report Progress at the end of my speech. This year I cannot carry the Resolution to the point of acceptance by the House, because under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Bill it is necessary that there should be a declaration that the Resolution should have statutory effect, and, inasmuch as that Bill has not yet received the Royal Assent, it would be idle for me to move a Resolution of that kind in anticipation of that event. Therefore I shall have to move to report Progress, and then on Monday next, when the Debate comes on, I shall move a Resolution in a form in which I hope it will be carried by the House.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Is there any precedent for that course?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There is no precedent for this course so far as the
    320
    Resolution is concerned, but there has been an adjournment very early on Budget night, and I hope my hon. and learned Friend will see his way to agree to that which I think will be for the general convenience of the House. I hope it will not interfere with anything he has got to say on the matter when we come to the Debate on Monday next.
    Mr. DAVID MASON: Will that be a general Debate?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, it will be a Debate on the whole of the proposals. Although one or other of the Resolutions will be taken, the Debate will not be confined to the subject matter of the Resolution, but will range over the whole of the financial proposals which have been placed before the Committee by me to-night. I think my hon. and learned Friend will see that it will be better that hon. Members should speak after they have had the full statement before them, and have had due time to consider what the effect of the proposals will be. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) will probably commence the discussion on Monday—that is the usual course, and will then elaborate his criticisms. I think it is better that I should postpone my general reply to him until then. There is only one observation on his speech that I should like to challenge now. It might otherwise be misleading. It is with reference to the effect of the trade prosperity upon wages. He rather suggested that the wage-earning classes had not shared in the general prosperity by a rise in wages. Last year the rise in wages was £131,611 per week, and that affected 1,724,000 workpeople. That does not include railway servants and seamen, both of whom received considerable rises in wages last year as the right hon. Gentleman knows very well. The figure, therefore, is really higher that the one I have given. This year there has been a further increase of £64,000, which is more than double the increase of the first three months of last year, and that affects very nearly 1,000,000 workpeople. I am far from suggesting that the workpeople have had their fair share, but they have undoubtedly had a very considerable share of the prosperity that other classes of the community have enjoyed. I do not think it will be desirable for me to enter into any of the other questions which have been raised in the course of the discussion, and I shall therefore now conclude

    321
    by moving that we report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: In the unusual circumstances of the case, and as the right hon. Gentleman admits that the course he is taking is unprecedented and as I gather that we shall have full opportunity of presenting our special view, I shall not oppose the Resolution, the only result of which will be that we shall have an early adjournment.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask, Sir, formally, for your ruling? I know the Chair very properly desires, as a general rule, that, when an arrangement continuing a general discussion is arrived at between the two sides of the House, it should be submitted to and receive the approval of the Chair, and that it should not be assumed that what is binding on us is binding on the Chair. I am not quite certain whether it is necessary to consult you on this occasion because no Resolution has been carried to-night, and I therefore presume that we shall continue with a discussion of the same Resolution on Monday.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not sure about that.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask whether you will concur in the arrangement suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that, whatever is the first Resolution proposed on Monday, the Committee shall be entitled to continue the general discussion which we have only just begun to-day?
    The CHAIRMAN: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has raised that question. It is most desirable that arrangements of this kind should be confirmed publicly. I have no difficulty in saying that whatever Resolution is taken first on Monday, it may be the subject of a general Debate on the whole statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow (Wednesday).
    The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

    MARCONI'S WIRELESS TELEGRAPH COMPANY, LIMITED, AGREEMENT.
    Ordered, That Mr. Primrose be discharged from the Select Committee.
    Ordered, That Mr. Gordon Harvey be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Illingworth.]

    FORGERY BILL [Lords].
    Ordered, That the Lords Message [15th April] be now considered.
    Ordered, That a Select Committee of Five Members be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Lords (as mentioned in their Lordships' Message of the 15th day of April) to consider the Forgery Bill [Lords].
    Ordered, That Mr. Cave, Mr. Nield, Mr. John O'Connor, Mr. Radford, and Mr. Charles Roberts be Members of the Committee.
    Ordered, That the Committee have I power to send for persons, papers, and records.
    Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—[Mr. Illingworth.]

  PATENT MEDICINES.
  Ordered, That Mr. Norman Craig be discharged from the Select Committee on Patent Medicines.
  Ordered, That Mr. Hill-Wood be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Illingworth.]

  PATENT MEDICINES.

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gulland.]
    Adjourned accordingly at Ten minutes before Eight o'clock.

  Income Tax (Scotland).
  Income Tax (Scotland).
  National Debt Commissioners.
  National Debt Commissioners.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  TAX ON SOLDIERS' PAY.
  TAX ON SOLDIERS' PAY.
  AMENDMENT OF ACT.
  AMENDMENT OF ACT.
  MEDICAL BENEFIT.
  MEDICAL BENEFIT.
  Irish Education Committee.
  Irish Education Committee.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Belfast Corporation Bill.
  Belfast Corporation Bill.
  Grants-in-Aid.
  Grants-in-Aid.
  School Attendance (Ireland).
  School Attendance (Ireland).
  Payment of Secondary Teachers.
  Payment of Secondary Teachers.
  "Time-Cribbing" (Prosecutions in Lancashire).
  "Time-Cribbing" (Prosecutions in Lancashire).
  Greenock Torpedo Factory.
  Greenock Torpedo Factory.
  1st North Midland Field Ambulance.
  1st North Midland Field Ambulance.
  Derailing Trains (India).
  Derailing Trains (India).
  Persia.
  Persia.
  Indian Students (Government Contractors).
  Indian Students (Government Contractors).
  Indian Indentured Immigrants.
  Indian Indentured Immigrants.
  Indian Police (Pensions).
  Indian Police (Pensions).
  Agricultural Credit Societies (Scotland).
  Agricultural Credit Societies (Scotland).
  Sheriff Clerks Depute.
  Sheriff Clerks Depute.
  Vaccination Officers.
  Vaccination Officers.
  Parish Council Elections.
  Parish Council Elections.
  German Joint Stock Companies.
  German Joint Stock Companies.
  Cost of Living.
  Cost of Living.
  Load-Line Conference.
  Load-Line Conference.
  Marconi Select Committee.
  Marconi Select Committee.
  Underground Telegraphic Wires.
  Underground Telegraphic Wires.
  Wills Deposited.
  Wills Deposited.
DUKE OF ABERCORN.
Ordered, That the Report of the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom, made to the House of Lords on Friday last, that the right of the Duke of Abercorn to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to his satisfaction be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, together with a certificate stating that such report has been made, and that the House has ordered it to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.
Frederic Henry LORD BISHOP of ELY—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

HIS LATE MAJESTY THE KING OF THE HELLENES.
The MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE reported that he had attended Her Majesty Queen Alexandra this day with the Address of the 1st instant and received the following reply thereto, viz.:
"I thank you very sincerely for the
"Address of Condolence which you
"have presented and for your sympathy
"with Me in the great loss I have
"sustained by the death of My Beloved
"Brother the King of the Hellenes.
"It affords Me great comfort to be
"reminded of the warm interest you
"feel in My domestic relations."
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:

Midland Railway (Superannuation Fund) [H.L.]

Also the Certificate that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:

Coventry Corporation.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for additional Provision in the

Blyth and Cowpen Gas Bill

ought to be dispensed with:
And that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for additional Provision in the

Metropolitan Water Board Bill [H.L.]

ought to be dispensed with and leave given to the Committee on the Bill to insert the additional Provision:
Read, and agreed to.

REDCAR, COATHAM, MARSKE AND SALTBURN GAS BILL. [H.L.]
SWANSEA HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Leave given to the Select Committee not to sit again till Monday next.

HASTINGS TRAMWAYS 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.
COLONIAL AND FOREIGN BANKS GUARANTEE CORPORATION BILL.[H.L.]
ISLE OF WIGHT CENTRAL RAILWAY (GODSHILL TRANSFER) BILL. [H.L.]
NORTHAMPTON CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
GOVERNESSES BENEVOLENT INSTITUTION BILL. [H.L.]
SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE MOND GAS BILL. [H.L.]
SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, this is the Motion which it is usual to make, I will not say at this time of the

237
year for it is usual to make it a little earlier and the dates as a rule are correspondingly earlier, but your Lordships will realise that as the session did not begin until the middle of March it is necessary that the dates should be later this year than usual. The later beginning of the session, however, has not in any way delayed the Public Departments in preparing their Bills, and therefore if your Lordships agree to this Motion I hope we shall have less reason for suspending the Standing Orders than was the case last session, when I remember the noble Lord opposite (Lord Balfour) drew attention to the frequency with which they were suspended. I have taken May 1 as the last date, and, subject to your Lordships agreeing to that, I beg to move that this Motion be agreed to.
Moved, That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 19th of June next:
That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill originating in this House shall be read a first time after Tuesday the 29th instant:
That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 19th of June next:
That when a Bill shall have passed this House with Amendments these orders shall not apply to any new Bill sent up from the House of Commons which the Chairman of Committees shall report to the House is substantially the same as the Bill so amended:
That this House will not receive any petition for a Private Bill later than Tuesday the 29th instant, unless such Private Bill shall have been approved by the High Court of Justice; nor any petition for a Private Bill approved by the High Court of Justice after Thursday the 1st of May next:
That this House will not receive any report from the Judges upon petitions presented to this House for Private Bills after Thursday the 1st of May next.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That the said Orders be printed and published, and affixed on the doors of this House and Westminster Hall.

CHILDREN (EMPLOYMENT ABROAD) BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Strachie.)
On Question Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Restrictions on children and young persons going abroad for the purpose of performing for profit.
1.—(1) If any person causes or procures any child or oung person, or, having the custody, charge, or care of any child or young person, allows such child or young person, to go out of the United Kingdom for the purpose of singing, playing, performing, or being exhibited, for profit, that person shall, unless, in the case of a young person, such a licence as is hereinafter mentioned has been granted, be guilty of an offence against this Act.
(2) A constable or any person authorised by a justice may take to a place of safety any child or young person in respect of whom there is reason to believe that an offence under this section has been or is about to be committed, and the provisions of section twenty of the Children Act, 1908, shall apply as if such an offence were an offence mentioned in the First Schedule to that Act.
(3) This section shall not apply in any case where it is proved that the child or young person was only temporarily resident in the United Kingdom.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I move to delete from subsection (3) the words "only temporarily resident," and to insert the words "not domiciled." I have put this Amendment on the Paper in order to draw the attention of His Majesty's Government to the great difficulty of interpreting the words "only temporarily resident." I do not know whether the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will say that this is a phrase which has ever received judicial interpretation, but it is clear that the words are very ambiguous as they stand. It is easy to put any number of hard conundrums, if I may use that word, to the noble Lord in asking him how he would construe them. For example, take the case of a foreign child who has come to the United Kingdom and been with his parents for a year in the United Kingdom. The parents might not be intending to remain here. Is the child

239
in that case living permanently or temporarily here? Take another case, that of a child who has been sent over to England to be educated. The parents may never have come to England at all, but the child may be in England for a long time, say five years. Would it be temporarily resident here or not? I think your Lordships will see that considerable difficulty may be found in interpreting the phrase. The guardian in England may be quite a different person from the parent, who may be abroad all the time. The child may be resident in England in charge of a guardian within the meaning of the Act—an English guardian. According to which is the child's position to be interpreted, according to the foreign parent or according to the English guardian? In point of fact, I do not think the Bill ought to attempt to deal with the case of bona fide foreign children resident in England, and therefore I have put down this Amendment to substitute the words "not domiciled" for the words "only temporarily resident." I do not pretend to be a lawyer and am not sure of the pitfalls this alteration may open, but at any rate "domicile" is a word which has a judicial meaning and can be interpreted. The other is a vague phrase and might be interpreted differently by every judicial authority under whose cognisance it came. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 21, leave out ("only temporarily resident") and insert ("not domiciled").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD STRACHIE): My Lords, no doubt the noble Marquess, before putting down the Amendment, carefully considered what would be the effect of making the change which he proposes. As far as I can see, the effect would be to a very large extent absolutely to destroy the Bill as regards the majority of children of aliens in this country. There are, as the noble Marquess is no doubt aware, two forms of domicile—that of origin and that of choice. The acquisition of a new domicile depends on the combination of residence and intention of remaining at that residence permanently. It has been held by the Courts in the case of Winans and the Attorney-General, in 1904, that to acquire a domicile of choice it must be shown that there was a "final and deliberate
240
intention to abandon the domicile of origin and to acquire a domicile of choice"; and Mr. Justice Phillimore has defined "domicile" as "a residence at a particular place accompanied by positive or presumptive proof of an intention to remain there for an unlimited time." Therefore the insertion of the noble Marquess's Amendment would raise very great difficulties leading to many appeals to the Courts. On the other hand, if the words "only temporarily resident" remain, they seem to me to meet the cases which it is necessary to meet—namely, the cases of infant prodigies, children or young persons paying a short visit to this country. The Amendment would exempt the children of aliens to a large extent possibly. There is no exemption as regards the children of aliens under the Education Act, under the Factories Act, or under the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1904, and there seems to me no reason why alien children or young persons residing in England should not be protected. The law generally applies to any one residing in England, alien or not. The noble Marquess has asked me a question as to the case of children sent over here or being left here by their parents. I think in all those cases if the intention of the parents is that the children should remain here not for the purpose of performances but for being educated in this country, they should have the same protection as British children. I am advised that the words at present in the clause are the best possible words in the circumstances. They have been carefully considered at the Home Office, and there are no other words which we can see which better meet the difficulty. There must be certain discretion allowed in these cases, and I think we may be certain that the Police magistrate sitting at Bow-street Police Court would interpret the clause in a right and proper sense.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the noble Lord tells me that he has referred the point specifically to his legal advisers and they approve of these words, then I am satisfied; but I was anxious that such words as these should not be inserted unless they had been carefully considered.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Grant of licences.
2.—(1) A police magistrate may grant a licence in such form as the Secretary of State may prescribe, and subject to such restrictions and conditions as the police magistrate thinks fit, for any young person to go out of the United Kingdom for the purpose of singing, playing, performing, or being exhibited for profit, but no such licence shall be granted unless the police magistrate is satisfied—

(a) that the application for the licence is made by or with the consent of the parent or guardian of the young person;

(b) that the young person is going out of the United Kingdom in order to fulfil a particular engagement;

(c) that the young person is fit for the purpose;

(d) that proper provision has been made to secure the health, kind treatment, and adequate supervision of the young person whilst abroad and his return to the United Kingdom at the expiration or revocation of the licence;

(e) that a copy of the contract of employment or other document, showing the terms and conditions of employment, drawn up in a language understood by the young person, has been furnished to the young person.

(2) A licence under this section shall not be granted for more than three months, but may be renewed by a police magistrate from time to time for a like period, but no such renewal shall be granted unless the police magistrate is satisfied by a report of a British consular officer or other trustworthy person that the conditions of the licence are being complied with.
(3) Where a person applies for a licence or the renewal of a licence under this section he shall at least seven days before making the application give notice thereof to the chief officer of the police for the district in which the young person resides or resided, and that officer may make a report in writing on the case to the police magistrate, or may appear or instruct some person to appear before the police magistrate hearing the application and show cause why the licence should not be granted or renewed, and the police magistrate shall not grant or renew the licence unless he is satisfied that notice has been properly so given.
(4) The police magistrate to whom application is made for the grant or renewal of a licence under this section shall, unless he is satisfied that under the circumstances it is unnecessary, require the applicant to give such security, either by entering into a recognisance with or without sureties or otherwise, as he may think fit for the observance of the restrictions and conditions contained in the licence, and the recognisance may be enforced in like manner as a recognisance for the doing of some matter or thing required to be done in a proceeding before a court of summary jurisdiction is enforceable.
(5) In any proceeding for enforcing a recognisance under this section, a report of any British consular officer, and any deposition made on oath before a British consular officer and authenticated by the signature of that officer respecting the observance or non-observance of any of the conditions or restrictions contained in a licence
242
granted under this Act, shall, upon proof that the consular officer or deponent cannot be found in the United Kingdom, be admissible in evidence; and it shall not be necessary to prove the signature or official character of the person appearing to have signed any such report or deposition.
(6) Where a licence is granted under this section, the police magistrate shall send to the Secretary of State for transmission to the proper consular officer such particulars as the Secretary of State may by regulation prescribe, and every consular officer shall register the particulars so transmitted to him and perform such other duties in relation thereto as the Secretary of State may direct.
(7) A licence granted under this section may be revoked by the police magistrate at any time if he is satisfied that any of the conditions on which the licence was granted are not being complied with.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I have an Amendment in subsection (3), to leave out the words "chief officer of the police" and insert "local education authority." This is the Amendment of which I gave notice in the few observations I made on the Second Reading of the Bill, and it bears upon a similar discussion which took place in 1903 when the Children (Employment) Bill was before the House of Commons. That Bill put the preliminary inquiries and regulations under the education authority of the district and not under the Police authority. In the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act there had been special legislation for theatrical children, and they were put under the Police. When the Bill was debated in the House of Commons there was a very active discussion on the question of whether theatrical children, like other children, should be put under the education authority, or whether the existing law which placed them under the Police should remain. The whole force of the debate from the Liberal Benches at that time was against putting the children under the Police and in favour of putting them under the local education authority. Quite independent of Party, I think that is the better course, and that is why I have placed this Amendment on the Paper.
In the debate in the House of Commons to which I have referred there was a keen desire on both sides of the House that theatrical children should at the initial stage come under the education authority and not under the Police, but there was not much time, and the statement went forth that if this was insisted upon the Bill would be lost altogether, and many Members said that though they did not like the particular provision placing

243
theatrical children under the Police they would agree to it rather than lose the Bill. The Grand Committee, by a considerable majority, I believe, determined that children licensed for the stage should be under the education authority, but there was a great deal of pressure brought by theatrical managers, who, I am told, were of opinion that they would get treated more indulgently under the Police than under the education authority, and therefore the whole of the efforts of the theatrical managers were in favour of remaining under the Police as in the case of the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act. The Bill emerged from Grand Committee with a provision that the children should come under the education authority, but on Report in the other House the Government brought up an Amendment giving effect to the views of the theatrical managers and striking the children out of the Bill. I may mention that Sir John Gorst spoke very strongly in favour of the children being under the education authority and said it was undesirable that these children should be associated with the Police Court, and Mr. T. W. Russell said that the proposal to place them under the Police authority was the result of an outcry from theatrical managers.
I feel very strongly, as I said on the Second Reading, that the great mass of these applications will be perfectly honest and bona fide. We all know that in the case of families of acrobats, and so on, the children are brought up in the profession quite young. The majority of these people are quite respectable, and I do not, think that in these cases they should, in regard to the initial inquiries, be thrown into contact with the Police. It is not fair that the first thing that should happen should be a policeman coming to their house. I am sure that the education authority through their attendance officers have much better knowledge of these families, and can much better consider their character than the Police. I do not in the least object to the provision in the Bill that ultimately the licence should be granted by the Police magistrate. All I desire is that the preliminary information should be brought before the Police magistrate by persons who are in direct touch with these people and know the whole of the circumstances surrounding their life.
244
The education authority has cognisance of these children from the age of five up to fourteen. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will agree with me that we ought not to perpetuate an exception which was only put into the Act of 1903 for the purpose of passing it at the fag end of a session, and because the Bill would have had to be dropped if the House of Commons had stuck to what I think the majority of them wished—namely, that the education authority and not the Police should be brought into the matter in the first instance. I do not know whether the noble Lord opposite (Lord Balfour of Burleigh) has read the Report of the Scottish Education Department. It contains glowing words pointing out how important it is that the education authorities should not only watch over these children during their early years, but should also watch over them after they have passed beyond the age of compulsory school attendance. It is the general opinion of all connected with education that the Police should only be brought in when it is necessary, and that the initial investigation should not be made by a Police officer. The point is a simple one, and I will not further elaborate it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, lines 30 and 31, leave out ("chief officer of the police") and insert ("local education authority").—(Lord Sheffield.)
LORD STRACHIE: I think my noble friend is under a misapprehension as regards the scope of his Amendment. I would remind him that to children, to whom my noble friend was alluding in most of his speech, this clause does not apply, because no child can be moved out of the jurisdiction of this country with or without a licence. It applies only to young persons—namely, between the ages of fourteen and sixteen. These are not under the control of the education authority, and therefore I cannot see why the education authority should be brought into this at all. My noble friend seems to object to the Police making inquiries, and he spoke of bringing these young persons into contact with the police. It is not the young persons who are brought into contact with the Police; it is the parents. I submit that the Police are much more likely than the education authority to know about the parents and

245
guardians, and whether they are people whose declarations can be accepted and whether they are likely to comply with the licence and fulfil its conditions. I cannot see what reason there can be for bringing the education authority into this matter. On the other hand, as I indicated on the Second Reading, the Home Office will be perfectly ready to undertake that the education authority shall be notified of the fact that a licence had been applied for, and no doubt the Police would be only too glad to avail themselves of any information which the local education authority could give them either as regards the young persons themselves or their parents or guardians.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I am afraid I failed to make myself clear to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, though I hope that most of your Lordships who heard me did not think that I fell into the mistake of supposing that I was dealing with children. All my remarks were addressed to the case of young persons. The noble Lord now says that the Home Office are perfectly willing to consult with the local authorities in all cases. He did not go so far as that on the Second Reading, for when I asked him whether he was alluding only to the London County Council or whether notice would be given to all county councils he replied that he was referring to the London County Council only. The whole trend of public opinion is that the education authorities should be kept in touch with young persons after they have passed beyond the age of compulsory school attendance, and I cannot say that the noble Lord has adduced any arguments which would in the least lead me to withdraw my Amendment.
THE MARQUESS or SALISBURY: The case is a difficult one, and I think there is a great deal in what Lord Sheffield has said. No doubt, the education authority know more about the child than the Police, and also about the young person who has just ceased to be a child; but, on the other hand, I do not think the education authority know very much about the parent. I cannot conceive what this report of the official, whether it be a Police officer or an officer of the local education authority, is to be about unless it be the status of the applicants who come
246
before the Courts, and the applicants are the parents and guardians and not the young persons. The question whether a young person was fit for the purpose proposed would probably be a medical question, and therefore I really do not know upon what the education authority could speak except as to the character of the young person, and the character of the young person apparently is not one of the questions to be considered. Therefore on the whole, while feeling the weight of the noble Lord's argument, I think the noble Lord in charge of the Bill is right.
LORD SHEFFIELD: The attendance officers of the local education authorities are thoroughly familiar with the character of the homes of these children. Some years ago on the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Poor some of the most important witnesses who were called were the officers of the School Board for London, who impressed the Commission with their intimate knowledge of the social conditions and mode of life of the working classes of London, and I think you would find the same in other towns.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Provisions as to existing cases.
3.—(1) Where, before the commencement of this Act, any person has caused or procured any child or young person, or, having the custody, charge, or care of any such child or young person, has allowed such child or young person to go out of the United Kingdom, and that child or young person is to the knowledge of that person singing, playing, performing, or being exhibited, for profit outside the United Kingdom, it shall be the duty of that person to take all steps in his power to secure the return of the child or young person to the United Kingdom unless he obtains a licence authorising the child or young person to remain out of the United Kingdom, which licence may be granted in the like manner and subject to the like conditions as the licence herein-before mentioned, and if the child or young person continues to sing, play, perform, or to be exhibited, for profit outside the United Kingdom, and no such licence is obtained, such first-mentioned person shall be guilty of an offence against this Act unless he proves that he has taken all such steps as aforesaid.
(2) This section shall not apply in any case where it is proved that the child or young person was only temporarily resident in the United Kingdom.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I desire to call attention to this clause. It is, as the noble Lord in charge of the Bill said on the Second Reading, a peculiar clause. I wonder whether the Government have thought carefully as to the working of it. I have, of course, great sympathy with their object. They are face to face with a great and admitted evil —the taking abroad of these children for purposes of a most deplorable kind. They are trying to stop it, and we are here to assist them to stop it. As far as the earlier clauses of the Bill are concerned, in the main outlines we are agreed. Then we come to Clause 3, and the Government seem to have said to themselves, "Cannot we do something for the children who have already been taken abroad it may be for purposes as deplorable as those we are contemplating in the future?" and with that fundamental object every one of your Lordships must be heartily in sympathy. But when you come to deal with ex post facto legislation it is nearly always found to be exceedingly difficult to work, and I should like the Government to tell us how they propose to work this clause.
Let us suppose that the parents of a young person have allowed the young person to go abroad, a young pianist, perhaps, or a young person who is to go upon what may be called the legitimate stage, against which not a word is to be spoken. The clause says that it shall be the duty of the person who has been responsible for the young person going abroad to take all steps in his power to secure the return of the child or young person to the United Kingdom. Now what are "all the steps in his power?" In what realm of legislation was there ever such a vague phrase as that? What does it mean? It cannot mean, for instance, that the parent or guardian is to commit a breach of contract in respect of the engagement of the child. I do not suppose it means that. But it might mean it, because it might be in the power of the parent to break the contract. I am speaking, of course, of a perfectly legitimate contract, and of perfectly legitimate employment of a young person in a respectable theatre abroad. There very often is in these contracts for theatrical engagements a penalty clause to the effect that if the contract is not carried out there is to be a certain payment of money. Do the Government mean that as soon as this Bill
248
passes the parents or guardians are to voluntarily incur the penalties which a breach of the contract would involve, and to pay, say,£50 or£60 or£100 to the theatrical entrepreneur abroad in order to bring the child back? That would be in their power, and one would presume that under the terms of the clause they would be compelled to do it, unless, of course, they applied for a licence.
They might apply for a licence. What are the conditions which the Government lay down for the granting of a licence? The terms of Clause 3 are—
"which licence may be granted in the like manner and subject to the like conditions as the licence herein-before mentioned."
I turn back to see what the conditions are. What is the first condition? It is that the application for the licence is made by or with the consent of the parent or guardian of the young person. I took the case before of a parent who had himself allowed the child to go abroad. It might not be the parent but a guardian who may be resident abroad, and it might be impossible to get at either the parent or the guardian when the child had gone abroad. The second condition is that the young person "is going out of the United Kingdom in order to fulfil a particular engagement." That condition is inapt, because the child is already out of the United Kingdom. You see what a hopeless mess you get into when you deal with ex post facto legislation. The next condition is that the young person "is fit for the purpose." How are you to ascertain that the child is fit for the purpose? He is, perhaps, in St. Petersburg, or in Australia, or at the Cape of Good Hope. I do not see how the Government intend to work this clause. There is no machinery; there is no method of getting it adopted. It is manifest that the Government have not thought the clause out.
The other conditions are that proper provision has been made to secure the health, kind treatment, and adequate supervision of the young person whilst abroad and his return to the United Kingdom at the expiration or revocation of the licence; and, last, that a copy of the contract of employment or other document showing the terms and conditions of employment has been furnished

249
to the young person. There may not be a contract. When you are dealing with the future you can insist on a contract, and the magistrate may say that he will not issue a licence until a contract is produced which can be explained to the young person, but in the ex post facto case here dealt with there may not be a contract. Clause 3 applies to children as well as to young persons. What is the good of explaining the terms of a contract to a child? The provision is apt in regard to Clause 2 because you are dealing there only with young persons, but it is inapplicable in the case of a child who has already been sent abroad. This always happens when you deal with ex post facto legislation—you cannot fit it in and cannot work it.
I am not going to ask your Lordships to reject the clause, but I do wish the Government either to explain now or to think out between this and the next stage what they really mean by Clause 3, and unless they can show that it is a workable clause I do not think the mere fact that it is in the nature of what the noble Lord in charge of the Bill described in introducing it last session as a "pious opinion" is a ground for a reasonable Assembly like your Lordships passing it into law.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I think there is a great deal of force in what the noble Marquess has just said, especially when you consider that this Bill is to deal also with aliens. You can very well deal with your own subjects, but a difficulty arises when you come to the case of aliens. Though the young person may be an alien and the alien parents may take the child abroad, you put a sort of criminal obligation on these alien parents to bring back the child to England and get a licence. I think there will be very serious international complications if you legislate in this way for aliens who owe no allegiance to this country and in respect of acts which they do outside this country. A foreign opera singer would have a perfect right to take his son or daughter of fifteen out of this country for the purpose of entering a chorus, but you are by this clause practically saying that the parent must bring the lad back and get a licence or he will be subject to a penalty on his return to England. I hope that between this and the Report stage we shall have
250
some information as to how the difficulties which the noble Marquess has raised and also the difficulties in respect of aliens are to be met. I would also ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to insert an Amendment on Report carrying out his promise giving the right to be heard to all county councils.
LORD STRACHIE: The noble Marquess asked what the Government meant by this clause, but he has himself supplied the answer. He said that the feeling of most people would be, "Cannot something be done for the children who are already abroad?" That is the whole meaning and origin of this clause. It seemed rather hard that nothing should be done for children and young persons who are already out of the country. I am very much in sympathy with the noble Marquess's objection to retrospective legislation, and I said so when the Bill was before your Lordships last session. But may I remind the noble Marquess that the clause says it shall be the duty of the person to take these steps to return the child or young person "unless he obtains a licence authorising the child or young person to remain." The cases mentioned by the noble Marquess were cases where, I take it, there would be no difficulty at all in getting a licence. I admit, however, that there are enormous difficulties, and if the noble Marquess and my noble friend behind me had pressed that the clause should be withdrawn I should have been inclined to accept an Amendment to that effect. We quite see the difficulties, but I am sure noble Lords will agree in the desire, if possible, to protect children already abroad and give them some of the benefits which children in this country will receive under this Bill. If the House desires, I will undertake between now and the Report stage to consider whether we can make any alteration in the clause which will meet the very valid objections that have been raised by the noble Marquess and by my noble friend.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I shall be very glad if the noble Lord will consider the point. The difficulty is this, that even if a person wishes to comply with the clause and applies for a licence the conditions of the licence are not apt to his application, so that the provision would not work even if he asked for a licence.
LORD STRACHIE: I think that point might be met by the regulations to be made by the Home Secretary under the Bill, but we will look into it. I have been reminded by my noble friend beside me that there will be no Report stage of this Bill, no Amendment having been made. Therefore any alteration which it may be thought desirable to make in this clause can be made on Third Reading.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We can meet that point by striking the clause out now, and then the noble Lord will have a Report stage.
LORD STRACHIE: I think it would be better that whatever is done should be done on the Third Reading.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But in that case the noble Lord would be in a difficulty if there was necessity for a subsequent adjustment. I think it would be better to strike the clause out now so as to have a Report stage.
LORD STRACHIE: If the noble Marquess presses that Amendment, I will agree to it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do.
Amendment moved—
"To omit Clause 3."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining Clauses agreed to.
The Report of Amendment to be received on Tuesday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 27.)

FERRIES (ACQUISITION BY COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Galway.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Protection of general public.
2. In the case of every ferry acquired under this Act, regulations with regard to the working may be made by the Board of Trade for the protection from injury of passengers and the general public.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: I have three small Amendments to this clause. When the Bill was before the House on a previous occasion an Amendment was inserted by Lord Russell making it permissive that regulations made under Clause 2 should be drafted by the Board of Trade. I have been in consultation with the Board of Trade in regard to this matter, and they think that it would be much more suitable in every way if the regulations were made by the county councils, who are cognisant of all the local conditions, and that these rules should then come up to the Board of Trade for confirmation. I therefore propose to strike out "Board of Trade" and insert "county council." I also propose to leave out "may" and insert "shall," which will have the effect, in the case of a county council acquiring any ferry, of compelling the county council to make rules, and they will be confirmed by the Board of Trade. According to the clause as at present drafted it is purely permissive. I also move to add a further provision at the end of the clause. I understand that the noble Viscount is prepared to accept these Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Clause 2, page 2, line 29, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall")
Clause 2, page 2, line 30, leave out ("Board of Trade") and insert ("county council")
Clause 2, page 2, line 31, after ("public") insert ("provided that no such regulations shall have any force or validity until the same have been confirmed by the Board of Trade with or without amendment. Offenders against such regulations shall be liable to such penalties, not exceeding forty shillings, as may be thereby prescribed").—(The Earl of Granard.)
VISCOUNT GALWAY: I agree that the county council, knowing the locality, will be the best authority to first make the regulations, and I accept the Amendments.
LORD KILLANIN: In the case of Ireland, will the rules drawn up by the county council be subject to the approval of the Board of Trade?
THE EARL OF GRANARD: I think the Local Government Board is the authority in Ireland.
LORD KILLANIN: Is it stated in the Bill that references to the Board of Trade shall mean the Local Government Board in Ireland?
THE EARL OF GRANARD: I think the point is provided for in Clause 4, but I will look into it before the next stage of the Bill is taken.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 28.)

APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3aTo-morrow.
ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3aTo-morrow.

PROVISIONAL COLLECTION OF TAXES BILL.
LORD STRACHIE: I understand that the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition desires that this Bill, which is down in my name for Second Reading to-day, should be put off until to-morrow. I need hardly say that we gladly assent to the postponement of the Bill to suit the noble Marquess's convenience.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I believe it was settled some days ago between the Whips on both sides that the Bill was to be taken to-morrow, and it was with surprise that we saw it on the Order Paper for to-day. I know at least one noble Lord who intends to make some observations on the Bill but who is not here tonight.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I dare say the mistake was due to the unfortunate illness of my noble friend Lord Herschell.
Second Reading put off accordingly till To-morrow.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past Five o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.