Sitting of 11 August 1913

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
For the County of Derby (Chesterfield Division), in the room of James Haslam, esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Goldstone.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Wine Privileges Abolition Bill (Standing Orders not complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 29th day of July last, That, in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have not been complied with, namely:—
Wine Privileges Abolition Bill.
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Cardiff Railway Bill [Lords],
As amended, to be considered To-morrow, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.
Limerick Harbour Commissioners Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered:—
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
King's consent signified.
Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Morley Corporation Bill [Lords],
As amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Aberystwyth Corporation Bill [Lords] (by Order),
As amended, considered; Amendments made:—
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
King's Consent signified.
Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 21) Bill,
Ordered, That any further proceedings on the Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 21) Bill be suspended in order that the same Bill may be proceeded with in the next Session of Parliament.
That, with regard to the said Bill, the Order of Presentation in the present Session shall be read, and thereupon the Bill shall be read the first and a second time pro formâ, and the Order for referring the Bill to a Committee shall be dispensed with, and the Bill ordered to be read the third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Ordered, That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to acquaint them therewith, and desire their concurrence.
Standing Orders (Private Business).
The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): I have these two or three small Amendments of Standing Orders to propose to the House. None of them involve any matter of principle. The first one is merely consequential to the Pilotage Act of last year. The second one is purely a drafting Amendment; whilst the third and fourth are to alter the time at which notices shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office from Six o'clock to Five o'clock. This latter is a matter arising from the amalgamation of the Private Bill Office and the Bill Office which has been done for reasons of economy.
Part II.—Definitions read, and amended, in page 90, line 6, after the word "power," by inserting the words "The term Provisional Order includes Pilotage Order."
Standing Order 204 read, and amended, in line 6, by inserting after the word "Bills," the words "or of any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate."
Standing Order 231 read, and amended, in line 2, by leaving out the word "six," and inserting the word "five."
Standing Order 247 read, and amended, in line 3, by leaving out the word "six," and inserting the word "five."—"[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of Reports from Universities and University Colleges in Great Britain which are in receipt of Grant from the Board of Education, 1911–12. Vols. I. and II. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (OXFORD).
Copy presented of Statute made by the Governing body of Pembroke College, Oxford, on the 23rd April, 1913 (and sealed on the same day), amending Statute 10, Clause 9, of the existing Statutes of the College [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (CAMBRIDGE).
Copy presented of Statute made by the Governing Body of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, on the 25th April, 1913 (and sealed on the same day), amending Statute 40 of the existing Statutes of the College, and adding a new Statute (Statute 40A) thereto [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (CAMBRIDGE).
Copy presented of Statute made by the University of Cambridge, and sealed on the 5th May, 1913, amending Statute A, Chapters II., III., and V., and Statute B, Chapters II., VI., and VII. of the existing Statutes of the University [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVY (OIL FUEL).
Copy presented of Admiralty Specification for Oil Fuel (1910) and the revised Specification (1912) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVAL EXPENDITURE (PRINCIPAL NAVAL POWERS).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 15th July; Mr. Chiozza Money]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of the National Health Insurance (Wales) (Deposit Contributors Administration Expenses) Order, 1913 (No. 2), dated 7th August, 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of the National Health Insurance (Further Payments to Approved Societies) (Scotland) Order (No. 3), 1913, dated 7th August, 1913, made by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners under the Act [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations, dated 7th August, 1913, made by the Treasury, entitled the National Insurance (Joint Committee) Amendment Regulations, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations dated 30th July, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Outworkers) Amendment Regulations (Wales), 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 6th August, 1913, made by the Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Scilly Isles Insurance Committee) Regulations, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 277.]

COUNTY OFFICERS AND COURTS (IRELAND) ACT, 1877.
Account presented of Receipts and Payments under the Act during the year ended 31st March, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
Copy presented of Treasury Minute, dated 6th August, 1913, granting a Retired Allowance to William Rinzee Freeman, Foreman of Baggage Stores, Royal Naval Hospital, Haslar, Admiralty, under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
Copy presented of Agricultural Statistics, 1912. Vol. XLVII. Part IV. Imports and Exports of Corn, Live Stock, and other Agricultural Produce [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Report of Proceedings at the Twenty-third Annual Meeting of Representatives of Authorities under the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1888 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 5176 to 5178 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EGYPT (No. 3A, 1913).
Copy presented of Translation of the Organic and Electoral Laws of Egypt, promulgated 21st July, 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

OLD AGE PENSIONERS AND AGED PAUPERISM.
Copy presented of Statement with regard to Old Age Pensioners and Aged Pauperism,—
Part I.—Statement showing for certain areas in England and Wales the number of Old Age Pensioners on the last Friday in March, 1912, with other particulars;
Part II.—Statements showing the results of Returns as to the number of Paupers over seventy years of age on certain dates in the years 1906, 1910, 1911, 1912, and 1913,—

(a) for Union Counties;

(b) for each Poor Law Union in England and Wales

[by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

CENSUS OF ENGLAND AND WALES, 1911.
Copy presented of Census of England and Wales, 1911. Vol. IX. Birthplaces
2038
of Persons enumerated in administrative counties, county boroughs, etc., and Ages and Occupations of Foreigners [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Census of England and Wales, 1911. Vol. X. Occupations and Industries. Parts I. and II. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Census of England and Wales, 1911. Vol. IX. Infirmities. Persons returned as totally blind, totally deaf, deaf and dumb, lunatic, imbecile, and feeble-minded [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

NAVIGATION AND SHIPPING.
Copy presented of Annual Statement of Navigation and Shipping of the United Kingdom for the year 1912, with Comparative Tables for the years 1908 to 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
STATISTICAL ABSTRACT (UNITED KINGDOM).
Copy presented of Statistical Abstract for the United Kingdom, in each of the last fifteen years, from 1898 to 1912. Sixtieth number [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA (TRADE).
Copy presented of Report to the Board of Trade on the Trade of British South Africa (and Rhodesia) for the year 1912 by His Majesty's Trade Commissioner for South Africa, Sir R Sothern Holland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
COLONIAL STATISTICS.
Copy presented of Statistical Tables relating to the several British Self-Governing Dominions, Crown Colonies, Possessions, and Protectorates. Part XXXVI., 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
COLONIAL IMPORT DUTIES, 1913.
Copy presented of Return relating to the Rates of Import Duties levied upon the principal and other Articles imported into the British Self-Governing Dominions, Crown Colonies, Possessions, and Protectorates [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
IRON AND STEEL, 1912.
Copy ordered "of Memorandum and Statistical Tables showing the Production and Consumption of Iron Ore and Pig Iron, and the Production of Steel, in the United Kingdom and the principal Foreign countries in recent years, and the Imports and Exports of certain classes of Iron and Steel Manufactures (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 402, of Session 1912–13)."—[Mr. Buxton.]
COAL TABLES, 1912.
Copy Ordered "of Statistical Tables relating to the Production, Consumption, and Imports and Exports of Coal in the British Empire and the principal Foreign countries in recent years as far as the particulars can be stated; together with Statements showing the Production of Lignite and Petroleum in the principal producing countries for a series of years (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 403, of Session 1912–13)."—[Mr. Buxton.]
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, 1912.
Copy ordered of "Memorandum and Statistical Tables showing the Production and Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages (Wine, Beer, and Spirits) in the British Empire and in the principal Foreign Countries; and the Revenue derived therefrom in recent years (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 319. of Session 1910)."—[Mr. Buxton.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:—
Local Authorities Contributions (Crystal Palace) Bill, without Amendment,
Nottingham Corporation Bill,
Westminster Hospital Bill,
Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Rail-less Electric Traction Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords],
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [Lords],
Huddersfield Corporation Bill [Lords],
Bradford Corporation Bill [Lords],
London Electric Railway Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
Amendment to—
McBride's Divorce Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

MOTOR TRAFFIC.
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. [No. 278.]

Ordered, That the Standing Orders, as amended, be printed.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.] [No. 283.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Development Fund (Dairy Farmers).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture how soon it will be possible to provide out of Grants from the Development Fund suitable bulls of a good milking strain for use in dairy districts, and thus provide an additional inducement to dairy farmers to abstain from the slaughter of immature heifer calves?
  Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury): My right hon. Friend hopes that the scheme for the improvement of live stock will be in active operation very shortly. Two expert inspectors will be appointed within the next few weeks, and detailed regulations will then be issued without delay.

  Central Chamber of Agriculture.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has received a resolution from the Central Chamber of Agriculture to the effect that an opportunity should be given to agriculturists, through the medium of their leading organisations, to consider schemes for the improvement of live stock before they are brought into operation;. and, if so, whether he proposes to comply with its terms?
  Mr. GULLAND: A resolution from the Central Chamber of Agriculture was received by my right hon. Friend on the 17th July last. It was substantially in the terms recited by the hon. Member,

  2041
  but did not contain the words "through the medium of their leading organisations." My right hon. Friend concurs generally in the views expressed in the resolution sent to him, and every opportunity has been taken, and will continue to be taken, by the Board to invite suggestions on the scheme for the improvement of live stock from the provincial councils and their live-stock committees, which are thoroughly representative of agricultural opinion in all parts of the country.

  Intermediate and Secondary Schools (Scotland).
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary for Scotland what is the total number of public intermediate and secondary schools in Scotland for the year 1912; the number of students attending; the number who receive free education; the general fee charged; the total annual cost of maintaining those schools; and the salaries paid to the head and assistant masters?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I would refer the hon. Member to my answer to his question of 2nd July. In addition to the 176 higher grade and 35 secondary schools therein referred to as being under the management of school boards there were, at the end of the year 1911–12, 21 secondary and 18 higher grade schools not under school boards but in receipt of Grants from the Scotch Education Department, making a total of 250 in all. The number of intermediate and secondary scholars on the roll was about 38,000. The number of free scholars in all the higher grade schools was about 21,500, but, as already stated, I have no information as to the number of free scholars in the secondary schools. I am unable to supply the other particulars asked for.

  Ballyhack Harbour (Ireland).
  Mr. FFRENCHasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he is aware that it was proposed to spend £900 on Ballyhack Harbour, the Wexford County Council agreeing to pay half this sum and the Department of Agriculture agreeing to pay the other half and to send their engineer to prepare plans and superintend the work; is he aware that the fishermen's boats will be in danger during the coming winter if the breakwater is not built and the other
  2042
  suggested improvements carried out; and can he say if the plans and specifications have been prepared and tenders advertised for and accepted, or if any progress whatever has been made?
  Mr. GULLAND: It is fact that preliminary plans were prepared by the Department's engineer for the improvement of the harbour at Ballyhack at an estimated cost of £900, half of which was to be provided by the Wexford County Council. Difficulties have since arisen in connection with the carrying out of the work. The Waterford harbour authority, within whose jurisdiction Ballyhack is situated, have suggested that the fairway to Waterford might be endangered unless the proposed breakwater were constructed in a much more expensive manner than appeared necessary for merely local requirements. It has not been found possible to arrange for the disposal of the dredged material without towing it a long distance to sea. The Department are endeavouring to find a way out of these difficulties.

  Factories Act (Medical Staff).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there is any intention to increase the medical staff of the Factory Department to deal with industrial diseases; whether he will consider the necessity of appointing medical referees to diagnose and report upon injuries, serious and otherwise, in cases where the victims of accidents are too poor to pay legal and medical costs; and whether he can state the number of qualified practitioners appointed in conjunction with the administration of the Factories Act and the regulations under the same?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): One medical inspector is being added to the staff, making three medical inspectors in all. Medical men are also appointed under the Act and regulations throughout the country for the purpose of examining children and young persons, inquiring into accidents and poisoning cases and examining workmen in certain dangerous industries; the number of these medical men is 2,118. I do not quite understand the second part of my hon. Friend's question. If he is referring to proceedings under the Compensation Act, a worker injured by accident is not required by that Act to obtain any medical certificate for the pur-

  2043
  pose of making a claim for compensation. A worker suffering from an industrial disease has to obtain a certificate from the certifying surgeon, but the fee is only 1s. in cases where the certifying surgeon gives the certificate on the result of the examination made by him in pursuance of his duties under the Factory Act, and 5s. in other cases; and if the worker is refused a certificate and appeals to the medical referee, the referee's fee is paid by the State. I have no evidence before me to show the need for any change in the system.

  Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (Inspectors).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Home Secretary what procedure is adopted in the appointment of the new inspectors under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, and with whom he consults as to the choice of the said inspectors?
  Mr. McKENNA: Applications have been invited by advertisement in the public Press. The Advisory Committee appointed, in accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commission, to assist me in the administration of the Act have the names of all applicants referred to them to report and advise me in the selection of the best candidates.

  Experiments on Dogs and Cats.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can see his way to afford the special protection which is now given to horses, asses, and mules to dogs and cats, as recommended by the majority of the recent Royal Commission; whether the recommendation of the Commission as to pithing has been carried out; and whether special records of experiments are now required, as recommended by the Commission?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have given my best consideration to the remarks of the Commission on the first subject—they are so qualified that they can hardly be described as a "recommendation." I am advised that legislation would be necessary to require a special certificate for experiments on dogs and cats in cases where the experiments are carried out wholly under anæsthetics, where the experiments are not wholly under anæsthetics a certificate is now required. I have accepted the recommendations of the Commission as to
  2044
  pithing and special records of experiments, and they are being carried out.

  British Federation for the Emancipation of Sweated Women.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the existence of a society known as the British Federation for the Emancipation of Sweated Women; whether he is aware that Mr. Belcher, director of the said society, has been involved in many building speculations and has been twice bankrupt, and that he has admitted that of the £3,000 received in contributions from the charitable public £1,200 has been spent in newspaper appeals for money and much of the remainder in salaries to so-called commissioners; whether he is aware that the headquarters of the federation has been the office of certain patent medicines, of which also Mr. Belcher is the proprietor, and that the federation has been repudiated by all the organisations that have to do with questions of women's employment; and, if so, whether, having regard to all the facts of the case, he will instruct the Public Prosecutor to take action with regard to the federation?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir, I had not heard of this society until my hon. Friend's question appeared on the Paper. It has not come under the notice of the Home Office or of the Metropolitan Police, but I will make inquiries.

  Suffragist Prisoner (Miss Mary Richardson).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make inquiries into the allegation of Miss Mary Richardson that, while on hunger strike in Holloway, she was told by Dr. Pearson that next time she would be kept for fourteen days until she was a skeleton and a nervous and mental wreck, and then she would be sent to an institution where they look after mental wrecks; whether there is any truth in this allegation; and, if so, whether Dr. Pearson has any authority for making the statement, and does it indicate a change of policy in respect of the treatment of hunger strikers?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir, the statements quoted in the question are wholly inaccurate. Dr. Pearson did not tell Miss Richardson that she would be kept for fourteen days, or threaten her in any way,

  2045
  but he did seriously warn her of the mischief she might do to herself, physically and mentally, by refusing food, and this warning was the more necessary as the prisoner appeared to be under the impression that a period of starvation in prison would be beneficial as a rest to her brain. It is perfectly right that any doctor, if a patient under his charge is refusing to take food, should warn her of the injury she is inflicting on herself.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: There has been no new departure at all?
  Mr. McKENNA: None at all.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: My right hon. Friend is aware that Miss Richardson has sworn an affidavit?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, I am afraid it is a case of conflict of evidence.

  Metropolitan Police.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, as the result of his further inquiries, it has been decided to take any action arising out of the sale at public meetings of a pamphlet by ex-Inspector Syme, in which the gravest charges are made against the heads of the Metropolitan Police Force and the Home Secretary; and if the Scotland Yard authorities have issued permits to ex-Inspector Syme to hold meetings at which it was known these charges would be made?
  Mr. McKENNA: The reply to the first question is in the negative. Permits to hold meetings are not issued; written notice of the meeting has to be sent to the Scotland Yard authorities, whose action is confined to seeing that the Regulations made by the Commissioner of Works are complied with, and that order is preserved at such meetings.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Are we to infer from that reply that this man is going on with these meetings?
  Mr. McKENNA: Well, Sir, I understand that the Director of Public Prosecutions has been consulted upon the point, and the conclusion to which the authorities have come is that it would not be possible to bring any action?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Is the Home Secretary aware that the obvious construction is that these charges are true, and that the Home Office dare not prosecute?
  Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend must understand that inquiries have been held more than once, and there has been a case in the Courts in which Inspector Syme's charges have been proved to be untrue.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will say how many resignations have taken place from the Metropolitan Police Force since the beginning of 1912; what was the strength of the constable force in December, 1912; how many constables had less than eight years' service; and how many less than four?
  Mr. McKENNA: The effective strength of constables on the 31st December, 1912, was 17,036. Of these, 8,973 had less than eight, and 5,128 less than four years' service. Since the 1st January, 1912, the resignations have been:—
  On pension or gratuity: Four superintendents, 91 inspectors, 139 sergeants, 628 constables.
  Voluntarily, without being entitled to pension or gratuity: One inspector, 9 sergeants, 291 constables. In addition, 23 police-constables with less than three years' service resigned as being unfit.

  Lead Poisoning (Portsmouth Gunwharf).
  Mr. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the case of Mr. Hawkins, a Government employé, Portsmouth Gunwharf, who was certified as suffering from lead poisoning by the factory inspector, and whose diagnosis was not upheld by the medical referee, will be reopened and reconsidered; if Mr. Hawkins will receive compensation, seeing that there is now no doubt as to the cause of his ill-health; and whether the registrar had the right to send Mr. Hawkins before a non-specialist doctor, however able?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): The procedure prescribed by the Workmen's Compensation Act has been followed, and Mr. Hawkins has been declared not to be suffering from any disease entitling him to compensation under that Act. The Secretary of State for War has no power to reopen consideration of the case. As regards the last part of the question, the registrar has to act in accordance with the law, and it is not for the Secretary of State for War to express any opinion on the

  2047
  matter. I may add that Mr. Hawkins has received a gratuity on discharge under the provisions of the Superannuation Act, 1887.

  Light Keepers (Pay).
  Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received Petitions from the light keepers asking for increased pay; when such Petitions were received; and what is the reason of the delay in dealing with their requests?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): The Board of Trade received letters from the general lighthouse authorities in April last recommending an increase of pay and allowances to the light keepers in their services. The grounds on which the re-commendations were based were most carefully considered by the Board, but having regard to all the circumstances and especially to the fact that an increase of pay and other benefits was granted as recently as 1909 at an annual cost of £3,155, they came to the conclusion that they were not justified in sanctioning the further increases recently proposed. With regard to the last part of the question, I have no knowledge of any delay in dealing with the matter.

  Steamship "Ophir" (Firemen and Trimmers).
  Mr. McGHEEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Royal Mail steamship "Ophir" signed a crew at Tilbury in June last; that among the crew were a large number of firemen and trimmers who were signing for their first voyage and were without experience; if he can say how many firemen and trimmers were signed on without discharge books; did one of the seamen die when the vessel was in the Red Sea; were the trimmers compelled to work six-hour shifts instead of four-hour shifts; was this owing to the incompetence of the inexperienced firemen and trimmers; was the vessel twenty-four hours late in arriving at Colombo; was this also the result of incompetence on the part of men who were on their first voyage; and will he call the attention of the owners to the number of new hands taken on the ship?
  Mr. BUXTON: Of the sixty-five firemen and trimmers engaged at Tilbury, five firemen and ten trimmers did not produce discharge books. The five firemen had
  2048
  served previously at sea, but the ten trimmers were taking their first voyage. I have no information with regard to the remaining points raised by my hon. Friend, but I am making inquiries and will communicate further with him.

  Agricultural Organisation Society (Ireland).
  Mr. PATRICK MEEHANasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will say whether the Irish Agricultural, Organisation Society have intimated their acceptance of the third condition in the Treasury letter of the 1st April, 1913; and, if not, whether this condition is being further considered by the society, or have the Treasury placed any modifications of this condition before the society for their consideration?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth District on 10th July.

  British Central Africa Railway (Blantyre to Nyassa).
  Mr. GRANTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what is the reason for delay in constructing the proposed railway from Blantyre to the Nyassa, in British Central Africa; and, if he can say when the work will be undertaken?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): It has not yet been found possible to arrange for the construction of the line in question, and I am unable to say when the work will be undertaken.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    ACCOUNTANT OFFICERS.
    Mr. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that an official representation has been laid before the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty stating the fact that during the last fifty years not one single accountant officer of the Royal Navy, exclusive of secretaries and retired officers since employed outside the Navy, has been recommended by their Lordships for any mark of distinction, and pointing out that such a state of affairs was peculiar to these officers and to no other service of any description under the Crown, and if he can give any reason for this; and if he will consider the matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The claims of all officers of the accountant branch, including secretaries, will continue to receive consideration.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    PRUDENTIAL. APPROVED SOCIETY (MEMBERS IN SCOTLAND).
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the estimated total amount of transfer value of members resident in Scotland of the Prudential approved society for men, the Prudential approved society for women, and the National Amalgamated Society, assuming average ages for the purpose?
    Mr. BENN: As I informed my hon. Friend on the 6th instant, the necessary data for a proper estimate are not available, and I fear that a calculation on the hypothesis suggested by him would be liable to prove misleading.
    Mr. J. HOGGE: Is it not a fact that the Treasury is calculating on the average age now?
    Mr. BENN: I am informed that that is not so, and that no reliable information, can be given, except after investigation in each case.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is my hon. Friend aware that for all practical purposes the number may be taken at two millions.
    Mr. BENN: I will not quarrel with my hon. Friend's estimate.

    POOR LAW MEDICAL SERVICE (IRELAND).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will say to what amount annually the cost of the Poor Law medical service in England and Wales is paid by Exchequer Grants; this being in the circumstances an equivalent to the amount spent on the Poor Law medical service in Ireland, whether Ireland's share of the 2s. 6d. per head increased expenditure for the better working of the National Insurance Act on the 800,000 persons whom the Irish Commissioners expect to have insured presently is £100,000, instead of the £50,000 offered; having regard to the distances which country doctors in Ireland have to travel, and that they are not to benefit from the proposed
    2050
    extension of medical benefit to county boroughs in Ireland, whether they will be paid the 2s. 6d. per head to which the existing law entitles them as in England and Wales; and, if not, will he, for their information, state the reasons?
    Mr. BENN: The points raised in the first part of the question are matters for argument which I am afraid I cannot carry further than I have done in my previous replies upon the subject. In the second part the hon. Member appears to ignore the fact that the payments in Great Britain to which he refers are payments not by way of endowment of the medical profession, but for services rendered in connection with medical benefit under the National Insurance Act (a benefit at present confined to Great Britain). I may, however, add that the question of an increase in the Grant of £50,000 in respect of expenses arising on account of the absence of medical benefit in Ireland is under consideration.

    OCCASIONAL OVERTIME
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the case of Watson Whiley, employed at Bowbridge Dye Works, near Stroud, in the county of Gloucester, who receives a weekly wage of 12s. for 55 hours' work, and whose weekly contribution in respect of health insurance would, but for occasional overtime, amount under Schedule II. of the National Insurance Act, 1911, to 1d. per week; whether he realises that in consequence of his doing overtime work for a single hour in the week, for which he receives 3d. extra, the sum of 3d. in lieu of 1d. is deducted from his wages in respect of health insurance, so that in effect he receives remuneration at the rate of for that hour; whether this is a correct interpretation of Schedule II. of the Act; and, if so, whether he can secure that an Amendment to the National Insurance Act (1911) Amendment Bill shall be introduced during its passage through the House of Lords in order to avoid its unfair operation in such cases in future?
    Mr. BENN: The Schedule has been correctly interpreted in the case which the hon. Member cites. Where the rate of remuneration is exactly 2s. a working day, any increase, however small, in the rate for overtime has the effect of bringing the rate for the day above the 2s. limit. No Amendment of the Act would prevent such difficulties occurring in border-line cases.

    UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
    Viscount WOLMERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the employés of Winwick County Asylum are much dissatisfied at being compulsorily insured under Part II. of the National Insurance Act; and whether, in view of the fact that these men are practically permanently employed and object to paying contributions from which they cannot expect to derive any benefit, he will grant an exemption to them under Section 107 of the National Insurance Act?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): In an application for exemption under Section 107 (4), made in July, 1912, on behalf of the employés of this asylum by one of their number, it was stated that the services of the employés could be terminated by notice given by the medical superintendent. It is not the practice to grant exemption under this Section unless the power of dismissal rests with the governing body, and not with any individual officer or officers. Subject, however, to the fulfilment of this condition, the Board of Trade will be prepared to reconsider the application in respect of the employés in question if, as I assume, they come under the provisions of the Asylum Officers' Superannuation Act, 1909.

  Cinematograph Films in Schools.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Education if he can say whether and, if so, to what extent cinematograph films are now being used in the teaching of history, geography, or other school subjects in elementary, secondary, technical, or continuation schools; and whether, failing such present use, and considering the educational value of such pictorial representations, the Board is prepared to authorise local education authorities to employ such methods of instruction within their administrative areas?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): The use of the cinematograph for purposes of class instruction is very rare in those schools which come within the cognisance of the Board, though one or two instances are known to them. Its adoption by local education authorities does not require the Board's authorisation. The Board are marking inquiries into the
  2052
  subject, but until further evidence is forthcoming they are not prepared to express any opinion on the value of this method of instruction, which, as the hon. Member is probably aware, is still a matter of controversy among educationists.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Does that reply mean that the Board of Education would not approve of the local education authorities themselves advocating the use of such films?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: The local education authorities do not require the Board's authorisation.

  British East Africa (Steamers on Victoria Nyanza).
  Mr. GRANTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the inadequacy of the steamers on the Victoria Nyanza and the railway in British East Africa to deal with the existing traffic; that the order already on hand for new boats and rolling stock is insufficient; that the existing state of affairs is so unsatisfactory that the Germans are now contemplating constructing a railway of their own to the lake; and that, if this is done, it will divert into German hands an enormous amount of carrying trade which we can retain by a forward policy at the present time; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I understand that the recent congestion at the lake ports and on the railway has been relieved. One of the new cargo steamers for the lake is expected to be launched very shortly, and the material for a second steamer is already on the spot. The new lighter-tug which is to be employed in the Kavirondo Gulf will also be launched shortly. With these new boats and the considerable amount of new rolling stock which is coming forward for delivery. I trust that it will be possible to deal temporarily with the expansion of trade. I am now considering, as I stated in my reply to the hon. Member for East Nottingham on the 18th June, what further action it is desirable and practicable to take, and I hope next year to be able to commence a considerable further expenditure for these purposes.
  Captain GILMOUR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the new rolling stock will be delivered?
  Mr. HARCOURT: No, I cannot say the date. It is going forward very rapidly.

  Trade Disputes.
  Mr. DUKEpostponed the following question, of which he had given notice: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with regard to his statement in Parliament on 23rd July, 1912, that the Government had come to the conclusion that it would be necessary to deal in the immediate future with the problem of the settlement of trade disputes, and that it was an imperative necessity for a great commercial country like ours that we should have some machinery which would prevent great trade disputes from developing to a point which would drive trade away from the country, whether His Majesty's Government has yet resolved on any legislative action for the purpose of giving effect to the determination announced by him; and whether he will be in a position at an early date to formulate legislative proposals with a view to definite action in course of the next Session of Parliament?
  Mr. DUKE: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether a later day to put the question would be more convenient this Session or early next Session?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I do not like to answer that question, but, of course, it would be more convenient next Session?

  Increment Duty.
  Mr. FREDERICK HALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the valuation for the purposes of Increment Duty in respect of the land at Bromley belonging to a working bricklayer named J. Dorling is less than the amount paid by him including interest on the purchase-money, which was paid in instalments; if so, whether, in the event of sale for the amount which the property has cost him, Dorling would be called upon to pay duty on the difference; and whether in these cases, where the interests of persons of the working class are affected, he will consider the possibility of taking special steps to explain their position clearly to them, particularly as regards the question of substituted site value, with a view to their being adequately safeguarded without recourse to legal proceedings beyond their means?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, if I may understand the
  2054
  hon. Member to refer to the assessable site value of the land as provisionally fixed. The answer to the second part is in the negative, while as regards the third part, the course indicated is one which the Revenue authorities have taken in Mr. Dorling's case and have sought, as far as possible, to follow in general.
  Mr. F. HALL:I would like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks the tactics that have been adopted with regard to this valuation are likely to encourage thrift amongst the working classes, and does he think that many of them will understand the enormous number of documents which have been sent them to fill up?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must form his own opinion, and answer his own question.

  Finance and Revenue Bills (Committee Stage).
  Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the Committee stage of the Finance and Revenue Bills has been postponed until the last week of the Session, seeing that he stated that the Budget would this year be passed at the usual time?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think there has been any unreasonable delay.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: When is it necessary to pass the Finance Bill under what I may call the "Bowles Act"?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot answer that question straight away. The hon. Member was in attendance when the Bill was discussed, and he knows as well as I do.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: But it has to be within a certain time?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I know that, and I have to see that it is within the time. I have assured myself as to that and satisfied myself.
  Mr. FELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why this stage has been postponed to the middle of August, when June is the proper time for the Committee stage of the Finance Bill?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No. If the hon. Member will look up the precedents of his own party, he will find that it has been taken at a very much later period.

  Income Tax (Dr. Elizabeth Wilks).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if on several occasions claims for the payment of Income Tax have been made upon Dr. Elizabeth Wilks, a married woman living with her husband; if distraints have been levied on her goods for the recovery of the taxes; if on one occasion the claim for the tax on her income was made on her husband, and if he was imprisoned for the non-payment of the same; if so, will he say by what legal authority the claims for the taxes were made upon Dr. Elizabeth Wilks and distraints made upon her property; and what reply does he intend to make to the claim lately submitted to him by her for the repayment of those sums exacted from her under these distraints?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answers to the first, second, and third parts of the question are in the affirmative. It has been ascertained that the claims for taxes which were made on Dr. Elizabeth Wilks, and the action taken under the authority of the District Commissioners of Taxes in connection therewith without protest at the time on the part of Dr. Wilks, should have been made on and taken against her husband, who was liable for tax on her income. No sum has been received by the Revenue on account of Dr. Wilks' income which was not due, and it would not, therefore, appear that the last part of the question arises.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Are we to understand from that reply that the distraints were illegal?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No. What happened in this case was that before she allowed her husband to pay the taxes, and this year she has avoided them altogether.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. JOHN ROCHEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will direct that an old age pension be given to Mrs. Kelly, living with her daughter within one mile of Portumna, as she is over seventy years of age, has no means, and dependent upon her daughter for support?
  Mr. GULLAND: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question on this subject on 17th March last. The Local Government Board have no power to direct that a pension be given to any person.
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, seeing that the Local Government Board for Ireland based their decision on the application of Mrs. O'Connor, Turbrin, Castlegregory, county Kerry, for an old age pension on information which was inaccurate, steps will be taken to have the case reopened and justice done to this applicant?
  Mr. GULLAND: The Local Government Board have no power to reopen consideration of any case which has been decided by them, but it is open to the claimant, in the event of any change in her circumstances, to make a fresh claim for a pension.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: If the Local Government Board Act in a case like this on information that is inaccurate can they not take steps to alter their decision?
  Mr. GULLAND: If there is a change in the circumstances she can make a fresh claim.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. AUGUSTINE ROCHEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether Messrs. Scanlan, Walsh, and Allman were appointed trustees to administer, on behalf of the people of Bandon, county Cork, two fields adjoining that town; whether these trustees have rendered any account to any authority since these lands were given into their charge; what rent have they received; and what use have they put it to?
  Mr. GULLAND: The Estates Commissioners cannot, from the particulars given, identify the case referred to.
  Mr. O'MALLEYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the maps have been lodged of the Kylemore estate, Connemara, with the Congested Districts Board with a view of sale; whether the Congested Districts Board have yet made an offer of purchase for this estate; and, if not, when an offer is to be made?
  Mr. GULLAND: The maps and other documents in connection with the estate referred to have been lodged with the Congested Districts Board, and the property will be inspected and a decision arrived at regarding purchase as soon as practicable. The Board cannot at present say when an offer will be made.
  Mr. FFRENCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that agreements were signed some five or six years

  2057
  ago by the tenants on the Jacob estate, South Wexford, under the Act of 1903; can he say what has caused the delay in issuing a vesting order; is there any money available at present for payment to those landlords who sold for cash; and, if so, can he say when the sale of the Jacob property will be completed?
  Mr. GULLAND: This estate is on the principal register of direct sales (all cash) and, having regard to the claims of other estates, the Estates Commissioners are unable to say at present when it will be reached. The money available for land purchase advances during the current financial year is allocated amongst the various classes of sales in the manner provided by the Regulations made under Section 23 (8) of the Irish Land Act, 1903, and Section 4 of the Irish Land Act, 1909.
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the dates on which the purchase agreement forms for the purchase of the estate of II. J. B. Clements, at Manorhamilton, were lodged with the Estates Commissioners; and when will the estate be vested in its order of priority?
  Mr. GULLAND: The purchase agreements referred to were lodged on 6th June, 1906. The Estates Commissioners cannot at present say when the holdings will be vested.
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that Michael McGowan, of Conwell North, Glenariffe, county Leitrim, an evicted tenant on the Johnston estate, whose name was listed for a Grant, has, through the mistake of another tenant getting his Grant, been deprived of a Grant; and whether, having regard to the insanitary condition of his dwelling house and the ill-health of his family, the Estates Commissioners would make him a Grant to enable him to repair his house and improve his position?
  Mr. GULLAND: There was no mistake in this case such as suggested in the question. Michael McGowan's application was considered by the Estates Commissioners, and, in the exercise of their discretion, they refused to make him any Grant.
  Mr. O'DOWDasked whether the tenants of the Kildina estate of Lord de Freyne, that portion situate in Clooloo, rural district of Boyle (No. 2), county Sligo, so long ago as November, 1904,
  2058
  signed purchase agreements to the effect that in lieu of turbary the rent of every tenant would be reduced by 5 per cent., the purchase money to be calculated on the basis of the reduced rent; that interest on purchase price be charged at 3½ per cent. for a period of five years, thereafter to be at the reduced rate of 3½ per cent.; whether the Congested Districts Board, in whose hands the administration of the estate now rests, have ignored this agreement duly entered into, and are still pressing for the 3½ per cent. calculated on the old rent; and, if so, what steps will be taken with a view to securing for these tenants the terms to which they are justly entitled?
  Mr. GULLAND: Under the agreement signed by the majority of the tenants on the Sligo section of this estate in November, 1904, no reference appears to a reduction of 5 per cent. off the tenants' rents in lieu of turbary in calculating the purchase price of the holdings, nor was any limit fixed for the payment of interest. The tenants agreed to pay interest at 3½ per cent. until the holdings became vested in them. The Congested Districts Board, however, hope to provide turbary for all the tenants.

  Land Commission (Report).
  Mr. FFRENCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what is the cause of the delay in publishing the Report of the Land Commission which was due on the 31st of March last; and if it will be laid upon the Table of the House before the end of the Session?
  Mr. GULLAND: The Report referred to was presented to Parliament on the 1st instant, and will, I understand, be circulated in a day or two.

  Venereal Diseases (Inquiry).
  Dr. ESMONDEasked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Government to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the causes and treatment of venereal diseases?
  Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Prime Minister whether, during his consideration of the question of appointing a Royal Commission to inquire and report on the public health aspect of venereal disease, he will consider how far it would be possible and advantageous to get other Governments to join in making such a Commission international?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The Government have agreed to institute an inquiry. Its precise terms and scope, and the character and composition of the body to be set up are still under consideration.

  Land Question (England).
  Mr. F. HALLasked the Prime Minister if the proposals put forward by the Lord Advocate for dealing with the land problem in England in the speech made by him at Brislington on the 19th July represented the views of the Government as a whole or only his own individual opinions; if the latter, whether the Government is considering any suggestion for raising agricultural wages at the expense of landowners by a compulsory reduction of farm rents to counterbalance such rise; and what course it is proposed to adopt in cases in which the rents now obtaining show a bare profit, if any, to the landlord?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that any suggestions which the Lord Advocate may have offered in the speech referred to, expressed only his own opinions. As regards the last part of the question, I am not prepared to anticipate the proposals of the Government on the subject.
  Mr. F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of introducing a Bill to disendow landowners on the same basis as the Welsh Church Disestablishment Bill?
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the hon. Member aware that if this land only pays a bare profit now if it is disendowed he will get nothing?

  Education (No. 2) Bill.
  Sir RYLAND ADKINSasked the Prime Minister whether the delay in proceeding with the Education (No. 2) Bill has been due to the notices for the rejection of the measure appearing under the names of three Members of the Opposition; and whether he has taken, or will take, steps through the usual channels to ascertain whether the Opposition will consent to the measure being taken after eleven o'clock as an uncontroversial Bill and thus permit the £100,000 voted by the House to be distributed among local education authorities in relief of the burden arising from loan charges, including those in respect of elementary education?
  The PRIME MINISTER: One reason for not proceeding with the measure is
  2060
  that, in addition to the notices appearing on the Paper, we understand that it is regarded by the Opposition as controversial. In these circumstances, I regret that it will be impossible for the Government to attempt to press it into law this Session.

  Labourers (Ireland) Acts.
  Mr. PATRICK MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland why the Local Government Board for Ireland have not yet fixed the date of the local inquiry into the housing scheme, under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, promoted by the Slievmargy Rural District Council, and embracing the erection of sixty badly needed houses in the district; and when the Local Government Board will hold the inquiry and allow the scheme to be proceeded with?
  Mr. GULLAND: The Local Government Board cannot consider the question of holding an inquiry into this scheme until they have dealt with the schemes lodged with them for other districts where the need for labourers' cottages is greater.
  Mr. P. MEEHAN: Is it not a fact that the majority of the labourers in the Slievmargy district are living in houses that have been condemned as unfit for human habitation and is this not sufficient to show the urgency of the inquiry?
  Mr. GULLAND: I will bring the facts stated by the hon. Gentleman before my right hon. Friend's attention.

  St. Joseph's Girls' Orphanage, Dublin.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the arrangements being made by or on behalf of the managers of St. Joseph's Girls' Orphanage, Mountjoy Street, Dublin, for the holding of a public lottery to raise funds for that institution; whether more than 50,000 notices of the lottery have been issued broadcast to the public through the post describing a large number of prizes to be drawn, of which several consist of sums of money, and intimating that cheques and Post Office orders for the purchase of tickets should be made payable to Mrs. Farrell, superioress of the institution and that the winning numbers will be published in the "Freeman's Journal" of the 12th September, 1913; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter?
  Mr. GULLAND: The attention of my right hon. Friend has been called to this matter. The facts appear to be as stated in the question. In accordance with the advice of successive Law Officers in Ireland that lotteries held for charitable or religious purposes should not be interfered with it is not proposed to take any action in this case.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    ROSS-SHIRE MOUNTAIN BATTERY.
    Mr. MACPHERSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, after their annual training, the left section Ross-shire Mountain Battery left Barry for Stornoway at 9.30 p.m. on the 25th July and reached Inverness at 6.30 a.m, on the 26th July; that there the corporal and two privates left the train, there being no order against it, to see relatives, and proceeded by the ordinary day train to Kyle of Lochalsh, for Stornoway, an hour or two afterwards; that on arrival at Kyle of Lochalsh the officer commanding the Stornoway contingent, who was awaiting the train, took the corporal to a waiting room and divested him of his stripes without even asking for an explanation; and whether, in view of the fact that there was no semblance of a trial before this peremptory action was taken and that local feeling on account of it has been aroused, he will have inquiries made and this action corrected?
    Mr. TENNANT: The report on this case has not yet reached the War Office.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Is my hon. Friend aware that I gave notice of this question ten days ago, and that I was promised an immediate reply, and will he, in view of the urgency of the matter, see that I get an answer before the end of the Session?
    Mr. TENNANT: I was not aware of that fact, but I will do my best to expedite the matter.
    Mr. HOGGE: Why does it take longer to get a reply to this question than it took to deprive this man of his stripes?

    PLYMOUTH GARRISON.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the Secretary of State for War (1) how many permanent passes granting permission too men below the rank of colour-sergeant to wear plain clothes within the limits of the garrison were in force in the Plymouth district in 1912–13 under the provisions of the Plymouth Garrison Standing
    2062
    Orders; of these permanent passes, how many instances were reported of an abuse of the privileges accorded; and (2) if he will consider the advisability of excluding the port of Plymouth from the Southern Command Order 404 and of permitting Plymouth Garrison Standing Orders, 1912, to be again put into force, owing to the fact that the port of Plymouth is a big naval station and that sailors have extensive privileges as regards plain clothes?
    Mr. TENNANT: The General Officer Commanding-in-Chief has been requested to furnish a report.

  Licensed Motor Vehicles (Adviser to Commissioner of Police).
  Mr. F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Mr. W. Worby Beaumont, who acts as adviser to the Commissioner of Police in regard to the construction of licensed motor vehicles, is also consulting engineer to any omnibus company running licensed vehicles in the Metropolitan Police area; if so, the dates when he took up these respective positions; what are the duties he performs in regard to motor vehicles, and do these duties include the supervision of tramcar design; if Mr. Beaumont has expressed any opinion as to the advantages or disadvantages of tramways as a means of urban street transit; and, if so, whether this opinion was expressed in his capacity as adviser to the police or adviser to the omnibus companies?
  Mr. McKENNA: Mr. Worby Beaumont has been adviser to the Commissioner of Police in regard to the construction of licensed motor vehicles since December, 1905. His duties, which are advisory only, do not include the supervision of tramcar or of omnibus or cab design; but he is consulted on technical engineering points affecting the construction of cabs and omnibuses, and occasionally of tramcars. I believe that Mr. Beaumont has for many years given public expression to his personal views as to the advantages or disadvantages of various means of street transit, but these are his personal views only, and he has not been asked to express any opinion in an official capacity. Mr. Beaumont at the time of his appointment as adviser to the Commissioner of Police was, I believe, already consulting engineer to all the motor omnibus companies then plying in London, and also to various tramway undertakings in London and elsewhere.
  Mr. F. HALL: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks it advisable in the interests of the travelling public that a gentleman who is a consulting officer of an omnibus company should be appointed as adviser to the Commissioner of Police?
  Mr. McKENNA: The gentleman in question was consultant to an omnibus company, a tramway company and various companies, but, if you are to have an expert who is a master of his subject, it is inevitable that he should be a person employed by companies.
  Mr. F. HALL: Would it not be possible to have an altogether independent authority at the Police Office?
  Mr. McKENNA: You could only have an independent authority, not employed by omnibus and tramway companies, if you had someone whom it was not considered expedient by the outside public to employ. He would not otherwise acquire his knowledge.

  San Francisco Exhibition.
  Mr. GIBBSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether an official refusal has been given to the invitation to participate in the Panama Exhibition at San Francisco; and, if so, the reasons for withholding official recognition; and whether, in view of the importance attached to this exhibition by the American people, the Board will reconsider its decision in this matter?
  Mr. BUXTON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on the 5th instant by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, of which I am sending him a copy. My right hon. Friend asks me to say that, through a mistake, the answer supplied to and reported in the Press was incomplete. The full answer, as given, will be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT for the 5th instant, column 1246.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONARLAW: May I ask the Prime Minister what business it is proposed to take late to-night?
  The PRIME MINISTER: We proposed to take the two Orders dealing with the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill; the Telegraph (Money) Bill, Third Reading; and the two Orders with regard to the Public Works Loans Bill. Then we hope it may be possible by arrangement to pass the Second Reading of the seven Charity Bills on the Paper.
  Mr. MORRELL: May I ask the Prime Minister whether there is any truth in the statement which has appeared in the Press that the Government contemplate dropping the Revenue Bill or any Clause of the Revenue Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Bill is coming on later, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deal with it.

REVENUE BILL.
Further considered in Committee.—[Progress, 1st August.]
Reversion Duty.

REVENUE BILL.

  CLAUSE 8.—(Duty to Deliver Account for the Purposes of Reversion Duty.)
  (1) Section fifteen of the principal Act shall be read as if the following Subsections were substituted for Sub-sections (2) and (3) thereot:—
  "(2) Every lessor shall, on the determination of a lease the original term of which exceeded twenty-one years, deliver an account to the Commissioners setting forth the particulars of the land and the estimated value of the benefit (if any) accruing to the lessor by the determination of the lease.
  "(3) If any person who is under an obligation to deliver an account under this Section fails to deliver such an account within a period of three months after the determination of the lease, he shall he liable to pay to His Majesty a sum not exceeding ten per cent. upon the amount of any Reversion Duty payable under this Act, or, if no such duty is payable, ten
  2074
  pounds and the like penalty for every three months after the first month during which the failure continues."
  Several hon. Members had given notice of a Motion to postpone Clause 8 till after Clause 11.
  The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division (Mr. Dundas White) and others to postpone Clause 8 till after Clause 11, I ought to point out that a Motion to postpone a Clause ought to be to postpone it to the end of the other Clauses and not till a particular place in the Bill. I apprehend, however, that its purpose is to ask the Government for a statement with regard to the further Clauses of the Bill. That would not be in order on a Motion to postpone the Clause, and I would suggest that the hon. Member should substitute for it a Motion to report Progress.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  I make this Motion in order to ascertain the position in which we stand. I may say that my hon. Friends and I have put down the Motion which stands on the Paper in order to raise at the earliest moment the question of the attitude which hon. Members of the Opposition in particular are taking upon Clause 11. Our position has been plain and simple from the outset. We have made it perfectly clear that we hold strong views in favour of Clause 11. We regard it as the most important Clause in the Bill, and it is the only one for which we have any desire. It was in view of the importance of Clause 11 from our point of view that we raised no objection on the Second Reading and that the Second Reading was obtained very easily. When the measure came up for the Committee stage the same thing happened. We raised practically no objection to it. I took the opportunity of pointing out that we regarded Clause 11 as an extremely important Clause, and, owing to the impression we received from what was said on both those occasions, we practically raised no objection to the other Clauses, and not only was the Second Reading passed, but Clauses 1 to 7 were also obtained. I think our impressions were quite justified by what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman). It will be within the recollection of the House that when the Bill came up for

  2075
  Second Reading, instead of the Speaker calling upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he called upon the hon. and gallant Member, who raised no point of Order till after he had spoken eleven or twelve columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT. He then raised a point of Order with reference to Clause 6. On that Mr. Speaker pointed out that, when he called on the hon. Member, he thought he had intended to raise a point of Order, and it was obviously inconvenient to raise a point of Order in the middle of a speech. The point of Order that had been raised was with reference to Clause 6. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said:—
  "That is my point. My hope was that it would not affect the existence of the Bill or the Clause."
  Thereupon Mr. Speaker again said:—
  "It is not desirable to introduce points of Order like this. It will be better for the right hon. Gentleman to reply to the hon. Gentleman in the course of his later reply."
  Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman again said:—
  "There is also a point of Order on Clause 11. I do not know whether or not it will be proper to raise it now."
  I ask the House to remember that the hon. and gallant Gentleman said this after he had already spoken ten or twelve columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT. Mr. Speaker thereupon added: —
  "It is more convenient, as I indicated just now, not to have points of Order put in the middle of a speech, but at the beginning. I waited for some little time when the hon. and gallant Gentleman rose to see whether he was going to raise his points, but he did not. Preliminary objections of this sort should be taken before the Debate proceeds.
  Then Mr. Pretyman rejoined:—
  "I thought, Sir, it was better to raise it when I came to the Clause."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 20th July, 1913, col. 320.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer in dealing with Clause 11, later on, with the question of what I may call the retrospective period in the matter of improvements, indicated that it might be possible to give an extension from thirty years to fifty years. In these circumstances we, on these benches, had no doubt about the Clause being safe. A similar course was taken when we came to the beginning of the Committee stage. There, again, the hon. and gallant Gentleman moved to report Progress in order to put himself in order to deal with various points. He asked about Clause 11 and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on coming to that Clause, in view of the criticisms passed during the Second Reading Discussion, it might pos-
  2076
  sibly be it was not a fair limit, more especially so far as drainage was concerned, and their present view was that they might extend it to fifty years. To that the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs (Sir George Younger) said, "Not enough." My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer remarked that that was all he had to say at present, but he gave an indication that there must be a record made of the improvements for fifty years. There is one other point to which I would like to, call the attention of the House and it was the concluding observation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in which he said he only desired to indicate to the House and to ask whether the Clause was within the scope of the Bill. We understood naturally that the Clause might be considered safe subject to the Amendments foreshadowed by my right hon. Friend, but in view of what has happened since then on this Clause, it seems not improbable that the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his Friends will ask that it be dropped. In these circumstances it is only right to raise the question at the outset, and while I have no authority to speak for the hon. Member for Edinburgh, the Chairman of the Land Values Group, I do say for myself, and I think I can say it for him and his Friends, that we regard this Clause as a very important Clause and as, indeed, a Clause which is the saving of the Bill. We can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his Friends, if they think that by taking the course they are taking they are going to get the particular Clause they want and to drop the particular Clause we want—
  The CHAIRMAN: A question of this sort is only allowable to draw a statement from the Government, and not to raise questions of general controversy. We cannot allow a Second Reading Debate.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: I bow to your ruling. I will put the matter in this way: We really want to know what the intentions of the Government are in regard to this Clause. We have all along regarded it as an integral part of the Bill, and if it is the desire of this House that this Bill should pass, our desire is that Clause 11 should be in it. We should like to be assured that the Government are prepared to regard Clause 11 as an integral part of the Bill and to insist upon it as well as on the other Clauses. That is the question my hon. Friend and I wish to raise. We see breakers ahead, and we consider ourselves bound to take those steps which any Members of this House naturally

  2077
  would take to frustrate a proposal such as would appear from the Opposition Press to be contemplated in certain quarters. Our object is to secure Clause 11 being retained in this Bill. We want the Government to regard it as part and parcel of the measure, and if they will do that we see no difficulty in the Bill passing very shortly.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Not with the Clause as it now stands.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: I do not say necessarily as it stands, because my right hon. Friend has foreshadowed an extension from thirty years to fifty years, but I would suggest that it be passed subject to certain small and not unreasonable Amendments which have been indicated. We want to know whether or not we can have the Clause in substance. It is because of rumours that we have heard on this point that I am rising to give my right hon. Friend an opportunity of telling the Committee exactly how matters stand at the earliest posible moment.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): My hon. Friend has asked me a number of questions. I think it is rather for the Government to ask him and his Friends what their intentions are with regard to this Bill. It is perfectly clear the Bill can only pass as a non-contentious measure. Anyone looking at the Order Paper, and seeing about thirty pages of Amendments, must realise that if hon. Members who have put the Amendments down intend to persist in them it will be quite impossible to carry the Bill. The Prime Minister three weeks ago, in making his statement with regard to the business it was intended to proceed with, made it quite clear to the House that this Bill could only be treated as a non-contentious measure. There was a great deal of pressure brought to bear by both sides of the House upon him to get the Bill through, but the right hon. Gentleman, while promising to find some little time, indicated on that occasion that he could not find time for a Parliamentary struggle to be prolonged over several days. The Revenue Bill is a Bill which lends itself to such a struggle. You can move Amendments to every part, and to every law which affects the collection of the revenue of this country, and you could cover the Order Paper with even more Amendments that the ingenuity of my hon. Friends has enabled them to
  2078
  devise. What I would like to elicit before this Debate goes on is whether it is intended to treat Clause 11, on the one hand, as contentious or, on the other hand, to treat its omission as contentious. I had some discussion with the hon. and gallant Gentleman and I told him quite clearly that the Bill cannot go through if there is any opposition to any part. I do not mean to say if there are Amendments which can be discussed shortly, but if any part of the Bill is to be treated as really contentious we cannot possibly get it through. The hon. and gallant Gentleman intimated that, if Clause 11 were dropped, he would not regard the remainder of the Bill as contentious, subject to certain Amendments being made in other parts.
  I understood from my hon. Friends sitting below the Gangway that they did not consider Clause 11 as satisfying their requirements at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Sir W. Byles) bears me out in that view. As a matter of fact, a letter appeared from the United Committee for the Taxation of Land Values, which criticised the Clause and showed that, from their point of view, it was not regarded as satisfactory at all. Seeing that hon. Members on this side of the House who pressed the Government were not satisfied with the Clause, and seeing that hon. Gentlemen opposite opposed the Clause, 1 thought there would be the most perfect unanimity about dropping it. When the first intimation was given that the Clause was to be dropped, at once its merits were appreciated. It is a little belated to discover merits in the Clause. I entered into an arrangement with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I took it that it was a Clause which did not commend itself to the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his Friends, and that it was not a Clause the beauties of which were appreciated by my hon. Friends below the Gangway. Inasmuch as I discovered that the rest of the Bill commended itself to the vast majority of the Members of the House, I thought the best thing to do was to carry the Bill through seeing that it was late in the Session without the Clause, I will not call it the obnoxious Clause, but the Clause which was not acceptable to anyone. That was the arrangement I made. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman holds me to it, I shall stand by it. I regard it as a Parliamentray arrangement, and I must stand by it. I could not go back upon it. Therefore,

  2079
  the position is this: If Clause 11 is regarded as contentious by the Opposition, the Bill cannot go through, and if the dropping of Clause 11 is regarded as contentious by my hon. Friends, there again the Bill must be dropped. My suggestion is this. I do not despair, even now of passing the Bill, seeing that the bulk of it commends itself to every section in the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] At any rate, I think I can say that the bulk of the Bill commends itself to the vast majority. I think that is true of both sides. I know that certain of my hon. Friends rather protest against parts of the Bill, because they think I have gone too far in the direction of concessions. I promised Clause 11, or something of this sort, earlier in the Session, and definitely promised it. I thought I had redeemed that promise. My hon. Friends do not think I have done so. I never thought it possible to carry through a contentious Revenue Bill late in the Session. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members opposite think it ought to have been introduced earlier in the Session. That is a criticism which hon. Gentlemen are perfectly entitled to put forward. That is another matter, which raises issues of a very different character, that do not appear to be in order upon this particular Motion. What I suggest is this: That the Motion to report Progress should be assented to. Unless the hon. and gallant Gentleman can see his way to reconsider his decision with regard to Clause 11, I must be held to the arrangement I made with him, and I stand by it. Therefore, it rests with him, so far as I understand it. [HON. MEMBERS: "And with your hon. Friends."] I have so put it to them. The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that I have put it before them. I suggest that Progress should be reported and that we should go on with the next business, and during the next twenty-four hours—
  Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: Will you take this Bill to-morrow?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think it will be easy to take it to-morrow. For the moment we will put it down for tomorrow in the hope that during the next twenty-four hours reason will prevail on both sides, and that we may be able to arrive at some decision. I do not want to tie the hon. and gallant Gentleman at this point. I am sure he is quite prepared—
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman does not mean to suggest that my hon. and gallant Friend has not been reasonable. The right hon. Gentleman made that agreement himself.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, no. The right hon. Gentleman is a little too sharp there, if I may say so. I do not think he has been reasonable in regard to Clause 11, but I do not want to discuss that. I am in the hands of the Opposition. They were in a position to dictate terms so far as the Bill was concerned, and I accepted them. I do not think I can say that the attitude of the Opposition is a reasonable one. I cannot discuss that now, because it is not relevant to the Motion. For the moment; I can do nothing except to assent to the Motion, because it is unreasonable to go on ploughing through the Amendments. I suppose most of them are in order, and it would be possible to move an interminable series of Amendments which would be in order. We should only be wasting time to proceed at this stage. Therefore I assent, on behalf of the Government, to the Motion to report Progress.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer certainly put his finger on the Government's weak place when he remarked that these difficulties were largely due to the time of the Session at which the Revenue Bill has now been introduced. This is what we always contended would occur. The real difficulty with which we are faced is not the difficulty raised by hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, nor the difficulty raised from this side of the House; it is the difficulty of time. For that the Government are wholly responsible, and they cannot divest themselves of their responsibility. I want to make that point perfectly clear. As to the issue raised by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman who spoke before him, the right hon. Gentleman, most unjustly, as he knows perfectly well, has not put the case fairly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I do not wish to put it higher than that he has not put the case fairly when he indicates to the House, as I think he did indicate, that the whole of the opposition to Clause 11 proceeds from this side of the House. He is perfectly well aware that there is a large section of hon. Gentlemen opposite who object to Clause 11 just as strongly as we do. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Can the

  2081
  Chancellor of the Exchequer deny that? He does not deny it.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If I did not say so, I meant to say so. I was under the impression that I had said so. [HON. MEMBERS: "You did say so."]
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer most carefully, and if he did say so I do not think the House understood it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer threw the whole onus as to the opposition to Clause 11 upon me personally, and upon the Opposition.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am perfectly certain that I said it was a Clause which did not seem to be acceptable in any quarter of the House.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: You laid all the blame upon us.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No. On the contrary, I said that my hon. Friends below the Gangway objected to it, and I quoted a letter about which the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows something, and I said it did not appear to me that it was acceptable in any quarter of the House.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Up to that portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech I have no quarrel with him, but in the last phrase he used he repeated two or three times words which were intended to throw the whole onus of the opposition to Clause 11 upon this side of the House. I will therefore bring him back to what be said in the earlier part of his speech, in which he stated that on both sides of the House there was serious objection to Clause 11. Let us put it on that ground, which is fairer to everyone in the House. So far as the rest of the Revenue Bill is concerned, it deals with particular hardships, which are recognised as hardships on both sides of the House, arising out of particular cases under the Land Taxes of the Finance Act, 1909–10. Amendments have been agreed between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and hon. Gentlemen which meet with almost universal approval on both sides of the House. These Amendments are uncontroversial in this sense, that we have undertaken on this side of the House that where an Amendment is not accepted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, however desirable we may think it, we will confine ourselves to shortly stating our case; we shall not press them, and we shall do nothing, in regard
  2082
  to our desire for further concessions, to restrict or in any way to obstruct the passage of the Bill in its present form as agreed to between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ourselves. The only point, therefore, which arises is Clause 11. Clause 11 raised the whole vexed question of valuation. I think it extremely doubtful whether it is in order at all. Our objection to Clause 11 is not an objection to the objects which Clause 11 purports to be framed to carry out, but is an objection to the Clause as it stands, an objection to passing a sixth value upon five values, already difficult to ascertain, on agricultural land. It must open up the whole question, and it is quite obvious that, taking the views of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway as they have been stated here, taking our views and the views of hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway representing agriculture on the other side, it is perfectly clear that two or three days of acute discussion would be required to frame a satisfactory Clause.
  When I suggest that Clause 11 should be dropped, my attitude is simply this: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has definitely undertaken to introduce a Revenue Bill and to carry it through its further stages fairly early next Session. I have also in mind the Prime Minister's statement that this Bill could not possibly pass if controversial matter were introduced into it. Clause 11 is, and must be, highly controversial, and therefore, in the interests of the rest of the Bill, my suggestion is that both sides—we taking one view of Clause 11 and hon. Gentlemen opposite taking the opposite view—should be content to postpone our differences upon that question till next Session and not to drop the Clause in the sense that it is dropped entirely, but postpone it till next Session, when the Government will be bound to give us the necessary time to discuss this very difficult question of valuation. Surely we can agree to drop tins controversial Clause, which it is hopeless to come to an agreement upon in the time at our disposal, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite persist in the course they have adopted, litigation will continue to fall upon thou sands of innocent people. We, on this side of the House, are bound to the country to look to this question of valuation carefully, and we cannot allow a slipshod Clause to go through the House without proper discussion on that question of agricultural valuation, which is of

  2083
  enormous importance, without discussion, and we ask that the Clause should be postponed and that the Bill should be allowed now to go through in its uncontroversial form, and relief should be afforded to these small owners and builders from one end of the country to the other. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on behalf of these people—there is no concession in the Bill to big owners particularly; it is a concession to small people under £160—whether they cannot postpone their desire to discuss valuation until next year, and allow the uncontroversial Bill to go through. Of course, if hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway refuse to modify the attitude which they have taken up we can do nothing but assent to the proposal that Progress should be reported for one more day, but the matter should certainly be settled. It is a very great inconvenience for hon. Gentlemen on both sides to be kept here, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to make up his mind before this time to-morrow what attitude he proposes to take, but our attitude cannot be modified.
  Mr. PRICE: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has very truly declared that this Bill, when it was first introduced, was looked upon as a non-controversial measure. We assented to it, and we still assent. The first six or seven Clauses contain matters which many of us did not like; we thought we were giving away a great deal more than we need, but we were quite content to let that pass, because we had Clause 11 which we were assured would pass. If, abstaining from doing anything to interfere with the Government or to interfere with what the hon. Gentleman and his friends and some of those on this side of the House wanted, we allowed this Clause to pass, we should have practically a non - contentious measure. It has now been intimated that Clause 11 is to be dropped. If Clause 11 is dropped it will be a contentious measure. The reason it was non-contentious was because it contained that very valuable Clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has declared that when we first saw that Clause, we declared our dissatisfaction with it. That is perfectly true. I understand some of my Friends wrote to the Chancellor of Exchequer, stating that they did not agree with that Clause at all.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I said a letter appeared in the papers.
  Mr. PRICE: They said the Clause was not quite what they wanted. I myself said it was not a satisfactory Clause, and the right hon. Gentleman intimated that the Clause was substantially what we wanted. After reflection and consultation we came to the conclusion that it was better to accept the Clause as it was, even though it was not quite all that we wanted. I think that is a fair statement of the case.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not want my hon. Friend to give an impression that he does not want to give. He never intimated this decision to me.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. PRICE: I made use of the ordinary channels. I saw the Chief Whip. If Clause 11 is dropped the Clause would be very strongly opposed. The hon. Member for Chelmsford intimated that things had gone very smoothly until we came to this Clause. That is perfectly true. The hon. Member was getting all he wanted, and he had nothing to complain of, but he will have much to complain of if we do not get our part of the Bill. The measure was treated from the beginning as non-controversial, because we had Clause 11 it. Now the hon. Member wants to proceed with the Bill without that Clause. The Bill was well balanced between contending parties, but if in the middle of carrying out the contract you alter the Bill, I say it is unfair. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says. "We have got all we want, and you will get what you want next year." What guarantee have we that we will? It is not quite fair after six or seven Clauses have been passed to intimate that the bargain that was entered into is to be departed from. On behalf of my Friends and myself I say that unless we get Clause 11, we shall not look upon the Bill as non-contentious.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member (Mr. Price) has thrown some light on the various Clauses of the Bill which is valuable. Clause 11 was submitted at an earlier stage by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a concession to the Opposition. It appears that it was not a concession to the Opposition, but a bribe to the hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Gentleman speaks of the Bill as it stands as a well-balanced measure. I am not quite certain, but I think I understand what he means. There is a great deal he objects to in the earlier Clauses on the ground that it is unjust. He says that more is given away than ought to be given

  2085
  Away—I presume, therefore, more than justice demands. Does the hon. Gentleman object to my inference?
  Mr. PRICE: My point was this: When you have a measure which gives something to hon. Members on the other side of the House, and something to hon. Members on this side, and when it is asked that the measure should be treated as non-contentious, it is not for an hon. Member on the other side to get up and say that it is a non-contentious measure while asking that Clause 11 should be dropped.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman speaks as if the only people affected by the Bill were the hon. Member himself and my hon. Friends. That is not a useful basis on which to proceed, nor does it tend to the best interests of the country. Hon. Members' view is that they may give up a great deal of what is just and fair, if only my hon. and gallant Friend will in the name of other people submit to what he considers a grave injustice. Some barrister, I forget who it was, defended trial by jury by stating that although he had lost a great, many cases which he ought to have won, still he had won a great many cases which he ought to have lost, and therefore on the whole justice had been done. I have never heard any principle of reasoning quite comparable to that of the hon. Gentleman. I will leave to hon. Members that special point, and turn to the position, not of this or that Member, but of the House at large in regard to this matter. I think the House is in a position of some difficulty, and in danger of no little discredit. If hon. Members will permit me, speaking not merely for the Opposition, but for the House at large, I will say that hon. Members accepted with goodwill, and, I think, with eagerness, wherever they were sitting. seven Clauses of the amended provisions intended to remove hardships from which various classes of the community are suffering, or to remove obstacles which impede the provision of small houses, and the whole of this work is now in jeopardy because a small group in this House refuse to assent to the arrangement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made with my; hon. and gallant Friend (Mr. Pretyman), because the Bill is only proceeded with at a time of the Session when any small minority can wreck it, if they are not satisfied.
  Under what circumstances did this Revenue Bill take its rise? The Chan-
  2086
  cellor of the Exchequer explained that they had to proceed rapidly with the taxing provisions of the Finance Bill, under the provisions of the Collection of Taxes Act, and that he could not give time earlier for this Bill. It is a curious commentary on that, that here we are now in the last week of the Session, I presume, and we have not yet got through Committee the Taxing Bill. The whole object of the Collection of Taxes Act was to have the Taxing Bill earlier, but we have not discussed it yet. The Revenue Bill was to give us the opportunity for full and free discussion of those points which the urgency in passing the Finance Bill prevented our having in connection with it. Now what is the position? Here is this Bill, in the main an agreed Bill, giving relief to large numbers of people in this country, and the whole is to be dropped, not because the sense of the majority of Members, on whichever side they sit, is not perfectly clear, but only because the Government have held off the discussion until a time, when they cannot afford to give it free discussion. It is to be dropped because it cannot be discussed, unless the House at large pays blackmail to a small number on the opposite side.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: Is the phrase which the right hon. Gentleman has just used in order?
  The CHAIRMAN: The phrase, I am afraid, has more than once before been used metaphorically, and applied to a number of hon. Members; if applied to an individual it would be out of order.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think I was right in saying that the House is in a position of great difficulty, and in danger of not a little discredit. The opinion of an overwhelming majority is to be overruled by a small group. The only way in which that can be avoided is by the Government giving time. I do not say that any of us are fit, Government or Opposition, to prolong the Session now, and, Heaven knows, it is the last thing I desire, but I do say that we were entitled to expect that this Bill would have been introduced earlier, and that more time, before the last week of the Session, would have been allowed for its consideration. I do say that it is not only essential, but that there is an obligation on the Government to reintroduce the Bill early next Session.
  Sir FREDERICK CAWLEY: I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not pay

  2087
  too much attention to the small, aggressive, and very articulate group of the party who sit below the Gangway. If the Bill had been brought in earlier in the Session, I am sure that a very large number of Liberal Members would have been very glad if Clause 11 had been dropped. I will not use the word blackmail, but I do say it is a grossly selfish thing for a small body of. Members to try to prevent the alleviation of an injustice from which thousands of people are suffering in order that they may get in a small minor principle by a side wind on Clause 11. I have been in this House a good many years, and I have never myself seen anything so grossly selfish as the way in which a small party are behaving in this matter. They think only of themselves, and they think at the same time that they may get some advantage by the inconvenience which so many people are suffering from. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will press forward this Bill, and drop Clause 11.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: May I suggest to my hon. Friend (Sir F. Cawley) that one way of preventing people from coming to an arrangement of any sort is to have speeches like that which he has delivered. Therefore, I really ask my hon. Friends to assent to the Motion to report. Progress and see what can be done within the next twenty-four hours. I make the appeal, whatever may be their opinions in the matter, that they should endeavour to restrain themselves for twenty-four hours so that something might be attempted in the meantime. It will be utterly impossible to come to an arrangement if mutual recriminations are to take place during this discussion. I have only to say a word in reply to the hon. and gallant Member opposite. I think when his attention was called to the facts he might have withdrawn the statement he made that I was deliberately unfair in what I said.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I withdraw that.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: With regard to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), I have to say that he knows perfectly well what the conditions are. He raises an issue which, is a very large order. It is no fault of ours that two or three Bills had to be reintroduced this year. It was not the House of Commons that threw them out, and we were obliged to occupy a considerable amount of time.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Chancellor of Exchequer quite rightly began his speech by deprecating the time being occupied in mutual recriminations. It is the custom of the Chair always to allow latitude on a Motion to report Progress, because it will facilitate business later on. But this is not an occasion for recriminations or anything of that sort.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am very much obliged to you for pulling me up, for I do not think it would conduce to the harmonious conclusion of the Debate to pursue that line. May I appeal now to hon. Members who have an interest in Clause 11, or any other part of the Bill, to assent to report Progress and see what can be done later on.
  Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: I wish to say that we on this side regret the necessity of proposing that this Bill should be postponed until to-morrow. The right hon. Gentleman, on the Second Reading Debate, placed upon myself the responsibility of doing something to remedy the injustice which was done last year. I have come here at great inconvenience to-day to deal with the matter, and it might not be possible to come later on.
  The CHAIRMAN: It is not desirable to continue this discussion. It is out of order on a Motion to report Progress to go into matters that have been referred to. It is merely a business discussion of what the proposals of the Government are.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I would appeal to the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Price) and other hon. Members in that portion of the House to have regard to the nature of the Bill which is in jeopardy at this moment. I desire to repudiate the suggestion that the Bill is offered in any way as a sop to His Majesty's Opposition. There were quite as many representations made to my right hon. Friend front this side of the House as from the other side. It is a great pity that the small and dwindling group—
  The CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow this sort of Debate to continue on a Motion for Adjournment.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: What is in jeopardy is not a concession to the Opposition, but a concession to justice, and not only one concession to justice, but several, and concessions which affect not only

  2089
  hundreds or thousands, but hundreds of thousands.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Have I a right to reply to this?
  The CHAIRMAN: That is just the point. It involves, as the hon. Member will now see, a discussion not only of further Clauses of the Bill, but also of the Clauses which have been dealt with That I cannot permit. I think that hon. Members ought to consent to allow the Question to be put now.
  Mr. BOOTHrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
  Original Question put accordingly, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Tuesday.)

FINANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

FINANCE BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Duty on Tea.)
  The duty of Customs payable on tea until the first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirteen, under the Finance Act, 1912, shall continue to be charged, levied, and paid until the first day of July, nineteen hundred and fourteen, on the importation thereof into Great Britain or Ireland (that is to say):—

  Tea, the pound

  …

  …

  fivepence.

  Viscount WOLMER: I beg to move, to leave out the words ["Tea, the pound—fivepence,"], and to insert instead thereof the words:—

  "Tea (if grown within the British Empire), the pound

  threepence.

  Tea (if grown in any foreign country), the pound

  fivepence."

  The object of this Amendment is to take 2d. off the duty on tea that is grown within the British Empire, leaving the existing duty on the tea grown outside. I trust that I shall secure for it the support not only of those Members who believe in Imperial preference, but also of those who desire to mitigate the existing food
  2090
  taxes in this country. My proposal does not represent the utmost limit to which I should like to go in this direction. I would prefer to take more than 2d. off the tea grown in the British Empire, but I thought it only reasonable to propose an alteration of the Budget that would not involve a greater loss to the revenue than the Chancellor of the Exchequer could replace in the Budget before the House. In matters of this kind, caution is, no doubt, the safest policy. The question of where the revenue, which disappears owing to this remission of taxation, is to be replaced is not the question at issue at all. It is estimated that this Amendment will cost the revenue about £2,000,000 a year. Of course, if the Unionist party were in power that deficiency would be made good by Tariff Reform.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLES: Bread taxes.
  Viscount WOLMER: No; by a tax on foreign manufactured goods. If the Members of the Labour party came into office they doubtless are of opinion that they could raise the money by some Socialistic proposal; but the question of where the revenue is to come from is not raised by this Amendment. The only question before the House is whether the House does desire the high Tea Duty to continue. Therefore I hope that I shall be fortunate enough to secure the support of very many hon. Members opposite. The Tea Duty, unlike a protective duty falls wholly upon the consumer. The imposition of 5d. on the pound does not help a single industry or a single individual in the whole of this country. It does nothing to stimulate production or to benefit trade. It is a pure unalloyed and unrelieved tax on the food of the people of this country. It is absurd to say that the Tea Tax is not a Food Tax. Unless you take the view that the food of the people should be confined to bread and water, tea is as much a food as any other commodity. It is an article of universal consumption. There is hardly a humble home in the country which does not have a tea bill that bears a considerable relation to its total budget, and tea is one of the most highly priced petty luxuries that the poor people of this country have. The tea consumed in this country comes mainly from two sources, India and Ceylon in the first place, and also from China. The Indian tea, generally speaking, is cheaper than the China tea. The Indian tea is the tea that is consumed by the poor of this

  2091
  country. The China tea is the luxury of the rich. For that reason a vastly greater amount of Indian tea than of China tea is imported into the country. Last year the net import of tea from India and Ceylon was over 265,000.000 lbs., and from China the import was over 10,000.000 lbs. Therefore, the Amendment would propose to reduce the taxation on more than nine-tenths of the tea consumed in this country. That can be justified both on the ground of Imperial Preference and also because the Indian and Ceylon tea is the tea that is consumed by the poor of this country.
  The fact that I do not propose to remit taxation on China tea is no argument against remitting taxation on Indian and Ceylon tea, because the price of China tea cannot have any effect on the price of Indian tea. The Indian tea merchants who supply the poor classes in the community are not in direct competition with the China tea merchants. Therefore, if the price of Indian tea is reduced and the price of China tea is left as it is, it will be as if there were two different commodities altogether; and the fact that China tea is taxed to the extent of 2d. per pound more than Indian tea would not tend to raise the price of Indian tea in the slightest degree. Therefore, I submit that the effect of this Amendment would be to reduce the price of Indian tea by 2d. per pound. By the full 2d. it would be a direct gain to the working classes of this country; it would be a direct remission of taxation that falls on their shoulders at the present moment, and, as such, I hope that it will have the support of hon. Members opposite, or at least of the Labour party opposite. I do not think they should reject this Amendment, seeing that it proposes to continue a tax on the luxuries of the rich. This proposal is a step towards the free breakfast table of which we have heard speak so eloquently the Members of the Labour party opposite. Therefore, I cannot. doubt they will support us unanimously in the Lobby on this Amendment. I say that because the hon. Members of the Labour party have on more than one occasion, both in this Hoarse and in the country, expressed their abhorrence of the present food taxes and duties. The hon. Member for North-East Manchester (Mr. Clynes), in his election address at the General Election of 1906, said:—
  "I am against existing taxes on the common necessaries of life."
  2092
  The hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Charles Duncan) in his address said:—
  "Any taxation of food will have in myself an inveterate enemy, whilst every effort to bring about a free breakfast table would command my earnest and diligent support."
  The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) in his address said:—
  "I would abolish the Customs House altogether, and do away with all forms of indirect taxation, save the Excise Ditties upon spirits: repeal the Coal Tax, denounce the Sugar Convention, and make good the loss to the revenue by a special graduated tax on unearned incomes."
  The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Hudson) said:—
  "As a means towards the solution of the social problem, I will press at the first opportunity for the removal of all taxes front the breakfast table."
  The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. William Johnson) in his address said:—
  "I am in favour of a breakfast table free of duties to be provided by removing existing taxation on tea sugar and other commodities."
  The hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. James Parker) in his address to the electors said:—
  "I shall heartily advocate and do my utmost to carry into effect the abolition of indirect taxation."
  The hon. Member for Hallamshire (Mr. John Wadsworth) said:—
  "I would, if possible, abolish entirely taxes on tea coffee, and other foods of the people."
  The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Wilkie) said:—
  "I would support and press for tie abolition of all taxation on the food of the people."
  The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. W. Tyson Wilson) said:—
  "The poorer classes are too heavily taxed. The duties on tea, sugar, and other necessaries of life should be removed."
  Therefore, I hope that those hon. Members, having had the opportunity of seeing this Amendment on the Order Paper for about five weeks, will be sufficiently true to their cause to go with us into the Division Lobby when the time comes There are one or two other remarks of hon. Members of the Labour party to which I wish to refer. A speech was made in this House on 26th July, 1912, by the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes), in which he said:—
  "The Liberal party have always been saying they are in favour of the abolition of indirect taxation and in favour of the abolition of taxation upon the breakfast-table commodities. I am also in favour of the abolition of these taxes."
  I hope the hon. Member for the Black-friars Division will be more true to his opinion than the Labour party have been. This year in this House, on May 7th, the

  2093
  hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division said:—
  "I look back on the last few years during which we have been promised the abolition of these indirect taxes, and I think the time has come to put some of these professions into practice. This—the Tea Duty—is one of the most iniquitous and unjust forms of indirect taxation, because this particular tax bears particularly hard on the poorest of the poor."
  I sincerely trust the hon. Member will be of the same opinion on the question this afternoon, and, now that the opportunity is afforded, will put some of these professions into practice. The hon. Member for North-East Manchester (Mr. Clynes), on 11th June of this year, said:—
  "This period of exceptional pressure and increased cost of living, resting so heavily upon the shoulders of the poor, commends itself to us as an exceptional reason for now proposing this frontal claim for the abolition of all these duties resting upon food."
  The hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. A. Henderson), on the same day of this year, said:—
  "Taxes on food, especially on tea and sugar, are indefeasible."
  He made that statement in speaking on the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden). The hon. Member for Blackburn regaled the House with some of the past declarations of Cabinet Ministers on the question of the Sugar Duty and other food taxes. He said that he was giving them the opportunity of redeeming some of the pledges that they had made at election time. Unfortunately, however, the hon. Member for Blackburn in his Amendment did not give the House an opportunity of voting on a clear issue. He proposed to remit the food taxes, and, for revenue, referred to various other forms of taxation. Therefore, there were two issues at stake before the House. As I have already said, there is only one issue before the House in this Amendment—that is to say, whether the present Tea Duty ought or ought not to be reduced, and, in the words of the hon. Member for Blackburn, it gives. Members of the Labour party some opportunity of redeeming their election pledges on this question. I would like to refer to one statement which was made on the occasion of the Second Reading by the hon. Member for Barnard Castle, in which he asserted that the Conservative party when in power had raised the Tea Duty and other food taxes on the people of this country.
  That statement, of course, if taken by itself, is substantially true, but he omitted to state that it was during the time of the South African War, and that the Unionist party at the same time enormously raised
  2094
  the Income Tax and other forms of direct taxation in order to provide the necessary money which had to be found for the war. Therefore it is not fair and it is not accurate to quote war taxes as the policy of any party in time of peace. The Unionist party have proposed this Amendment on several previous occasions, and their leaders have stated that the time has come when the present Tea Duty should be revised. It is a food tax which presses exceedingly heavily upon the poorest class of the community. Whatever may be the opinion of hon. Members as to what proportion of taxation the various classes of the community should bear, and whether they agree with the principles laid down by the Prime Minister on the Second Reading of this Bill or whether they do not, I think they must feel in their own minds that the present Tea Tax as it stands is indefensible. It is far too high a duty to place on this article of common consumption among the poor, and the Amendment I propose would not only have the effect of giving a substantial preference to our fellow subjects in India and in Ceylon, but it would also be a step towards a free breakfast table which hon. Members opposite heartily support.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Noble Lord made a speech which was for the most part irrelevant to the subject of the Amendment, and instead of speaking only on the one issue as to the Tea Duty, he referred to sugar, coal, and other taxes. The Amendment is for a preferential tariff, but the speech of the Noble Lord was addressed to very different issues. The one question now raised, and it is a very important and very interesting one, is a question to which the Noble Lord hardly addressed himself at all, namely, the very important question of the preferential treatment of the Tea Duty against China. I suppose I must address myself to the Amendment, and not to the speech of the. Noble Lord. What does the Noble Lord propose to do by this Amendment? He proposes that about 36,000,000 lbs. of tea which comes from China and elsewhere should be charged 2d. more than the tea which comes from within the British Empire. We consumed in 1912 about 260,000,000 lbs. of tea grown within the British Empire and about 36,000,000 lbs. grown in China and other countries. The Noble Lord apparently assumes that the working man does not consume any China tea. There he is perfectly wrong. China tea, I suppose, is

  2095
  the most delicately flavoured tea on the whole. Those who believe in Indian tea have not got a good word to say of China tea, and those who believe in China tea rather despise Indian tea. At any rate some of the most delicately flavoured teas come from China. To assume that the working men drink cheap tea is quite erroneous. Very often the workman who pays a very good price for his tea likes to buy China tea, because he thinks it is better, and some of the blends which contain China tea are very popular in some parts of the country. In discriminating between the different kinds of tea in order to benefit the working classes I think the Noble Lord is under a complete misapprehension as to what the facts of the case are. If it is true that some of the best teas come from China, I should have thought that would be an argument in favour of reduction of the duty on those teas, instead of discriminating against them.
  China is a very good customer of ours, one of our very best customers, and that is especially the case with regard to Lancashire. What does the Noble Lord propose to do? He proposes that one of the best customers of the county which he represents should have a preferential tariff raised against it. I should like to know what Lancashire would think about that, and I am not at all sure that most of the goods which go to China from this country are not Lancashire goods. Let us just consider what happens at the port of Hong Kong. The total imports from China to this country amount to £5,600,000, while the total exports to China, from this country come to over £15,000,000. Thus you have in China a country that buys £10,000,000 worth more from us than we buy from them. There is no doubt China is on the eve of opening up to an extent which will probably amaze the civilised world in the course of the next few years. When there comes to be a scramble for trade, as there will be, and as there is beginning to be now, what would happen if we passed this? We should be handicapped by having discriminated against China tea, China being a country we had discriminated against. Russia, Germany, and the United States of America at any rate trade with China exactly as with any other country, while we should be discriminating against a country that at the present moment is one of our best cus-
  2096
  tomers. On the whole, I think she buys more from us than from any other country in the world, and the Noble Lord, who represents a Lancashire constituency, is trying to encourage trade between his constituents and China by saying, "We are going to penalise you to the extent of 2d. in the pound on a commodity you sell. "I do not think that is quite the proposal that will commend itself there. The Noble Lord is not at all concerned about the workingman's tea, China or otherwise; but what he is concerned about is to get a rise out of the Labour party, and the whole of his speech was directed to that. At the same time, when he goes down to his constituency he can explain that his special method of scoring off the Labour Members is by picking a quarrel with their best customers.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has divided his reply into three parts, one part I need hardly refer to, and the second was as to the effect of this proposal on the domestic economy of our own people, and the other its effect on our foreign relations. I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have done more justice to my Noble Friend's argument from every point of view, and would perhaps have made it more clear to the Committee as to the subject on which he was talking, if instead of describing this Amendment as an Amendment to specially tax China tea, he had more correctly described it as a Motion to relieve British teas, and there is all the difference in the world between the two. The right hon. Gentleman says a great deal of China tea is drunk by the British working classes, but that is nothing like the amount they take of Indian tea. A larger proportion of China tea is a luxury, an infinitely larger proportion than of the Indian tea. Where the China tea is cheap it comes into competition with Indian tea on account of the cheapness, but the lessening of the price of the Indian tea cannot hurt the working man. It might enable him to drink better Indian tea than he can now afford instead of the worst China tea, but very likely this would force China tea to drop in proportion to the lower-priced Indian, and whichever way it is, if these results are attained, either alone or in combination, it must be a benefit to the working classes. The hon. Baronet the Member for Salford (Sir W. Byles)—
  Sir W. BYLES: I am not a Baronet.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: When the hon. Gentleman laughs—
  Sir W. BYLES: I was not laughing at anything the right hon. Gentleman said, but at some observations from the other side by some hon. Gentleman behind me. I never laugh at the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am greatly relieved. I hope I endeavour to address suitable arguments to the House, and the hon. Member, I am sure, is always ready to appreciate arguments of that kind. I look to the other observation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He says this proposal is a proposal made by a Lancashire Member to penalise Lancashire's best customer, China. He says also there is no country in the world which is likely in the next few years to have so large a development as China. Did he think for a moment of India in either of those respects? Does he ever think of the British Empire in connection with fiscal questions? This is not a proposal to penalise China or to tax it. Chinese tea remains what it is, but it is a proposal to give a preference to India. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to lay down and invite foreign Governments to act on the principle, that if we choose to treat the Empire as one they have a grievance? That is the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. It would be just as reasonable to say if we choose to treat Lancashire and Yorkshire as one for the purpose of Customs, or England and Ireland which we have done hitherto, though apparently we are not to do it in the future, that China has the right to protest. That is a doctrine which strikes at any possible view of Imperial unity, Imperial combination, and Imperial defence, and, whatever the Chancellor of the Exchequer does in his efforts to defend his present taxation and to relieve himself and his Friends from a disagreeable position, at least he should not put into the hands of foreign nations art argument so dangerous to the continued unity or the common action of the British Empire as that which he has used.
  I venture to say again that he would come nearer to the truth if he would remember that this is not a proposal to tax China, but a proposal to extend a preference to British tea-growing countries, and amongst those tea-growing countries India is foremost. Is India less important to us as a market than China, or is India less capable of development than China? Indian potentialities of development are
  2098
  only limited by her power to raise capital to secure mechanical means for amt development, and she has made most extraordinary advances in her trade in recent years, and she may continue to make those advances. That is a market which it is just as well to cultivate as it is to cultivate the Chinese market, and it is a market better worth our while to cultivate, because it is a British market and part of the British Empire. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that he is for ever going to be able to maintain the present fiscal system of India? Does he think that he can for ever insist that because we choose to adopt free imports here, that therefore the Indian Government and the Indian people are not to be allowed any protection against foreign competition for any of their goods. If the right hon. Gentleman has read—I do not know whether he has or not—the very important discussion that took place in the Viceroy's Legislative Council on the Motion of an Indian member of that Council a few months ago he would know, or he would at least see signs to doubt, he would know that the present system is unpopular with the people of India, and he would see good reason to doubt whether that system can be maintained. I do not believe it can be maintained, and I believe that the choice before the constituents of my Noble Friend in Lancashire and the other Lancashire Members is not whether they can maintain the present system or not, but whether they will see India drift into a policy of pure Protection or whether, while there is yet time, they will link her with this country by a policy of Imperial Preference. I have always supported this Amendment, and I shall support it to-day. I support it as one step in the creation of a common and, therefore, a united Empire, as one means by which we can show a greater interest in our own Dominions, and as one measure by which we can assert that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer's argument denies, namely, the unity of the whole Empire.
  5.0 P.M.
  Sir W. BYLES: I do not desire to be drawn into a Tariff Reform argument, which was initiated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), or, if he will allow me to call him so, by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire. I desire to refer to the speech which introduced this Debate. There is an aspect of the question before

  2099
  the Committee which has apparently been entirely overlooked. I understood the Noble Lord to say at the outset that if his Amendment was adopted the cost of it would be about —2,000,000 of money—that is to say my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose business it is to provide for the Appropriation Bill which we are going to pass presently, would be about £2,000,000 or £2,250,000 short, and at this time I do not think we ought to deprive him of that. It might cost the country a "Dreadnought," and that I am sure the Noble Lord (Viscount Wolmer) would be the last to desire. It is not for the first time that this financial question has cropped up, and in reference to it I use an illustration that I used before, for much as I may like the proposal I am not going to support the Noble Lord's Amendment, as I do not want to go into a trap. A mouse is very fond of toasted cheese, but it is a great fool if it goes into the trap to get it. I desire, as do my hon. Friends near me, a free breakfast table. That has been the desire of the Liberal party for a very long time. I am only disappointed that the present Government have not achieved it for us. Again, I should like to get rid of these indirect taxes, and to tax everybody as far as possible directly. There are many objections to indirect taxation, the most serious being that the people pay their taxes without knowing that they are paying them, and, therefore, without closely watching what becomes of the money raised thereby. Hence, Governments from either party are encouraged to squander the money obtained from indirect. taxes upon "Dreadnoughts" and other mischievous objects of expenditure. If the Noble Lord could induce any Chancellor of the Exchequer to put this money on to land values, I would be quite content to support him; but we have seen earlier in the afternoon how extremely reluctant the Noble Lord's party is to entertain the idea not only of Land Taxes, but even of land valuation, which might conceivably at some future time be the basis of Land Taxes. If we are to have taxation on food at all, and I suppose the Noble Lord desires taxes on food, tea is about as good an article as you could put it upon. Again, if the very poor are to pay their share of taxation, and there is no means of getting at them by direct taxation, there is a good deal to be said
  2100
  for tea taxation as a means of getting their share. I should like the poor to pay a great deal less than they do, although I do not think that any voters ought to be entirely relieved from taxation. The Noble Lord said that tea was an article of universal consumption. No doubt it is. Surely that is the very thing that recommends it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer! That is one of the virtues of tea taxation. The Noble Lord said that the Tea Tax was directly paid by the consumer. No doubt it is. That, again, is a recommendation.
  Viscount WOLMER: I did not say it was directly paid by the consumer. I said it was wholly paid by him.
  Sir W. BYLES: I understood the Noble Lord to say that it was a tax which must fall directly upon the consumer.
  Viscount WOLMER: Wholly, not directly.
  Sir W. BYLES: Surely a great point in the taxation, as far as I understand the canons of taxation, is that a tax when levied should actually fall upon the person whom you want to pay, and not be paid by somebody else on his behalf. The Noble Lord said further that the tax does not benefit a single person. No, and ex hypothesi it does not injure a single person. There is no tea grown in this country, therefore the tax cannot put up rents as a tax upon foreign corn would. The fact that it neither benefits nor injures a single person, is another of the arguable virtues of tea taxation. The object of it is not to benefit people but to raise money for the Exchequer. I shall not vote for the Amendment; we blow perfectly well why it is trotted out. Our constituents will know perfectly well that, although we vote against the Noble Lord, we are opposed to indirect taxation and taxes on food.
  Mr. HEWINS: I wish to comment on the very unfortunate and inaccurate statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the question of discrimination. The term "discrimination" is not correctly applied to preferential duties in this or any other Empire. No foreign country would dream of penalising the trade of the United States because the United States Government gives a preference to its Colonies. The late Lord Salisbury claimed in more than one dispatch that the system of preference initiated by Canada was not differentiation in the ordinary sense of the term,

  2101
  and on that ground prevented penal action on the part of Germany. Since then the controversy has raged everywhere in the world where preference is given, and that is everywhere where there are Colonies. I think I am right in saying that it is now generally admitted that the establishment of a preferential Duty is not differentiation within the ordinary meaning of the term, and does not disentitle a country to receive the benefits and advantages of most-favoured-nation treatment. The controversy arose in connection with the Canadian tariff and the relations of Canada to the United States, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, the United States did not put into operation the maximum clause in her tariff, because Canada put on a preferential duty to our advantage, which is, from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view, differentiation. If it were really differentiation, Canada would at once become subject to the penal Clause in the United States Tariff. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the delicate state of international relations on this very question, should withdraw what he has said about the establishment of a preferential system being discrimination against a foreign country. That is a very dangerous statement for a Minister of the Crown to have made. The establishment of preference within an Empire is now universally regarded as a domestic question, and there is no reason why a preference should not be established between this country and India, or between this country and any of its Colonies, without violating any Treaty obligations of any kind whatever. Preference, according to the definition of the Resolution of the Imperial Conference, is simply that where you have duties you should take them off or reduce them in favour of your Colonies. It does not imply any great change of policy, according to the view of the great statesmen of our Dominions and Colonies.
  The Tea Duty occupies a particularly objectionable position. I do not want to develop that argument, because we had a Debate on the question not very long ago when a great deal was said on one side of the other. But as a matter of fact very few countries impose a Tea Duty. They would rather raise their revenue in almost any other way than imposing a Tea Duty which unquestionably must, to a very large extent, come out of the pockets of the working classes. After the enormous ex-
  2102
  penditure which the Government have let us in for, we cannot hope to do away with all these objectionable duties at the present time. But surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer might advance a little in that direction by reducing the Tea Duty! That would certainly be an unmixed advantage to the working classes who now have to pay it. I was surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's statement in regard to our trade interests in China, and his omission to deal with India. Surely it is desirable that, before he makes a speech upon such a subject, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should acquaint himself with the extremely delicate situation in which these subjects are in our great Dominions! If he would read the important statement last March by Sir Fleetwood Wilson, Finance Minister in India, who, I suppose, represents the British Government, he world realise that at the present time in India this fiscal question is one of the most delicate and difficult with which you could possibly have to deal. There is undoubtedly a strong and growing disposition on the part of the natives of India to press for full-blooded Protection, and the councils which the Government have established are a means of giving expression to the aspirations of India in that regard.
  As I read his statement, Sir Fleetwood Wilson's point is that he does not think it probable that the present fiscal system of India can be maintained, but that the pressure of various economic forces in competition in the market of India, the changes in the fiscal situation in the Far East, movements like that of the Japanese tariff, and all those other elements which he details, are bound to force upon India a change of policy, and that change of policy, if it is pushed forward under the guidance and inspiration of the natives, must have an enormously prejudicial effect upon India and the trade of Lancashire. The point of Sir Fleetwood Wilson's statement is that a possible way of warding off this danger is to direct the movement in India into a new channel—a new policy, as he calls it, a policy which differs from the previous policy, and a precedent for which has been set by our own great Dominions—a policy of directing these aspirations in the direction of a preferential tariff, and though he does not pledge the Government or himself, he throws down the subject for discussion and consideration. In view of that, I should have thought the Chancellor

  2103
  of the Exchequer would have dealt with the subject a little more sympathetically than he has done. He might have dealt with it more sympathetically in view of the precedents which he and his Government have set. The Government claim to have been returned to power to maintain Free Trade, but they have, under the pressure of forces which we all recognise, set numerous precedents for carrying a Tariff Reform policy. They have entered into negotiations with foreign countries; they have made trade treaties such as that in connection with the Japanese Tariff; they have restricted the autonomy of this country in fiscal matters; they are affecting the Most-Favoured Nation Clause all over the world; they have themselves been parties to a preferential arrangement between the West Indies and Canada; and on 24th May last, Empire Day, the Foreign Secretary wrote a dispatch in which he refused on what must be regarded as purely Protectionist lines to give an Excise—
  Mr. J. WARD: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member allowed to introduce a full-blooded debate on the question of Tariff Reform on this Amendment? I shall be delighted to follow the hon. Member, but, if he is allowed to proceed, I must certainly claim the same right.
  Mr. HEWINS: I am not introducing a general Tariff Reform debate at all, and have not the least intention of doing so. I am simply cataloguing a few of the precedents which I say would cover any action which we desire the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take in regard to the Tea Duty.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): The hon. Member says that he has no intention of proceeding further; otherwise, I am afraid I should have to call him to order.
  Mr. HEWINS: That is so. I never had any intention of proceeding further. Obviously it would not be possible to raise a general Tariff Reform discussion in connection with this subject, but I submit I am perfectly entitled to point out to the Government that by their own action they have departed from the line of action and from the principles which stand in the way of the action suggested by the Noble Lord. In conclusion, I beg the right hon. Gentleman to consider more sympathetically the line of action embodied in this Amendment, which,
  2104
  from the point of view of the great statesmen of our Dominions, and from the character and precedents set by the Government, involves no revolutionary departure in policy. It is a domestic question; it reduces the cost of living, and the burden of taxation on the working classes. It does something to relieve the difficulty which Ministers feel in regard to India. It is easy enough to do. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to find the money. There is no difficulty about that. But I do beg of him to give a more sympathetic consideration to this matter. If he cannot do it in this last week of the Session, the Government, when they bring in their new Budget, can develop in a natural, orderly way the precedents that they themselves have set.
  Mr. J. WARD: There are just one or two observations I wish to make in reference to the speech to which we have just listened. I venture to suggest that all the cases cited by the hon. Gentleman opposite as illustrations of a Free Trade Government falling away from the principles in which they are supposed to be identified, and which they were elected to support, are away from the point. The cases mentioned in the speech might be taken seriatim, but the order you have given, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, precludes me from going into detail to show that there is not in them the slightest opposition to the principles of Free Trade. I was expecting the hon. Member to go on to the Patents Act. That is the usual style of the Tariff Reform lecturer—to show that by making these restrictions we are doing the Tariff Reform business. The hon. Member did not follow that out, though he might easily have done so, because that is one of the standard notes that are circulated by Tariff Reform lecturers—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member had a very nice sense of order as a listener, which his observations as a speaker do not seem to support.
  Mr. J. WARD: I am sorry I was led away from the strict path of order and procedure by the hon. Member opposite. I will not follow the matter any further, for I have said what I wish to say in regard to these points. I am interested in this discussion because of the observations of the Noble Lord who introduced the subject. We are usually criticised when we suggest that if you impose duties

  2105
  either preferential or otherwise, as in the case of this Tea Duty, upon a commodity coming into this country, that it sometimes is possible that the foreigner might pay the duty. But I was particularly interested in the Noble Lord's statement, repeated again and again, when the absurdity of the opposite contention was pointed out, in his declaration, that unquestionably in the case of this Tea Duty that we are discussing now it is the consumer who pays.
  Viscount WOLMER: I said particularly that that was because it was not a protective duty, and because tea cannot be produced in this country.
  Mr. J. WARD: That is exactly the situation. The worst of it would be that supposing for a moment that tea could be produced in this country that this duty would be much more immoral than it is now; because not only would you be increasing the price and making the consumer pay upon the amount of tea that was brought into the country, but you would be raising the price of the tea grown in this country, and therefore making him pay for a thing he ought not to be called upon to pay. That is really, so far as we are concerned, the whole contention with regard to the subject. I want further to say this, that, for myself, I would have supported him certainly if it were possible under the rules of order, if the Noble Lord had put forward proposals or any scheme by which in a direct way or by a direct system this £2,000,000 could have been made up. For instance, if this had been a declaration that we should reduce the duty on tea coming from India by 2d. in the pound, and we should make that up by a 6d. higher Income Tax on incomes over £5,000 a year—
  Viscount WOLMER: That would not be in order.
  Mr. J. WARD: I do not think if it were in order that I should find the Noble Lord supporting it, because, as a matter of fact, the Noble Lord knows that would be taking money for running the Government of the country out of pockets that he is particularly anxious to protect. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]
  Viscount WOLMER: Oh, oh! I entirely repudiate the hon. Member's suggestion. It is most offensive.
  Mr. J. WARD: It may be offensive to the Noble Lord, but I am entitled to make
  2106
  my own deductions and to form my own opinion on his proposition. I am the more entitled to do this because the Noble Lord addresed his remarks more particularly and pointedly to the Labour Members. He suggested that he thought, no matter what the object might be or the result might be, that the Labour Members were bound to support this Motion under any circumstances. Naturally, we are obliged, when a proposition comes from the Noble Lord to take a duty off a certain thing, knowing he is not in favour of dropping the naval programme or any other of the expenses connected with the great spending Departments of the State, like the Army and the Navy, knowing that he has no proposal or no idea of reducing expenditure in those directions, and is making a proposition to take some £2,000,000 off the revenue, we naturally have to ask ourselves by what kind of taxation does the Noble Lord propose to make good this deficiency? We know the sort of taxes that we should like. We should like to take off all the burdens that we possibly could. That is one of the objects, I am sure, that all my Friends have in supporting any of the fiscal proposals of this House—to gradually relieve the burdens of indirect taxation upon the Very poor—
  Viscount WOLMER: Hear, hear.
  Mr. J. WARD: And so far as possible put it on the shoulders of that very class to which the Noble Lord belongs. Frankly that is our position in regard to this matter. We will support this proposal, certainly, for a reduction of 2d., and for the removal altogether of various taxes, but it will only be when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made proper provision to saddle the duty upon the right shoulders.
  Captain TRYON: In reply to the hon. Member who speaks, as he tells us, from the Labour Benches, may I point out that the party opposite is one that has consistently supported the food taxes throughout the present Parliament? I hope that the hon. Member when he goes down to address his constituents will tell them that in spite of all he has said as to his objection to food taxes at election times he has steadily voted for the food taxes during the present Parliament. The Labour party, at all events, will have this consolation, that if they keep these taxes on by voting for them they will be able at

  2107
  election times to continue their promises to take them off.
  Mr. TYSON WILSON: Just as I came in I heard the Noble Lord making his speech, and I confess I was surprised to hear him quote the election addresses of the party with which I am associated. Surely he must think that the people of this country are more ignorant than they are if he thinks that they are going to believe that the taking off of part of the duty on tea coming from the Dominions is going to reduce the price of tea! Will he try to persuade the working men in Lancashire that by reducing the tax on tea coming into the country that the price of that commodity will be reduced?
  Viscount WOLMER: The hon. Member has not read the Amendment.
  Mr. TYSON WILSON: If the Noble Lord can guarantee that preferential treatment means an all-round reduction to the consumer, I will be prepared to go into the Lobby with him. As it is, the proposal of the Noble Lord will simply increase the profit of the middlemen.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member who has just spoken has contended that a reduction in duty, provided that duty is a preferential duty, has no effect upon price. May I ask, then, why the hon.
  Member and his Friends objected to the proposed preferential duty on corn and wheat from the Colonies if it was not going to have an effect? The hon. Member says that a preferential duty on tea will not reduce the price. Neither would it, then, on other things. I fail to see the argument of the hon. Member. When it suits him to say that a preferential duty will increase the price, then he says it, when it suits him, in order to keep the Government in office, to say that it will have no effect whatever upon prices, he says that. I am going to vote with the Government. I have always voted in favour of a duty on tea. I have never gone down to my Constituency and in order to catch votes said that I would vote for this reduction; then, after I got into the House, refused to vote for it. I have always said in my Constituency that taxes have to be raised, and that this was one of the taxes which brought in money, and that I should vote for it. As I supported my party when they were in power I am now going to support the Government, who are only doing what my own party did when they were in power. That is consistency which hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway may note.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 192; Noes, 70.

  Division No. 268.]

  AYES.

  [5.28 p. m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cullinan, John

  Higham, John Sharp

  Adamson, William

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Alden, Percy

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Hodge, John

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

  Delany, William

  Hogg, David C.

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Hogge, James Myles

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Dillon, John

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hudson, Walter

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Doris, William

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Duffy, William J.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

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

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

  Boland, John Pius

  Falconer, James

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Bryce, J. Annan

  George. Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Keating, Matthew

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Goldstone, Frank

  Kelly, Edward

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Kilbride, Denis

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

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

  king, Joseph

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

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

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Hackett, John

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Leach, Charles

  Clough, William

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Lundon, Thomas

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hayward, Evan

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Cotton, William Francis

  Hazleton, Richard

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  McGhee, Richard

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

  O'Dowd, John

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

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

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

  Scanian, Thomas

  Macpherson, James Ian

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  O'Malley, William

  Sheehy, David

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

  Shortt, Edward

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

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

  O'Shee, James John

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Meagher, Michael

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Thomas J. H.

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Molloy, Michael

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Mooney, John J.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wardle, George J.

  Morrell, Philip

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Waring, Walter

  Morison, Hector

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Webb, H.

  Muldoon, John

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Munro, R.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  White. J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

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

  Reddy, Michael

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

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Neilson, Francis

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Whitehouse. John Howard

  Nolan, Joseph

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

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

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wood, Rt Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Robinson, Sidney

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

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  NOES.

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Forster, Henry William

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Barnston, Harry

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bird, Alfred

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Rawlinson John Frederick Peel

  Blair, Reginald

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

  Ronaidshay, Earl of

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Royds, Edmund

  Boyton, J.

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Campion, W. R.

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cassel, Felix

  Hills, John Waller

  Swift, Rigby

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

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

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Houston, Robert Paterson

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

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Ingieby, Holcombe

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Kerry, Earl of

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

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

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

  Younger, Sir George

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord Wolmer and Captain Tryon.

  Fell, Arthur

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

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

  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Income Tax for 1913–14.)
  (1) Income Tax for the year beginning on the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirteen, shall be charged at the rate of one shilling and twopence, and the same Super-tax shall be charged, levied, and paid for that year as was charged for the year beginning on the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and twelve.
  (2) All such enactments relating to Income Tax (including Super-tax) as were in force with respect to duties of Income Tax granted for the year beginning on the
  2110
  sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and twelve, shall have full force and effect with respect to any duties of Income Tax hereby granted.
  (3) The annual value of any property which has been adopted for the purpose either of Income Tax under Schedules A and B in the Income Tax Act, 1853, or of Inhabited House Duty, during the year ending on the fifth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirteen, shall be taken as the annual value of such property for the same purpose during the next subsequent year; provided that this Sub-section—

  (a) so far as respects the duty on inhabited houses in Scotland, shall be

  2111
  construed with the substitution of the twenty-fourth day of May for the fifth day of April; and

  (b) shall not apply to the Metropolis as defined by the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869.

  Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to add the words,
  "Provided always that no husband shall be committed to prison, nor shall any distress be levied upon his goods, nor shall any other proceedings for any penalty, fine, or otherwise, howsoever be brought against him for failure to pay the Income Tax to which he has been assessed in respect of the joint incomes of his wife and himself if he has paid or is ready and willing to pay such part (if any) of the whole tax as is fairly attributable to his income."
  The object of the Amendment and the one which immediately follows is to remedy one of the most glaring anomalies in our Income Tax law. That is saying a good deal, because anyone who has even a superficial knowledge of the subject knows how serious these anomalies are. In drafting these Amendments I have endeavoured to couch them in the plainest possible language without any complication, because I think the mere statement of the Amendment myself ought to be sufficient to carry conviction to the mind of any reasonable man. What the Amendment says in plain words is that the husband ought not to be sent to prison or subjected to penalties because he does not pay Income Tax on his wife's income. On the other hand, the wife ought to be entitled to the abatements, reliefs, and exemptions allowed in respect of her own income. These anomalies are clue to the fact. that the Income Tax law is very much older than the Married Woman's Property Acts, and also that when the Income Tax was first introduced by Pitt and was reintroduced in the time of Sir Robert Peel, that the wife's income was the husband's income in the sense that the husband had the control and management of it and therefore it was not so unreasonable then to say that the wife's income should be deemed to be the husband's income. Since then we have had the Married Woman's Property Acts, and what has happened is that the Income Tax Acts have never been brought up to date, and that there is injustice to the husband and the wife and penalisation of marriage, and in many cases loss of revenue to the State.
  2112
  As to the injustice to the husband, what could be more unfair or unreasonable than to say to a man that he must make a return of his wife's income when you do not give him any opportunity of ascertaining that income, and when it remains at her will to disclose it or not? What could be more unreasonable than to say that a man must pay income tax upon his wife's income when he has no control over that income, and when it rests with her as to whether she discloses it or not? This matter was brought to public attention and particularly to my own attention in the case of Mr. Wilks which occurred last year.
  Mr. Wilks was a teacher in a London County Council School earning £150 a year. His wife was earning an income by the exercise of the profession of a doctor. What the amount of her income really was I am unable to say. The Income Tax Commissioners assessed it at £700 a year. Mr. Wilkes having been unable to state what her income was, they proceeded to assess the joint income as best they could, and as a result Mr. Wilks, who had only £150 a year as a teacher, was held liable for the payment of £30 or £40 of Income Tax. I think the precise figure he was called on to pay was In the first place, when he refused to pay, the Income Tax Commissioners proceeded quite unlawfully, and without any legal justification, to levy the tax upon the wife's goods. When objection was made to this, they saw they had no right to do it, and they then resorted to the Courts. They put the husband in prison, not for any definite period, but at their own will and pleasure, until he should pay this tax. And it is rather a significant fact that the date when he was first sent to Brixton gaol was the 18th of September, 1912, and he was kept there until a few days before the reassembling of Parliament. The House reassembled on the 7th October, and a few days before that Mr. Wilks was released from prison. I suppose it was thought too much that he should be still kept in prison after the matter became a subject of criticism in this House. I put down a question on 9th October and elicited from the Chancellor of the Exchequer the answer that he proposed to consider an amendment of the law, but that, until the law was amended, he said, quite rightly, he could not give way in any similar case and could not give instructions that a, similar situation should not be repeated if the circumstances arose. I confess, quite frankly,

  2113
  that from the moment the case occurred I made up my mind not to let the question rest until we had forced the Government to alter such an absurd position.
  I find that in another place that the Lord Chancellor stated that the condition of the law as it exists now could not be defended and from the Amendments on the Paper it seems that the Government recognise the reasonableness of that view. From the point of view of the individuals concerned, it was grossly unjust. In the first place, the wife does not get the benefit of exemptions or payments in respect of her income. Generally the wife's income is an income arising from dividends or investments. It is not very frequently the result of her own earnings, though, of course, in many cases it is, but in the majority of cases it is an income arising from investments. In that case the tax is deducted at the source, and if she is not subject to Income Tax, because her income is below the Income Tax limit, she does not get the benefit of the exemption, but the husband does. Let me give the Committee an illustration which will make the case clear. Assuming that the husband and wife each have £150 a year, the wife's income being derived from investments, and that of the husband from salary as a school teacher, the wife's income is taxed at the source at 1s. 2d. which is the unearned rate, so that there is deducted 8s. 10d. from her £150. The Income Tax payable by husband and wife jointly is on £300 of which £150 is entitled to abatement, so that the duty is only paid on £140. But duty has been deducted from the wife's income of £150. Therefore, the husband is entitled to claim a rebate on £10 and he gets a rebate of 11s. 8d., and actually makes a profit out of it. Not only does he pay no Income Tax, but he makes a profit of 11s. 8d. The wife loses £8 15s. and the husband makes a profit of 11s. 8d. I could multiply indefinitely instances of the absurd way in which this works out. Moreover, married women treat the law as humiliating to themselves, and I think they do so with justice, because they are not treated as existent at all for the purposes of the Income Tax law. It is true their money is taken, but nevertheless the law treats them as non-existent. That was brought out very clearly by a deputation which waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer when Miss Lena Ashwell made a speech which had a great effect in inducing the right hon. Gentleman to
  2114
  promise to bring forward a proposal to amend the law. Miss Ashwell carries on her profession as an actress, but she also has the management of a theatre, and at the theatre the Income Tax papers are sent addressed to her husband, with the words "For Wife" in brackets. Miss Ashwell objected to being addressed in that way when she was being called upon to pay the Income Tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer practically accepted that view, for he said in reply:—
  "I agree that the present form treats married women as if they had no existence at all, and I accept the view that it is a humiliation and yon are entitled, certainly, to protest against it."
  Not only is it unjust on the husband and the wife, but in many cases it causes a loss of revenue. Assume the case that the wife is living in this country and the husband is in the Colonies on business which keeps him there for some time, and that the husband has an income and the wife has an income. The wife cannot be assessed on her income because it is deemed to be her husband's, and her husband is out of the jurisdiction of the tax and the revenue quite improperly loses by it. I think that is one of the reasons which may have actuated the Government in placing this Clause on the Paper which the right hon. Gentleman very courteously consulted me about before he put it down. There is, however, one other aspect which that Clause does not deal with and it is that it penalises marriage. There are many cases where people, if they were unmarried would not be subjected to Income Tax at all, but who are subject to it simply because they are married. There are cases where the Income Tax is four and five times as high as it would be if they were not legally married. That is a very difficult question in itself to deal with, and I admit that my Amendment does not deal with that point. I could not have framed such an Amendment without imposing a fresh charge. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that in the Revenue Bill which met with such a sad fate this afternoon rather curious consequences would have followed from this state of the law. According to the law, a married woman never has any income at all, and so a married woman in those cases would not be liable to Increment Duty in any case whatever. But quite apart from that anomaly, I think I have pointed out sufficient to show that really the time has come when we must make an end of the absurd state in which the law stands at the present time, and I welcome the fact that a

  2115
  Clause stands on the Paper in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with the matter. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us on this Amendment what attitude the Government propose to take in regard to that matter.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): The hon. and learned Member has stated quite correctly that the law in connection with the assessment of Income Tax on husband and wife is in a somewhat anomalous position. I may point out, however, that that has been the law for a very long period, and it requires a most complicated Clause in order to make any Amendment work fairly between husband and wife. The Amendment which the hon. and learned Member has just proposed is one which the Government could not possibly accept, because it would leave the law in a most ridiculous state. He does not seem to have observed that the result of this Amendment would be that although the husband would be assessed and charged with Income Tax on the income of his wife, no proceedings could be taken against the husband to recover that tax, and there could be no distraint upon his goods and no means of levying the Income Tax and you could not make a legal demand of any sort or kind upon him although he would remain the person liable to pay the Income Tax. At the same time there is no means provided and none in existence at the present time for recovering the Income Tax from the wife by any sort of process, and that is the very difficulty in the Wilks case.
  Mr. CASSEL: The reason I did not deal with that point in my Amendment is that it would not have been in order for me to do so, because it would have imposed an additional charge, and that is not within the competence of a private Member, and my proposal would have been out of order.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am simply pointing out what the result of this Amendment would be. If the hon. and learned Member says he is content to take the Amendment proposed by the Government as carrying out all that is necessary, then that is a different matter. He is, however, moving this as a substantive Amendment with the object of remedying a state of the law into which he went at some length and pointed out difficulties and anomalies raised by the
  2116
  Wilks case. Unless there is some such case as existed in the Wilks case, you must set up some other means of levying against the wife and enforcing against her the same remedies as against an ordinary individual. Unless you do that the result must necessarily be that the payment of Income Tax by the wife would be purely voluntary, and you could not enforce it. You could not enforce it against the husband or the wife, and you would have to depend for payment entirely on the goodwill of the lady, whether or not she chose to pay without any demand being made upon her for it. I am not prepared to admit that they would pay the Income Tax demanded if it rested solely upon a voluntary basis. Therefore, you must deal with this Amendment as it is proposed. The hon. and learned Gentleman has already pointed out how ridiculous the law is with reference to the Wilks case, and therefore I am bound to point out what the result would be of the adoption of this Amendment. I quite appreciate the difficulty. The effect of this Amendment would be that there would be no means of recovering any Income Tax at all from them, and we should have to depend entirely upon their goodwill for the payment of it. The hon. and learned Gentleman said quite correctly that there has already been some discussion of this subject in connection with the deputation which waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a result of which the right hon. Gentleman stated his willingness to consider an amendment of the law, and was favourably impressed by the speech which was made to him by Miss Ashwell on that occasion. No doubt it is desirable that there should be some amendment of the law. We have put down an Amendment on the Paper which I am afraid is rather long, but it deals with a rather complicated subject.
  6.0 P.M.
  Anyone familiar with Income Tax law as it works, particularly with reference to claims for exemptions, abatements, and relief, and so forth, knows that you must deal with all these cases when dealing with husband and wife. I should not be in order if I dealt with the Government Clause at any length now, and all I can do at the present moment is to point out the effect of the Government Amendment if it is carried. Its effect will be that an assessment can be made, and the charge could be made upon the wife in respect of the income which she possesses or earns in

  2117
  the same way as against the husband, and all abatements and all relief would be given proportionately to the husband and to the wife, but under our system we should still continue to treat husband and wife as one. That is to say for the purpose of the aggregation of incomes, in order to determine the abatement or relief which could be given, you must treat the income as one income and not as two separate incomes. Any Chancellor of the Exchequer who comes to consider that point I am quite sure will agree with what I have said, because to treat it otherwise would result in a loss to the Exchequer of £1,250,000. It would be a very serious thing to consider the income of husband and wife as two separate incomes for all purposes. It is quite a different thing to treat the income of husband and wife as one person, one household, one family, for the purpose of contributing upon the total income. You should add the incomes together, and then, for the purposes of abatements, exemptions, and relief, you treat each of them separately afterwards, and give each of them the proportion which would be due according to the income either earned or possessed by the one or the other. You must, for the purpose of arriving at the amount of abatement or exemption, take the total. It is for that object that we are taking the total income of the wife and the husband; otherwise you return the husband at a definite rate, and nobody would know what the total income was, nor was it material that the Commissioners should know. It is now material for these two purposes, for the purposes of exemption, abatement, and release, and for the purposes of the Super-tax; but, except for those two purposes, you never get the total income. In dealing with the husband and wife, you would have a case in which it would become necessary to deal with the total income of the two, so that you might determine what deductions should be made. We have provided for all that in this rather long Clause, and, when I come to deal with it later, if I am allowed to do so, I shall have an opportuntiy of dealing with it a little more fully, but, though I do not profess to have gone into it in great detail, I have, I think, indicated the scheme of relief which the Government propose to give. From that would follow necessarily the obligation upon the wife to pay Income Tax. It would necessarily follow that the process of execution would be issued against her. Her goods would
  2118
  be distrained upon for the payment of Income Tax due from her. That, again, is provided for in the Clause which we have put upon the Paper. I hope that when we get to the discussion of it we shall have an opportunity of going into the matter more fully, and that it will present itself to the Committee as a reasonable way of dealing with the matter. I am bound to state it hypothetically, because there is always the question whether it can in its present condition be proposed in this Bill. My hon. and learned Friend again discussed some views under the Income Tax law, and he said that it would be necessary to have some such Clause as the Government have on the Paper in order to amend the law, because he was of opinion that at present it penalised marriages. I find it a little difficult to follow that argument. I can hardly conceive that the question of Income Tax would arise, or that a lady, when a proposal of marriage is made to her, which she would otherwise be inclined to accept, would say, "Whatever my feelings may be towards you, I cannot accept your proposal, because, if I do, I get into difficulties with regard to the Income Tax law, which I do not like."
  Mr. CASSEL: I said that neither the Amendment nor the Government proposal dealt with that particular difficulty. I only pointed it out as one point to be considered.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I will not pursue the matter further. It will be quite impossible, as I already have explained, for us to accept the Amendment, although I quite agree that it is a subject which it is very useful to discuss, and which we shall have to discuss a little later on. It is one which requires to be dealt with, and it is one which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said shall be dealt with.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think everybody who has considered this matter is anxious to see the law amended. The movement of public opinion outside the House in these matters and the movement inside the House with regard to taxation have produced a problem which might no doubt have been raised in earlier days under other circumstances, though it was not raised, and which, once it has been raised, it is important should be settled as early as possible. The case of Mr. Wilks is admitted on all sides to be a scandal. Great injustice was done to Mr. Wilks under a process of law, and it is

  2119
  our business to find a remedy as soon as we can. I entirely agree with the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to the inadequacy of the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cassel), and I am sure nobody would in the least complain of the right hon. and learned Gentleman having drawn our attention to the Amendment which the Government themselves have put down. Were it not for the fact that he spoke of it as an hypothetical Clause, I should not myself have taken any part in the Debate at this stage, and I should have urged my hon. and learned Friend to withdraw his Amendment so that we could get to the Government Amendment, but, before we part from this Amendment, I would like to have some assurance from the Government that they do mean to deal with this question themselves. I do not profess for a moment to say whether their Amendment is in order or not, but they can make it in order by moving a Resolution, and there is absolutely no excuse, if a remedy is required, for their not doing so.
  This Revenue Bill was introduced months ago, and in the very earliest stages of our discussion on the Bill or on the Resolution attention was called to this matter by my hon. and learned Friend, as it had previously been called by Question and Answer in the House. The Government have had the whole of the Session in which to make up their minds as to how to deal with a problem with which they admit it is highly important to deal, and to find out what is necessary in order to put themselves in order. There is really no excuse for asking us to reject the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend, whilst at the same time telling us that because they have not taken the ordinary precaution to get the proper authority by resolution they may, at the very last moment, find themselves unable to put down the Amendment which they offer us as against that of my hon. and learned Friend. I do not believe, so far as I know, that any Member of the House on any side objects to the object which both the Government and my hon. and learned Friend have in view. I do not think that anybody would desire to take advantage of any increased facilities for discussion if those are necessary to put the Amendment in order, but I do say that we ought to have from the Government an assurance that this subject shall be dealt with in this Bill. It is not right, as in another ques-
  2120
  tion earlier in the day, that an admittedly necessary reform should be held up merely because the Government do not choose to give serious consideration to their Bill until the very last moment.
  Mr. POLLOCK: There is an extraordinary regularity about the Committee stages of Finance Bills. We move various Clauses and Amendments on this side of the House, and we always receive the Answer that a very important point has been raised, but the Amendment does not exactly hit the mark, and we are reminded that it it August. It is always August. Last year it was 7th August. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, December."] Well, a portion of the Bill was taken in August. Here we are at 11th August, and the Attorney-General gets up and thanks my hon. and learned Friend for his useful remarks on a very important subject about which the Government have been thinking ever since Mr. Wilks was released from prison, and says that he is not sure whether they are going to move any Amendment at all. He points out the mote in my hon. and learned Friend's eye and forgets altogether about the beam in his own eye, though it is a very large beam. The Government are responsible for the late time at which we are discussing this matter. They are responsible for the Clause they have put down, and they are responsible for the question being raised whether a Resolution is required or not. They are also responsible, if a Resolution is required, for not having put it down. The Clause standing in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a starred Clause, and we really ought to know whether the Government intend to move it or not. Are we going to have another year during which other Mr. Wilks may be put in prison, and let out just before Parliament meets again? Are we to have nothing whatever done because my hon. and learned Friend is quite unable to hit the mark? It is no answer to my hon. and learned Friend to say, "Oh, well, what are you going to do in this case or that case?" It is quite impossible for my hon. and learned Friend to deal with it at all, but it is not impossible for the Government to deal with it. They purport to deal with it, and yet they do not tell us whether or not they have taken steps to make their Amendment possible or not.
  Is the Committee to proceed without knowing what is the position on this very important matter? Are we to abandon the half measure of my hon. and learned

  2121
  Friend without some undertaking that the Government intend to move their Clause or a part of it? My hon. Friend's Amendment covers a good deal of ground. It would be quite possible for the Attorney-General to accept a portion of it without accepting the whole. The proviso says that no husband shall be committed to prison, nor shall any distress be levied upon his goods, nor shall any other proceedings for any penalty or fine be brought against him for any failure to pay Income Tax. I know that it would not be satisfactory, but I should like the acceptance of the Amendment that the husband should not be committed to prison. It would be useful. It might even be possible to go so far as not to levy distress upon his goods. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot move his Clause which is upon the Paper, then I ask the Government to at least accept a portion of the Clause moved by my hon. and learned Friend. If my hon. Friend's Amendment covers too wide a ground, let The Government accept a portion of it only, but do not let us say that the House of Commons is so impotent in the management of its business and the recognition of real and serious grievances that it must adjourn this year without having taken any steps of any sort in a matter which undoubtedly calls for urgent remedy, as the Government themselves recognise.
  Sir F. BANBURY: We are in the unfortunate position of not knowing whether the Clause upon the Paper in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in order or not.
  The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Baronet appeals to me, I have no objection to stating clearly that I must supply the same rule to the Government as to a private Member. If a new subject is proposed, it clearly needs a Resolution.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The new Clause to which the Attorney-General alluded being out of order, the only matter which is before us is the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend. Here is a very important Amendment, so important that the Government have themselves put down something of a similar character, and I really do think we ought to have the advantage of the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Yet when that something put down by the Government is out of order the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here to tell my hon. and learned Friend what he proposes to do in the
  2122
  matter. The Attorney-General gave no indication what action the Government might be disposed to take, and all he said was that if my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment were carried, then the Government would have to depend on the faith and goodwill of the wife in order to obtain the Income Tax. That is a very weak argument, and I am surprised that so able a man as the Attorney-General should use it. It renders the Government open to the criticism that all they have to do is to put down a Resolution to provide that the wife shall pay the Income Tax in the ordinary way. I admit the time is rather short, but I am inclined to think that if notice was given this afternoon the Resolution could be moved to-morrow in Committee and the Report stage of it could be taken on Wednesday. I very much doubt if the Finance Bill will go to the House of Lords before early on Thursday, but arrangements could be made to send it there by four or five o'clock. It is not our fault that the present difficulty has arisen; it is the fault of the Government, who have wasted all these months when they ought to be dealing with finance, one of the most important matters the House has to consider, and have been dealing with other things which, in my humble opinion, are not so important.
  I cannot agree with the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Pollock), because I am afraid that what would happen would be, if the Government accepted the suggestion, and only a portion of the Amendment were carried, we should have no safeguard that next Session the whole matter would not be allowed to drop. It is rather dangerous to trust the Government to that extent. I would trust them no further than I can see them. I would like this to be done if my hon. and learned Friend withdraws the Amendment. The Attorney-General should state that owing to matters over which the Government has no control they have been unable to bring forward the Committee stage of the Finance Bill earlier, and, consequently, are now in an awkward position in regard to the Amendment all desire to make, but they will give an undertaking, provided my hon. and learned Friend withdraws his Amendment, and in view of the fact that this afternoon the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised to bring the Finance Bill in earlier next Session—
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: No, the Revenue Bill.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The pledge might apply equally to the Finance Bill, because the original intention of having two Bills was, that the Finance Bill should be introduced first and passed quickly, and should be followed by the Revenue Bill. If the right hon. and learned Gentlemen could give some general undertaking that the Finance Bill shall be brought in early next year, and that an Amendment in the sense embodied in my hon. Friend's Amendment and accompanied by the necessary Resolution, providing powers to obtain payment of Income Tax from the wife, shall he introduced and pressed, if that can be done I think it would be better.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The hon. Baronet appeals to me—
  Sir F. BANBURY: I have not finished what I was going to say, but as the right hon. and learned Gentleman seems impressed, I will at once sit down.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I was anxious to state our view to the Committee at once. I was prevented by the Rules of Order, when I spoke before, from dealing with the Government proposal, and I could not take upon myself to rule it out of order. I, therefore, did not indicate there might be difficulty in discussing the Clause. I agree with a considerable part of the hon. Baronet's speech and am quite prepared to say this. We all concur that the law requires amendment. That has already been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We thought it our duty to put our Clause on the Paper, in order that hon. Members interested in the subject might see what were the proposals of the Government. It is an advantage, at any rate, to the House to have the Government proposals before it, but, according to the ruling of the Chair and having regard to the time at our disposal, it does not seem to me we can carry this Clause this Session. Therefore, the proper and convenient way of dealing with the matter would be this. The Government have now stated its intention to a mend the law. It. has formulated in the Clause on the Paper the view which it holds and is prepared to propose to the House. It is given in a very extended form so that everyone can follow quite easily what the Government proposes to do when we are dealing, as we must deal, with the Revenue Bill next year. I think it would be very much better we should deal with all these questions that arise in the same Revenue
  2124
  Bill, which is for the purpose of imposing taxation and of dealing with taxation generally and the law relating to it. I will give an undertaking to this Committee that we will introduce this or a similar Clause next year—it may be we can improve on this, for, undoubtedly, the matter is a very complicated one, and all will desire to put the Clause in a practical shape. Therefore, there is no disadvantage in having a further opportunity of discussing the question. But the substance of the Clause is here. I will undertake that that Clause, in substance, shall be proposed next year, and if the hon. and learned Member will withdraw his Amendment, then I will give that undertaking to the House.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I never like to appear churlish when the Government make an offer in response to criticisms or suggestions from this side of the House. But I cannot say I think that, on this question, the undertaking is either satisfactory or creditable to them. I do not understand why they should not even now deal with the matter as it ought to be dealt with in the present Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for the City of London is a very sanguine, confiding person. He is one of those of whom the Prime Minister has spoken as "incurable optimists." He thinks it possible by introducing the Revenue Bill early next Session to carry out the object of the present Clause. We no doubt shall see the Bill early next Session, because the Government has promised it shall be introduced early, and they will keep a promise of that kind. But when will it be passed? When shall we discuss it For aught we know, and indeed, in all probability we shall not get an opportunity of really discussing it until the closing weeks of next Session. Everything will then be rushed, and we shall be told that, like it or lump it, we must take it or leave it, for there is no time to put in any Amendment. The Government have no excuse in this matter. This proposal has not taken them by surprise. It is not an Amendment which appeared for the first time on the Paper on Friday. If it were, there would be very good grounds for complaint on their part. But they had notice at the very beginning of the Session. They have had a whole Session to think about it, and there is absolutely no reason why, if they had not paid a little attention to their normal business they should not have got this Clause

  2125
  in order and have made the necessary Motion.
  It is possible to do it still. I now make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the Attorney-General that they should take that step. Let them move the Committee stage of the enabling Resolution to-morrow; then they can put the Clause into the Bill in Committee, they can take the Report of the Bill on Thursday, and the Third Reading on Friday. Nobody is anxious to prolong the Session into another week, nobody is anxious to have undue discussion about this particular proposal, as to the objects of which we are all agreed. There must, of course, be some discussion as to the practical effect of the Clause which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had put down, and as to its phraseology. But, speaking generally for myself and my Friends, I say there is no desire to obstruct or place unnecessary difficulties in the way of the Government. It is a subject on which the Government had full notice at the beginning of the Session and they expressed their intention of dealing with it. They ought therefore not now to deprive the House of all opportunity of discussing it in a satisfactory form, simply because they have failed to notice that a Financial Resolution would be needed, or because, having noticed it, they failed to take the necessary steps in time. I suggest there is still time and this is a matter which should be dealt with before the House separates. What is the Chancellor of the Exchequer going to say or do if we have another Wilks case? Should such another case arise is the man to be put in prison and to be kept there, or what is the right hon. Gentleman going to do? It really is not in the interest of anyone to maintain the present condition of affairs. Cannot the Chancellor of the Exchequer arrange to move the Motion to-morrow and put the Clause in order? The remainder of the Bill could be passed through Committee subject to the insertion of this Clause, and thus the alteration in the law could be made during the present Session.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman, if he had looked into the procedure, would have found it impossible to do it this Session.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am not quite certain, but I think it would be possible to take the Committee stage of the Resolution to-morrow at four o'clock, and after that to continue the Committee stage of the Finance Bill; take the Report stage of both the, Resolution and the Bill on
  2126
  Wednesday, and the Third Reading on Thursday.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the hon. Baronet has missed the point that both the Committee and Report stage of the Resolution must be concluded before the matter can be dealt with in the Bill.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is that so? Of course, I speak without having had an opportunity of referring to precedents, but my recollection is very strong that it has been held sufficient if the Committee stage of a Resolution precedes the Committee discussion of a Clause, and if the Report stage of the Resolution precedes the Report discussion of the Clause. I am confident that if you look up the precedents you would find that is so.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Upon a point of Order. I think I have taken the point which you, Sir, took, that the Committee stage of the Bill could not be begun until the Report stage of the Resolution, as well as the Committee stage, had been obtained. My recollection is that I had a conversation upon this point two or three months ago with the Clerk at the Table, and he told me that I was wrong. My impression is that something of the sort has been done this Session, but I am not quite sure.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think so. I think the Resolution must go through both stages. Before the Finance Bill can be introduced for its First Reading, a Ways and Means Resolution must be introduced and reported before the House authorises the Committee to proceed with the Bill. Until the House has received the Report from the Committee, it is not in a position to do so. I am afraid the suggestion would mean an extra day.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In these circumstances I am afraid that it would be quite impossible to deal with the matter without altering the whole of the arrangements which I will not say were agreed to, but which were generally accepted as being the arrangements between both sides for winding up the Session. It is not as if there were something which were very urgent and pressing with which we had to deal. This is a very old grievance, although I agree it is not made any better on that account. It is a grievance I shall be glad to see dealt with. When I was consulting my hon. Friends just now, I

  2127
  was doing so rather with a desire to see if the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman could be adopted. The present situation is just as unpleasant for those who are collecting the tax as it is for the taxpayer. In some cases we cannot collect our tax. I want to have the matter settled. I am sure it is quite impossible to do so now without completely dislocating the arrangements assented to by the House for winding up the Session. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will not, therefore, press his Amendment. I am not quite sure whether it will have to be dealt with in a Revenue Bill or a Finance Bill. I am inclined to believe that it will have to be dealt with in the Finance Bill. Therefore we should have to deal with it in the Finance Bill of next year. It is the sentimental grievance of a few women who own businesses of their own, who are treated as if they were of no account at all, and the notices are sent to their husbands, who may have nothing whatever to do with running the business. Some cases have been brought before me. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not force the matter now. If it were something of very urgent importance it would be worth while to postpone the rising of the House, but I cannot ask hon. Members to upset the whole of their arrangements in order to carry this through.
  The CHAIRMAN: On the point of Order which was raised just now, and which was sprung upon me quite suddenly, I find that I was correct in what I said. On page 560 of Sir Erskine May's book the position is made quite clear. It says:—
  "Before the Clauses and precisions creating such charges can be considered by a Committee on the Bill, a Resolution sanctioning them must be passed by a Committee of the Whole Home appointed upon the recommendation of the Crown, and must be agreed to be the Home."
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: If this Amendment is now withdrawn, may we get a definite assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the procedure next year? The Attorney-General told us that this Clause would be introduced in the Revenue Bill next year.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: In the Finance Bill or the Revenue Bill.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: He also said that he would, on behalf of the Government, give an assurance that that Revenue Bill would be introduced early next Session.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We have consulted the authorities, and are told it must be done in the Finance Bill.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: May we have a definite assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Finance Bill will be introduced at the ordinary time, so that the House will have an opportunity of discussing all its Clauses at an early period of the Session? The way in which the House has been treated is really disgraceful. The Government have put down two Clauses, one of which has been ruled out of order, and, from all I hear, the second may be ruled out as well. What assurance have we that the House will have any opportunity of discussing these things at a reasonable period of the Session next year? I hope that if the Amendment is withdrawn the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give us a definite assurance that we shall have an ample opportunity of discussing this and other Clauses of the Finance Bill at a fairly reasonable point of the Session.
  Mr. MOUNT: May I make a suggestion to my hon. Friend (Mr. Cassel) with regard to his Amendment? I very much regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot see his way to accept the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcester (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) and proceed with the matter this Session. I suggest that if a date were inserted in the Clause, making it read,
  "Provided always that on and after the 31st March, 1914, no husband shall be committed to prison,"
  that will give us some definite assurance that the matter would be dealt with in the early part of the Session. I agree with the last speaker that we have been scandalously treated in regard to the Finance Bill. I am willing to give the Government full credit for intending to carry out their promise to deal with it early next Session. If we put in some such date as that I have suggested it would strengthen the hands of the Government and give us some definite assurance that the matter will be dealt with in the early part of next Session and not put off until just before the House rises.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not know whether the suggestion just made is acceptable to my hon. and learned Friend, but I certainly do feel it would be desirable to get something as definite as pos-

  2129
  sible in order to secure that this matter will really be dealt with next Session. It is a very unfortunate and unlucky accident that, for the second time this year, a question in which women are very keenly interested should suddenly become impossible to be dealt with owing to difficulties connected with the Rules of Order. I am not for a moment saying anyone is to blame, but it is a very unlucky accident, and it makes it very difficult to explain it to those who are not familiar with the course of procedure in this House, and who are, not unnaturally, a little suspicious as to what goes on within the walls of the House. I hope that in some way or other we shall hear something very definite from the right hon. Gentleman that this subject will be dealt with in the early months of next Session. Even that is not very satisfactory, because who knows what may happen next Session? It is a most difficult thing to phophesy in regard to any Session, and I do not gather that next Session will be an easier Session about which to prophesy than any other Session. If it is at all possible to put in some words which would give some kind of statutory pledge that the matter will be dealt with early next Session, I think that would to some extent meet the difficulty.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: The position in which the Committee finds itself is perfectly scandalous, and it certainly reflects no credit whatever upon the Government. It is quite evident from the speech made by the Attorney-General in answer to the Amendment that he anticipated the ruling which you, Mr. Whitley, have since given. It must have been evident to the Government all along that their Amendment on the Paper could not be moved without a Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means. They surely are not so ignorant of the methods of procedure in this House as to be unaware of that very important fact. This state of things is very discreditable. I understand the present position is that the Government refuse to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Cassel), and that the Government's Amendment dealing with the wider question of the relations between man and wife in regard to Income Tax cannot now be considered this Session. We have a promise from the Attorney-General, since repeated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it shall be dealt with in the Finance Bill or the Revenue Bill of next Session. The Chancellor of the Ex
  2130
  chequer described the grievance as a sentimental one. Surely it is something more than a sentimental grievance to send a man to prison and to keep him there for weeks for the non-payment of a tax he has not the means to pay. I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney-General have gone quite far enough in the promise of consideration which they have made. I am fully prepared to accept what they have conceded already, provided they will give a pledge that in the meantime no such prosecution shall be undertaken as that in the case of Mr. Wilkes. We have a right to expect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a promise of that kind.
  Mr. CASSEL: May I state my position as Mover of the Amendment? I do not wish to do anything which would disturb the arrangement come to for winding up, the Session, but I should like, before withdrawing the Amendment, to make the strongest possible protest against the the manner in which the matter has been dealt with. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was not urgent or pressing. Is it not urgent or pressing that he should carry out undertakings he gives to deputations, whom he led to believe he would make alterations in the law which he said was humiliating to them at present? I feel all the more strongly because this afternoon the undertaking given to the builders was not carried out. Surely it was urgent and pressing that undertakings given by a Minister early in the Session should be performed. The right hon. Gentleman said that he will deal with this matter in the Revenue Bill or the Finance Bill next year. It can be done in either of the two Bills. I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that is so if he will consult his advisers. If again we are to have this separation of the Revenue Bill and the Finance Bill next Session, on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill I intend to raise the strongest possible protest, because it is through that separation we have been prevented from dealing with the matter. The right hon. Gentleman could not have dropped the Amendment under which the builders were to be relieved if there were only a Finance Bill, for he could not have got his Income Tax without dealing with all these other matters. If he will give an undertaking that he will not only introduce some Bill next year, but that he will use all the powers of the Government to force that

  2131
  Bill through, say, before the end of May, I shall be prepared to withdraw my Amendment. I do not think I can go quite so far as some of my hon. Friends in pressing the right hon. Gentleman to put a Clause actually into the Bill, but I think it would be reasonable that he should at least state some definite period early in the Session not merely for introducing the measure, but for carrying it into law. Of course, he cannot undertake to carry it into law, because that is a matter for the House, but he can undertake to use all the forces of the Government. If he will give that undertaking, I shall be willing to withdraw the Amendment, but something more definite than that it shall be put into the Bill, which will be introduced early, we ought to have. I have had this Amendment on the Paper for two months. I have asked the right hon. Gentleman questions about it since last October. I have sometimes felt that I have been unduly insistent in pressing the matter on his attention. The Government has had the fullest possible opportunity of dealing with it. They have themselves undertaken to deal with it, and as they are unable to do so we ought to have a definite statement that he intends to use the force of the Government not merely to introduce, but to pass into law the Revenue Bill or the Finance Bill in which it is to be introduced next Session.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE:I do not want to enter into the controversy which the hon. and learned Gentleman rather lured me on to as to separating the Revenue Bill from the Finance Bill, but I should have thought that what had happened to-day would have been a complete justification for the coarse which we adopted. Had I not done so, the House would have had to sit for another three weeks in order to get rid of Amendments.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: You could have had the Finance Bill earlier.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The only difference between earlier and later is this: It will probably take three weeks now, but if we had had it earlier it would have taken two months. As the right hon. Gentleman knows very well it is easier to keep a thing going in the month of May than it is in August. With regard to the question put me, I think it depends entirely on whether it is the Revenue Bill or the Finance Bill. I do not think the Government could possibly give a pledge that both the
  2132
  Revenue Bill and the Finance Bill will be carried through all their stages early. That is an unreasonable demand. Our intention is that the Revenue Bill should be introduced early, and should be discussed early and carried, but when the hon. and learned Gentleman asks us. whether we will give a definite undertaking to put it through before the end of May it would be most improper for the Government to give an undertaking of that kind now, and I cannot imagine any Government giving a pledge of that kind, because we should be pledging ourselves seven or eight months in advance. With regard even to an actual date, that is an impossible undertaking. I cannot go beyond the statement which I am authorised to make, that the Revenue Bill will be introduced early, and that the Second Reading will be taken early in the Session. It is the intention of the Government to get the thing dealt with early in the Session. That would not extend to the Finance Bill, because that could not be carried early in the Session. It will take some time, and it will afford an Opportunity of discussing revenue matters, and therefore the House will be cognisant of this question at an early date in the Session.
  With regard to the undertaking which the hon. Member (Mr. Snowden) asks, that is an impossible undertaking. It is an undertaking that Income Tax which arises where the tax is derivable from a joint account between husband and wife is to be collected. If you say you will not enforce it, you cannot collect it. It is an undertaking which I think, on reflection, my hon. Friend will see no Chancellor of the Exchequer could possibly give. The undertaking which the hon. and learned Gentleman asks is of a different character. I think I have substantially met his case by giving the only undertaking that any Government could give under present conditions. In regard to the criticism which has been passed about it, it is really one of the most difficult problems one is confronted with. It is not so easy as the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to imagine. It is very easy to ask questions about it and to criticise it and to point out the grievance. There is no doubt there is a grievance. I do not bind myself to the word "sentimental." I say it is a humiliating grievance. At the same time it is the most difficult thing in the world to find a remedy which does not deplete the Exchequer by £1,250,000, of which it is

  2133
  very unfair to deprive the Exchequer. I shall be prepared to defend that when the time comes. It took us a very long time before we came to the conclusion as to the best method of dealing with the matter without interfering with the revenue for the year. Here is a grievance which I admit and which I promised to redress, but the difficulty is that there are so many grievances which one must admit and the majority of the House of Commons were of opinion that other measures had to be amended. Having regard to all these conditions, it was quite impossible for us to proceed with this earlier for the reason that the Session started very late. Last Session only came to an end practically in March, and this has been an abnormal Session from that point of view, and we have been driven, through circumstances over which none of us had any control, at the end of the Session to deal with a matter of this kind. Starting our Session in March, it was impossible for us to get our Finance Bill through until late in the year. We have already had about six or seven days' discussion upon it. I do not believe there has been a Session where you have had more financial discussion than you have had this year. The discussion upon the finance of the year has been much more considerable than it has been for years.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Since you came into office?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No. Even when the right hon. Gentleman was in office. During the time in which he was Chancellor of the Exchequer I think he will find that we have had more debate upon the Finance Bill of this year than when he was there. I give that promise, but I cannot go beyond it.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I think the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying he could not promise to pass the Bill before a certain fixed date. But would he give this undertaking, which I hope my hon. and learned Friend will accept, that either in the Revenue Bill or in the Finance Bill, whichever he thinks best, he will introduce a Clause and give the Committee stage, Report stage, and Third Reading before the end of the Session?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly. I am not at all sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not right. I think
  2134
  it depends upon the form of our Resolution whether it is the Revenue Bill or the Finance Bill. I will give him this undertaking. Inasmuch as it will probably be introduced in the Revenue Bill, we hope to introduce it early, but it will be dealt with one way or the other.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "that" ["Provided always that no husband"], to insert the words "on and after the first day of June, nineteen hundred and fourteen."
  I think the present position is extraordinarily unsatisfactory, and, for once, I think the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) is too indulgent to the present Government. The position is quite clear now. The Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us that he cannot pass both the Revenue Bill and the Finance Bill early. It is most probable that this Amendment will have to take place in the Finance Bill, and he proposes to take the Revenue Bill early. The result is that in all probability this question will not be discussed effectively until the very end of the Session. Who can tell what will happen before the end of the Session? That seems to be a most unsatisfactory undertaking. As far as I am concerned, I should like to see a much more definite state of things. It appears to me that the reasonable thing is to pass the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend with a limit of time. I cannot conceive any reason why that should not be done, then, whether the Finance Bill or the Revenue Bill, or whether by special Act or some other way, the matter will be definitely dealt with.
  Mr. CASSEL: I feel bound to stand by the offer which I made. If the right hon. Gentleman says he will deal with this matter to the extent of using the forces of the Government to carry it into law at an early period of next Session. I do not care whether it is done in the Revenue Bill or the Finance Bill. If he has to do it in the Finance Bill, he has also promised that the Revenue Bill shall be carried at an early period of the Session.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is obviously impossible that both the Revenue Bill and the Finance Bill shall be dealt with early. If it is possible to have this in the Revenue Bill—and I think it will be—I will undertake that it shall be dealt with early. If the Rules of Order prevent it being dealt

  2135
  with in the Revenue Bill, it must be done in the Finance Bill.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. CASSEL: What the hon. and learned Gentleman says is not quite satisfactory. Personally, I believe he can deal with it in the Revenue Bill, because the Resolution is to amend the law dealing with Customs and Excise, including Inland Revenue. It is rather unsatisfactory to have it left uncertain, and what is still more unsatisfactory is that the right hon. Gentleman tells us the Finance Bill will not be dealt with early, because he is already telling us in anticipation that we shall probably have the Finance Bill in December. It certainly is unsatisfactory to have the announcement in advance that it cannot be dealt with at an early period of the Session. Though the right hon. Gentleman leaves it in that unsatisfactory position, I should not myself be prepared to press the Amendment to a Division, but I feel bound to stand by the offer I have made to the right hon. Gentleman. If the Noble Lord, notwithstanding, presses the Amendment to a Division, I think he is quite justified, in view of the unsatisfactory statement which has been made.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that the Finance Bill could not be brought in early. Why should not that Bill be brought in early as well as the Revenue Bill? If we are anxious to get business
  through, there is no reason why it should not be done early in the Session. It is ridiculous to tell us, without giving any reason, that it is impossible to bring in the Finance Bill early. We are dealing here with a new Clause which the Government have put down on the Paper to-day. The Government say they wish to move it, and my hon. Friends on this side of the House say that it will go a long way to meet the grievance they complain of. Why should not that Clause be passed this Session? The necessary Financial Resolution could be passed on Tuesday and Wednesday. It would be, I imagine, a purely formal matter if the House is agreed as to the desirability of the Clause. The Finance Bill could be taken on Thursday or Friday. There will be no attempt on the part of Members on this side of the House to use more time than is necessary to do these formal matters. I can undertake that certain of us would not be present on Friday if that would facilitate this business being got through by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is art urgent and important matter. Cannot the Government see their way to get the Resolution on Tuesday and Wednesday, and then pass the Bill on Friday?
  Question put, "That the words 'on and after the first day of June, nineteen hundred and fourteen,' be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 88; Noes, 194.

  Division No. 269.]

  AYES.

  [7.5 p.m.

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Barlow. Montague (Salford, South)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Barnston, Harry

  Grant, James Augustus

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

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

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hamilton. C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Royds, Edmund

  Bird, Alfred

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Blair, Reginald

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Boyton, James

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Snowden, Philip

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hills, John Waller

  Stewart, Gershom

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull. Central)

  Campion, W. R.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Houston. Robert Paterson

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Kerry, Earl of

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Kinloch-Cooke. Sir Clement

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

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

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  De Forest, Baron

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Worthington-Evans. L.

  Dickson. Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

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

  Younger, Sir George

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Eyres-Monsell. Bolton M.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Fell, Arthur

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord Robert Cecil and Mr. Mount.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

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

  Fitzroy. Hon. Edward A.

  Newdegate, F. A.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Dowd, John

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Hazleton, Richard

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

  Adamson, William

  Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Alden, Percy

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Malley, William

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

  Higham, John Sharp

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

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Hodge, John

  O'Shee, James John

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Hogg, David C.

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Hodge, James Myles

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Hudson, Walter

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Parry, Thomas H

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

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Boland, John Pius

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  John, Edward Thomas

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

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

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Joyce, Michael

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Keating, Matthew

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

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

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Kelly, Edward

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Reddy. Michael

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  King, Joseph

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

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

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Clough, William

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Cotton, William Francis

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

  Robinson, Sidney

  Cowan, W. H.

  Leach, Charles

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lundon, Thomas

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Cullinan, John

  Lyell, Charles Henry

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

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  McGhee, Richard

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Gras., Bridgeton)

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

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

  Sheehy, David

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

  Shortt, Edward

  Devlin, Joseph

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Alisebrook

  Dillon, John

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Doris, William

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

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Duffy, William J.

  Meagher, Michael

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Thomas, J. H.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Molloy, Michael

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Falconer, James

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Ffrench, Peter

  Mooney, John J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Morgan. George Hay

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Morison, Hector

  Wardle, George J.

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Muldoon, John

  Webb, H.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Munro, Robert

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Greig, Colonel James William

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

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

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

  Neilson, Francis

  Whitehouse, John Howard

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

  Nolan, Joseph

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

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Wilson. W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hackett, John

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wood, Rt Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Gulland and Mr. G. Howard.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds. West)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment which is in order is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Warwick (Mr. Pollock) (Provision to Allow Deductions in Respect of Inherently Wasting Assets Existing Outside the United Kingdom for Purposes of Income Tax).
  Mr. CASSEL: There is a Government Clause down before that with respect to
  2138
  the deduction of Income Tax allowed to Members of Parliament in respect of their salaries (Deductions in Respect of Expenses Involved in Earning Salary, etc).
  The CHAIRMAN: Before we reach that point, I ought to inform the hon. Member that, so far as I can see, the Government Clause requires a Resolution. If the hon. Member will look at Sub-section (2), he will see that while it certainly gives relief in

  2139
  one direction, it may also diminsh the relief in others.
  Mr. CASSEL: In that case I must move, "That the Chairman do now report Progress and ask leave to sit again," for the purpose of entering a protest. Here again is a matter upon which I have been promised definitely on two occasions that the Government would propose legislation, and now it cannot be carried through on account of the neglect by the Government of financial business. It will be within the recollection of the House that on a Motion for the adjournment I raised the question of the regularity and propriety of the Government allowing a uniform deduction of Income Tax on £100 to all Members of Parliament. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was forced to admit that there was no legal sanction whatever for that method of dealing with the matter, and he promised to introduce legislation which would regularise it. I raised the same point again on the Revenue Bill, for the right hon. Gentleman had told me that he would introduce a Clause in that Bill. When we came to the Revenue Bill there was no Clause in it. I pointed that out on the Second Reading to the right hon. Gentleman and he told me it was more appropriate to the Finance Bill. I said that I would wait for the Finance Bill so long as I was certain of having an opportunity of discussing it. The right hon. Gentleman said he would introduce it in one Bill or the other. It was not in the Revenue Bill, and now we cannot discuss it on the Finance Bill. It is an extraordinary position. The Chancellor of the Exchequer deals in an irregular manner with the Income Tax appertaining to Members' salaries; then he promises to rectify his irregularity; and then he proceeds to do so in an irregular manner. We have had an example to-day of the position to which the management of the finances of this country has been reduced. They are absolutely neglected and bungled at every point. That is the result of the Chancellor of the Exchequer trying to do too much other work. I have always said that I thought it a most unfortunate thing that insurance should be combined with the Treasury and that the right hon. Gentleman should constantly be dealing with other subjects, and that in consequence the finances of the country are being neglected in the most shameful manner which reflects the greatest discredit, not
  2140
  only on the Government, but on this house.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No one knows better than the hon. and learned Member-that it is very difficult to know when one puts down a Motion of this kind, whether it is in order or not. He, with all his astuteness, has been the victim of the Rules of Order in this House almost as much as any man that I know of, and it shows how very difficult it is to keep within the four corners of order in putting a Motion down. On this Motion I shall submit a question of order to the Chairman as to whether it could be brought within the Rules of Order by an addition which I propose to make. My own impression is that it could be. The only reason why it is out of order is, I understand, because it is conceivable that there maybe cases where the abatement would be heavier than the amount which we allow, and the moment you fix an average you are ruling out those who might claim, say, £110 or £120, and, therefore, that would be a charge and you cannot do that without a Resolution. I shall submit to you when the time comes that that would be put in order by saying that where it exceeds £100 the Member should he entitled to claim an amount exceeding £100, if it is possible for him to prove it. That would put the matter right. The Rules of this House are exceedingly subtle and very difficult. Even the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London was recently tripped up on a point of Order, and no one knows the Rules of the house better than he. He knows very well how exceedingly difficult it is to frame absolutely watertight Amendments which are not capable somehow or other of being ruled out of order. I agree with the hon. and learned Member that there is a pledge to deal with the matter, and the moment that this is withdrawn I shall try to introduce words to make that possible. I shall do all in the power of the Government to bring it within the Rules of Order so as to enable the hon. and learned Member to get a discussion on the question which the Government pledged itself to give him the opportunity of having.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know whether it is possible for you to help the Committee at large by expressing an opinion as to whether, subject to the Amendment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has suggested, the Clause which appears in his name on the Paper

  2141
  would be in order. I understand that the difficulty arises from the fact that as the Clause now stands some individuals might get a less rebate, and, therefore, might have a heavier charge. Would it be possible to put the whole Clause in order merely by adding a proviso that no individual should by reason of the action of the Treasury, under this Clause, be deprived of any higher abatement to which otherwise he would have been entitled?
  The CHAIRMAN: That would bring it within the rules, and I think would meet the difficulty which I have.
  Mr. CASSEL: In those circumstances I will withdraw my Motion to report Progress, but I am not to be taken as meaning that I acquiesce in the Clause on all points.
  Motion to report Progress, by leave, withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN: There is a manuscript Amendment to Clause 2, handed in by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University, dealing with the income of husbands and wives. It is not so wide as the discussion which we have had just now, but I do not say that it is out of order if he wishes to move it.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I shall be exceedingly short.
  Mr. CASSEL: I thought that the Government were going to move an amended Clause.
  The CHAIRMAN: We are still on Clause 2.
  Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, to add to the Clause, the words, "Except that for the purposes of exemption from Income Tax, the incomes of husbands and wives shall be treated as separate." This is an Amendment which I have moved before, and as to which I have never heard any reasonable grounds for resistance.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understood that the Opposition, after taking a decision upon the Motion of the Noble Lord, were prepared subject to that to accept the undertaking of the Government to deal with the whole point.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Certainly; but this is an absolutely different point. This is a point which is not dealt with in any way in the new Clause and is not touched in the Amendment of the hon. Member. The
  2142
  suggestion which I am making is a time honoured suggestion, that is, that for the purpose of dealing with abatements for Income Tax, that is the exemption of £160 a year, and even abatements up to £700 a year, the incomes of husband and wife should not be treated as one. At the present moment an unmarried person with an income of £120 a year is exempt from Income Tax altogether. If two such persons marry their total income is £240, and that is not exempt from Income Tax. In the same way, as far as abatements are concerned, the same point arises up to £700 a year. I think that up to 1906 or 1907 I used to move this Amendment in a much more drastic form, namely, that the incomes of the husband and wife should be added together and divided by two. Even to that more drastic form no real reason of opposition was ever adduced; but I have modified that form in recent years. I am not dealing with the question of Super-tax at all, I am simply dealing with the small incomes up to £700 a year. I have never heard any reason, except difficulties of the kind sometimes brought forward by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, why the obvious injustice existing at present should not be remedied. There is no possible reason why the income of husband and wife should be added together for the purpose of ascertaining Income Tax. If anything, their expenses probably are just as large, and certainly in certain circumstances very much larger than when they were living apart. I venture to submit that this is a grievance which does cry for redress.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE:I agree with the hon. and learned Member that this is a time-honoured Resolution. It has now become a hardy annual, and I have only got to say, in the first place, that it would cost too much—I am not certain that it would not cost over £1,000,000—to grant this concession.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: It does not include the Super-tax.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think that that would make very much difference. Probably the abatement is intended to relieve those with small incomes for household purposes where the husband and wife together have got an income which places them above the limit at which abatements are allowed. I do not think it is fair that they should escape.

  2143
  If a husband and wife have got £500 each with an aggregate of £1,000 they will be able to obtain abatement, whereas a man with a large family and an income of over £700 would have no abatement at all. I am prepared to defend the system which has been adopted by Chancellors of the Ex-
  chequer on its merits, and certainly I could not deal with the question this year.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 70; Noes, 193.

  Division No. 270.]

  AYES.

  [7.30 p.m.

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Barnston, Harry

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

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bird, Alfred

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Royds, Edmund

  Blair, Reginald

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Boyton, James

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Snowden, Philip

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Kerry, Earl of

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Lewisham, Viscount

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

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Fell, Arthur

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

  Younger, Sir George

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Mount, William Arthur

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Newdegate, F. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Rawlinson and Lord Robert Cecil.

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Dillon, John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Adamson, William

  Doris, William

  Joyce, Michael

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

  Duffy, William J.

  Keating, Matthew

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Kelly, Edward

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Field, William

  Kilbride, Denis

  Barlow, Sir John Emmett (Somerset)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  King, Joseph

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

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

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Ginnell, L.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Boland, John Plus

  Goldstone, Frank

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Greig, Colonel James William

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

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Leach, Charles

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

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

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Bryce, J. Annan

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

  Lundon, Thomas

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hackett, John

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  McGhee, Richard

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

  Byies, Sir William Pollard

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

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

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Hayden, John Patrick

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Hayward, Evan

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

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hazleton, Richard

  Meagher, Michael

  Clough, William

  Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Higham, John Sharp

  Molloy, Michael

  Cotton, William Francis

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Cowan, William Henry

  Hodge, John

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hogg, David C.

  Mooney, John J.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Hogge, James Myles

  Morgan, George Hay

  Cullinan, John

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Morison, Hector

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Hudson, Walter

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Muldoon, John

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

  Illingworth, Percy M.

  Munro, Robert

  De Forest, Baron

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

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

  Delany, William

  John, Edward Thomas

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

  Neilson, Francis

  Devlin, Joseph

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Rattan, Peter Wilson

  Thomas, James Henry

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Thorne, William (West, Ham)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Reddy, Michael

  Toulmin, Sir George

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  O'Dowd, John

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Wardle, G. J.

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

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Webb, H.

  O'Malley, William

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

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

  Robinson, Sidney

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

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  O'Shee, James John

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

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

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

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

  Pearce, Robert, (Staffs, Leek)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Shortt, Edward

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Gulland and Mr. G. Howard.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Question, "That Clause 3 (Title of Bill) stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Deductions in Respect of Expenses involved in Earning Salary, etc.).
  "(1) Where the Treasury are satisfied with respect to any class of persons in receipt of any salary, fees, or emoluments payable out of the public revenue that such persons are obliged to lay out and expend money wholly, exclusively, and necessarily in the performance of the duties in respect of which such salary, fees, or emoluments are payable, the Treasury may fix such sum as in their opinion represents a fair equivalent of the average annual amount laid out and expended as aforesaid by persons of that class, and in assessing the Income Tax on the salary, fees, or emoluments of persons of that class, there shall be deducted from the amount thereof the sums so fixed by the Treasury."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I beg to move the Clause in this form, which will bring it within the Rules of Order, and not deprive any person of any right to which he might be entitled.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Mr. CASSEL: This Clause is really the result of an endeavour to make special legislation in favour of Members of Par-
  2146
  liament. In the first place, there was to be a uniform deduction of £100 from the salaries of Members of Parliament, and I pointed out that that was not authorised by any provision in any Statute. At first the right hon. Gentleman combated that proposition, and referred me to various Acts of Parliament. He is now driven to the conclusion that this was a wholly un-authorised and illegal privilege to be conferred on Members of Parliament. He now proposes to give the Treasury this dispensing power set forth in the Clause. Personally, I am not quite sure that if Members of Parliament receive this benefit, it should not be extended to any class, for certainly it would be a monstrons injustice if it were not extended to every class. Members of Parliament are now to have it both ways. If their expenses are less than £100 they will get the benefit of the £100 deduction, and if they are more than £100 then they claim on what they have actually spent. But how are the Treasury going to give this privilege to Members of Parliament without extending it to every other Civil servant in the Kingdom? I say it would be a monstrous and outrageous thing if they did not extend a similar provision to all other Civil servants. On that ground, indeed, I do not think I shall raise any objection to this Clause. I think it is such that the Treasury either must exercise it in no case or must exercise it in every case.
  I do think this is an illustration of the dangerous pitfalls which beset us when there is an endeavour to make special legislation in our own favour. If the same thing were contemplated in regard to any class of Civil servant, or officers of the House, or even the reporters in the

  2147
  Gallery, or the clerks of this House, it is doubtful whether such a privilege would have been granted. But simply because it was found inconvenient or too much trouble for Members of Parliament to make out their return like any other subjects of His Majesty, first of all it was sought to strain the law in their favour, and then to alter it when it was found that it could not be so strained. It is a wholly vicious principle, and whatever may be thought now about the payment of Members, whether it is right or wrong, it was done in a wrong way; it was done by mere Resolution, indefinite, vague and unintelligible. Yet the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman in this Clause I really think, after all, is harmless and useless, and on that ground I do not intend to oppose it. I do hope, however, that the Treasury will exercise their powers in the matter quite impartially and not merely confine the privilege to Members of Parliament, but to extend it to all Civil servants. At present none but. Members of Parliament have the right to deduct personal expenses. Directors of companies, clerks who go to the city, or anyone who has to go to a particular place to carry on his business, have not the same privilege which it is proposed to give to Members of Parliament. If the Clause is to be passed in its present form, I think it would be unjust if the Treasury extended the privilege to Members of Parliament alone. Either they should extend it to none or extend it to all.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: I should like a little further explantion of this Clause in order to see what it really means. It refers to "any salary, fees, or emoluments, payable out of the public revenue." Does that apply to soldiers and sailors, and to all Civil servants? If it does, then the Civil servant, the soldier, the sailor, may, as well as the Member of Parliament, deduct a certain specific sum from their income, laid down as expended "exclusively and necessarily in the performance of the duties in respect of which such salary, fees, or emoluments are payable, etc.," I want to know what justification there is for this proposal. We all know perfectly well that it only arises from the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer put an illegal interpretation on the Income Tax Act in order that a certain sum should be deducted in respect of expenses of Members of Parliament. If it is done in that case, I do not think it is fair either to exclude part of the salary
  2148
  paid to any Civil servant, or any military or naval officer. Why should Civil servants and those who are paid by the Crown receive more favourable treatment than other classes of individuals? There has been no justification offered for the Clause. If this Clause means what I think it means I shall certainly vote against it, and if it only means to refer to the salaries of Members of Parliament I shall vote against it with even greater vigour, because I see no justification for special treatment of Members of Parliament. I believe it is quite unnecessary to introduce it whichever way you look at it.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon Member may perhaps be interested and pleased to know that this Clause is in order to regularise an order which was made by Lord St. Aldwyn when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference, not to Members of Parliament, but to revising barristers, and also to regularise a proceeding with regard to another class which I mentioned on a previous occasion, and which the hon. and learned Gentleman may recollect.
  Mr. CASSEL: The other case mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman was the case of Army and Navy officers.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Public Accounts Committee came to the conclusion that both ought to be regularised and this Clause has been drawn to regularise the case of officers, revising barristers, and Members of Parliament as-well. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to Civil servants. Whenever they are travelling on business their expenses are paid. They do not pay out of their own pockets, and, therefore, this does not apply. If Civil servants run down to Yorkshire or the North of England or Ireland in connection with their business their expenses are paid. In the other case, the servant of the country has got to pay expenses out of his own pocket, and all we say is that those should be deducted out of Income Tax. The hon. and learned Gentleman says he has no objection if this is extended to other people. The Clause is not only for Members of Parliament, but is one of general application. It gives the Treasury power to do it in every case just on the same basis as that of those, to which I have referred.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: The Clause refers not to travelling expenses but to any money expended wholly, exclusively and necessarily for the purpose of their duties. Surely that refers to more than travelling expenses, and could it not be held to refer to a Member for Parliament or a Civil servant taking a house in London? To the plain, ordinary layman the Clause seems to bring in more than travelling expenses, and I suggest, if there is any doubt about the matter, that the words "travelling expenses" ought to be put in. I really think the definition as it is is too wide, and that the Government ought to alter it.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I would like to know what would be the effect of the words "where the Treasury are satisfied." We had similar words in the Revenue Bill, and we were told they were subject to appeal in a Court of Law. This is a very important point. Do these words in an Act of Parliament entitle the subject to question the decision of the Treasury in a Court of Law?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Even now I should say that the decision of the Treasury can be challenged on a point of law.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I said in a Court of Law.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It can. The subject can challenge the decision in a Court of Law, and many cases have been challenged in a Court of Law. On this very issue there have been some very interesting cases on the point of law, and the subject is entitled, and it has been done in many cases, and I should say it can be done in this as in other cases.
  Mr. PR ETYMAN: May I point out what a tremendous door this opens to litigation? This Clause has never existed before, and nothing in the nature of it has ever existed. It simply is, I understand, to regularise primarily the allowance made to Members of Parliament, and certain other small exemptions which have previously been granted. Therefore, instead of this being allowed as it previously was, merely administratively in special cases, it is now, owing to the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in extending the allowance to Members of Parliament, to become statutory, or will become so if this Clause passes.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has quite
  2150
  realised the point. This does not alter the law except in one respect. It enables the Treasury in a case of that kind to fix the amount, instead of putting the subject o the trouble and expense of proving each item every year. That is all it does. It does not alter the general law.
  Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision to Allow Deductions in Respect of Inherently Wasting Assets Existing Outside the United Kingdom for Purposes of Income Tax.)
  "For the purpose of enabling deductions from revenue receipts of expired capital outlay on inherently wasting assets existing outside the United Kingdom to be allowed by the additional Commissioners, claims in respect of those deductions shall be included in the annual statement required to be delivered under the Income Tax Acts of the profits and gains of any trade, manufacture, adventure, or concern, and where such a deduction from revenue receipts is made, and has been made, from the commencement of the actual employment of the said inherently wasting assets in seeking profits, or during a period of not less than three years to the end of the usual financial year of the particular trade, manufacture, adventure, or concern last prior to the year of assessment, and provided such deduction is so made as to prevent the same being available as profits, the additional Commissioners in assessing those profits and gains shall make such allowances in respect of those claims as they think just and reasonable. For the purpose of this Section the term 'inherently wasting assets' means assets which necessarily waste in the process of seeking profits, provided always that such wasting assets are not the value of transferred rights to future profits or increase which would have been chargeable with Income Tax if no transfer of such rights had been made."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  This Clause refers to an allowance for deduction in respect of inherently wasting assets. As time has gone on, I think those responsible for the finances of the country have gradually come to realise that there is a very serious grievance

  2151
  raised by this question. I remember the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster saying that he really agreed that some exemption in respect of wasting assets ought to be granted, and last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, in answer to a Clause slightly different from this, that there really was no answer at all in justice to the Clause, and that the only answer that could be made was the one he made, namely, that by keeping the law as it stands at present, he was enabled to gather a very large sum of revenue, and that if the alteration suggested were made, he would lose a sum for which he was advised he would have to make no less provision than £2,000,000 per year. In fact, without meaning any offence, I may say his answer was the tyrant's plea, the plea of necessity. I may say I am grateful to the Chancellor for having given me the opportunity of placing before him some of the material and facts which lead me once more to move this Clause, and which has given me and those concerned with me in the interests of this Clause, the opportunity of discussing the matter with him and for that I desire to thank him. The point I want to bring forward now is this. It is not merely injustice to the subject that presses this Clause, but it is also in the interests of the Chancellor himself, because in the particular case which would be covered by this Clause he is at present, upon the information which I have got, losing revenue, and serious revenue annually. The Clause is drawn in accordance with Clauses which are to be found in the Finance Act of 1907, which enabled the Assistant Commissioners to allow exemptions in certain cases where a settled policy is adopted by those who seek to bring themselves within the Clause. It is only where a settled policy is adopted that any exemption can be paid, and it is only in very special circumstances that the particular exemption that this Clause would provide for could be granted.
  8.0 P.M.
  Let me give an illustration. We all know that there are a number of so-called wasting assets. If a coalfield is bought, and so much of the coal is extracted from the ground and sold, then by that amount the actual value of the asset belonging to the company or individual is diminished. So it is also in the simple case of the nitrate beds at Chili, which used to be worked very largely by English companies. Nitrates are minerals and easily
  2152
  measured, so that you can ascertain how long it would take to work a nitrate bed. Let me assume a nitrate bed is bought for £100,000, and that it is determined that you work it out in a period of ten years, using one-tenth each year, then in ten years the whole thing is exhausted. If the company adopt what would be considered the only sensible, and I might almost say the only honourable, course of providing that a certain sum should be written off their profit to meet the actual loss in the working of the year off the nitrate, that sum is still charged to Income Tax, and they have to pay 1cm. the gross receipts in the year. They do not pay on the actual estimated net profits. I have got here a simple case provided in recent years in which the company made a gross profit of £19,000. In the course of the working during the year it consumed a portion of the nitrate bed which necessitated placing no less than £10,000 to the depreciation account. The result was that after having provided for this depreciation the net profit for the year was only £3,800. One would have supposed that in the ordinary course the company would have paid Income Tax on £3,800. Not at all. Income Tax is a statutory charge on gross trading profits, and Income Tax was charged upon, not £3,800, but £19,000. Any shareholders who had to consider their interests would have said that if the directors had sought to treat the gross profit as profit and had made no allowance for depreciation, they were not conducting the company on honourable lines. Any company which had proper regard for real finance would make provisions for depreciation. The Income Tax Acts as they stand provide otherwise. They charge Income Tax on the gross trading profit, and do not allow for depreciation account in the case of inherently wasting assets. The effect is that companies which have hitherto registered in England, with English capital, and subject to other revenue laws, such as Stamp Duties and so on, find it too expensive now to register in England. They find that the Income Tax, which is nominally 1s. 2d., is in effect sometimes between 4s. and 5s. in the £. The result is that they are ceasing to be registered here, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer loses the revenue which he would otherwise obtain from the Stamp Duties on their registered capital, on the ordinary transfer of shares, and so forth, which

  2153
  undoubtedly in companies of large capital amount to no small figure.
  I have had an opportunity of calling the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the circumstances of this particular industry. I may say that it is an industry with which I have no possible interest myself, direct or indirect. I have brought the matter up merely because it is one of those injustices which I consider ought to be ventilated in this House and upon which I hope both sides are approximating to something like agreement. Under the present system of working nitrate beds it would be fair to say that the average life of a company is little more than fifteen years. Years ago when the machinery was not so complete or so effective the companies worked their beds more slowly; now, with improved machinery, they work them at a greater rate. They also have an incentive to greater industry in the fear lest other chemical resources should be provided to compete with them. If fifteen years be the life of a nitrate company, if they make provision for the depreciation of their capital, and if it is found that they cease now to register themselves in England because of the operation of the Income Tax, am I not right in pressing this matter once more on the Chancellor of the Exchequer? It is sometimes said that if any relief were given it would be taken advantage of by a great many other industries than those which I have in mind. I have endeavoured to make myself acquainted with the system of finance pursued in the gold mines of South Africa, not many of which I believe are now registered in England, and in some other companies. My researches rather lead to the conclusion that, whether you turn to South Africa, to Chili, or to Canada, the number of companies which would previously have registered here, but now cease to do so, is largely increasing, the fear of the heavy Income Tax having proved a real and effective deterrent. In order to guard against the danger to which I have referred, I have drawn the Clause in the form in which it stands on the Paper.
  I have provided that no exemptions shall be allowed in respect of a deduction for inherently wasting assets unless it is the original policy adopted by the company or has been adhered to during a period of three years. The Clause also provides that in no case shall any company be entitled to an exemption unless
  2154
  and until it has placed a sum to depreciation account beyond any possibility of recall for the purpose of dividends in after years which may be less satisfactory from the trading point of view. The real difficulty arises from the fact that the Income Tax Acts were passed long before Joint Stock enterprise had reached its present dimensions. They have never been much modified or altered, and the present system of collecting Income Tax upon the gross trading profits is really an anomaly which ought to have passed away in these cases. A certain number of exemptions have been allowed. There is now an allowance of 5 per cent. in respect of plant and machinery. That was obtained under the Act of 1878. Under the Act of 1894 there is an allowance of one-sixth in respect of repairs to buildings. The Act of 1907 established that the life of ships should be taken at twenty-five years and granted an allowance of 4 per cent. on their prime cost. I am putting forward the case that this particular industry is also entitled to an exemption. It will be said that there are many other inherently wasting assets. One which is commonly put forward, but which in my opinion is not a wasting asset, is that of a leasehold. When a man buys a lease for a number of years what he buys for a lump sum is the right to enjoy something which the seller has, and on which the seller has to pay year by year his quota to the Exchequer. The fact that the purchaser pays down a lump sum does not prevent the subject matter of the purchase from being something which originally was liable year by year to pay its quota to the Exchequer, and it seems to me that no true exemption can be claimed in respect to depreciation.
  In the case of assets outside the United Kingdom there is no liability to make any contribution to the Exchequer on the part of the foreigner who sells to an Englishman. The only right of the Chancellor of the Exchequer arises when the Englishman or the English company has purchased some foreign asset, and there is a real distinction between the case of a purchase held and worked entirely by citizens of this country, whether it be a coalfield or a leasehold, and cases where foreigners sell wasting assets. It is only when the Englishman has paid his money and begun to work his assets that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has any right to make any demand for Income Tax. I have drawn the Clause in a form in which the relief

  2155
  given would be confined within narrow limits, and only granted to those who had seriously made out a good case for exemption. It applies only to assets existing outside the United Kingdom, thereby preventing the possibility of its being said that I am releasing so large an amount as was indicated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year. I have drawn the Clause in a manner in which the exemption can only be claimed by those who have made this policy of providing for wasting assets part of their regular system, and have placed to depreciation account a sum which cannot thereafter be possibly used for distribution amongst the shareholders. That limits the scope of the Clause. I have asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to go a bit further than he did last year. He said last year—and I think I fairly remember what he did say—that practically justice was on my side, but that the system of the present time worked sufficiently well from his point of view, and that of the large revenue that was collected. If justice is on my side the injustice is worse on a number of persons. If injustice is to be continued, the injustice ought to be narrowed as much as possible. I claim that at the present time, in the interests of the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, in the interest of his own collection of revenue, that it is advisable to accept this Clause. If no exemption is given to wasting assets as I suggest, so long will companies fail to come.
  I have been told, on information which I can safely pass on to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that a very large company with a capital of £800,000 ultimately registered itself in Chili because they were unable to face the English difficulties. Another case in which the circumstances were of much the same character with a capital of much the same amount was that of a company which will not come to this country because of the severity of the Income Tax. If this exemption could be granted, and if the penalties of the Income Tax could be mitigated, we should once more have the companies ready to come to London—which, after all, is the most satisfactory place from many points of view for their purposes—where they would be liable, and rightly liable, to contribute to other forms of taxation, the Stamp Duties and others. I apologise to the Committee for having explained this matter at some length, but the Clause is not one which explains itself
  2156
  at first sight. I press the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with this matter. I have ventured to make a somewhat long draught upon the patience of the Committee. Let me add this one word in closing. If we insist, as we do, both by practice and in the Courts, that men shall conduct their business on the methods of sound finance, it is very unfortunate that the present system of Income Tax should be such as to give an incentive to unsound finance and to prevent the proper provision being made for wasting assets. We should so far as we possibly can bring the system of Income Tax into conformity with sound, genuine, honest finance. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept this Clause he will have made a contribution to that end. At the same time, having regard to the limited scope of the Amendment, and the present difficulties of the companies coming over here, he will find that his revenue, instead of being diminished, will in fact be increased.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Every Chancellor of the Exchequer is confronted with Amendments similar to this when he gets into Committee on the Finance Bill. Ever since I have been in the House, I think, there has been a Motion of this kind pressed upon the Government. The hon. and learned Gentleman has put his case with lucidity and as cogently as it possibly could be put. He has also this advantage over previous Amendments of the same character; he has limited this one in its scope. If it were possible to accept it in this form, without any serious consequences, I agree that it would not be very easy to resist, because, for instance, he put a strong case in respect to the nitrate company. Once, however, you begin to embark upon this course—once the Treasury accept this distinction and import it into the Finance Bill of the year in reference to companies outside, no one in this House believes it possible to stop short in its application to companies inside the United Kingdom. The hon. Member stated that last year I acknowledged the justice of the case he was making. He suggested that was an admission on my part of the injustice of the present law. But it is not so much a question of justice or injustice as of the utter impossibility or impracticability of establishing a rule which will enable you to draw a distinction between what are wasting assets and what are not. If you say a wasting asset is something which is

  2157
  bound to come to a termination as a profit-bearing enterprise within a certain term of years, more or less defined, then the only asset in this country which is not a wasting asset is land. Any business or industrial enterprise is bound to be a wasting asset. Take, for instance, a business which depends upon goodwill, and which really very often is the case of either depending upon the locality being one which is going to remain, say, fashionable for that business, or which depends upon the life of some person who has made or developed the business. The moment he vanishes you can never be certain that you will get an equally good man to follow.
  When you are investing your money in a business of that sort, you are investing your money in a business which is a wasting business to that extent. The same thing applies to collieries. The hon. and learned Member has pointed out the case of the goldfields in Africa, India, and elsewhere. Those are wasting assets; but in none of those cases do the companies themselves, in their balance-sheet, arrange their affairs as if that business were coming to an end. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well they do not set aside any sum to reserve in order to provide against the possibility of the enterprise coining to an end. They distribute the whole of the dividend. The only sum of money they do set aside is for purposes which involve acknowledged depreciation. There rarely is anything set aside in contemplation of the possibility of the termination of the business for one reason or another. It is extremely difficult for that reason to draw a line between what is a wasting asset and what is not. If you draw a hard and fast line, the only thing that remains is land, which is the one thing that does not waste. I am not sure you could say the same with regard to Consols, because you will find, before the present Government came into power, there was a very considerable drop in Consols, and that drop has been going on owing to reasons which are not really applicable to this country alone, but affect Europe. As a matter of fact the balance is redressed and adjusted in the Death Duties. When you take the capital value of your assets and when you are coming to assess their capital value you take the possibility of wastage into account, and often in that way the balance is redressed. Take the amount of the shares. The value of these shares is fixed on the Stock Exchange. The contingency which the
  2158
  hon. and learned Gentleman put before the House now was that when you come to Death Duties the wasting character of the asset is an important element in arriving at the duties, and I heard the hon. and learned Gentleman many times treating the Death Duties as if they were only a kind of deferred Income Tax. If you do it on that basis in respect of a most substantial part of your Income Tax, the wasting character of the asset is taken into account.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman made a very strong case in respect of this particular kind of security. He introduced a deputation to me the other day upon the subject, and a very strong factor was that the different speakers accentuated the view which the hon. and learned Member very clearly stated, that it would take twenty-five or thirty years to exhaust these mines, but that is now done in about fifteen years. The reason of that is that some other commodity may be invented or discovered which would prove a serious rival to the nitrate deposits of the West Coast of America, and, therefore, might bring their profitable character to an untimely end. That is an element of a totally new character that makes their profits exist for a shorter time than before. I think the answer to that is the answer which can be given in respect of a leasehold, that when you purchase a leasehold you take into account the number of years. The same thing applies to the nitrate fields. If the nitrate fields would last for forty or fifty years they would be three times as valuable as something that would come to an end and be exhausted in fifteen years.
  Mr. POLLOCK: If I am not inconveniencing the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I should like to say that, of course, the nitrates are based upon the value per quintal. You may work it at a slower or quicker rate; that is not so in the case of a lease.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is only another way of putting it. If you could go down another 10 ft. or 20 ft. for more quintals, it would take more time to exhaust. It is the same thing. It takes a certain number of years to exhaust. You do not know how long it will take to exhaust, and, therefore, it is no use making a calculation as to the number of years in which you waste it. With regard to nitrate deposits you know the area but you do not know the quality or the depth

  2159
  of the deposits in the area. You find in certain places a very rich deposit and good depth. In another part of the same field, a few yards beyond, you may find a very good deposit but not of the same quality. I experienced in dealing with men who had a knowledge first hand they could not give a fair average of the life time of these nitrate deposits. My own idea is that once you introduced this element in this new Clause, you cannot draw the line. You may say some of the nitrates will come to an end in twenty years, but the West Coast of America cannot possibly accept that line. The hon. and learned Gentleman put a very strong case. I consulted with my advisers, and they were very alarmed, and they warned me very strongly against giving way upon this question. It seems only a small thing, but it would cost another 1d. on the Income Tax, and, therefore, I am afraid that I shall have to follow the example of my predecessors for the last forty or fifty years, because I am afraid the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion is a dangerous experiment, and one that I could not accept.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and negatived.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption under 10 Edward VII. c. 8, Section 69.)
  "In the case of the additional exemption from Income Tax under Section 69 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, there shall be no limit to the amount of the exemption for outlay shown to have been incurred in accordance with that Section."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Captain CLIVE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not treat this also as a hardy annual. It is three years since such a Clause has been moved, and the promises made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer from time to time justify me in hoping that he will accept this Clause on this occasion. The Clause, shortly, proposes to eliminate the 25 per cent. which was established when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made this concession to landowners to exempt from Income Tax their expenditure on repairs to cottages and buildings. I think when the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave that—I will not call it a concession, it was
  2160
  merely an act of justice—to the landowners, the reason he imposed that limit was that he had an enormous deficit to meet that year, and he did not think he could properly risk a liability of more than half a million at the time. We all know that that limit has not been anything like reached in the years during which that exemption was made. In the first year only £5,000 was claimed under the Section. In the next year £49,000, and last year. when it was thought it might be considerably more, because it was the last year during which arrears of rebate could be claimed on the whole three years, it was only £68,000, instead of the £500,000 which the Chancellor of the Exchequer expected. Perhaps I might be allowed to remind the Committee of the words used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time. In the Debate on the Second Reading of the Finance Act he said:—
  "If it is found that the £500,000 is not altogether disposed of by this concession, the Government will probably be in a position, at any rate next year, to increase the maximum. If there is any surplus, we propose to increase the maximum."
  On another occasion he said:—
  It must be for the first year experimental. Next year we may have something to spare and we may increase the allowance, may be up to 30 per cent., if the £500,000 runs to that extent, to the improving landowner."
  As recently as the Second Reading Debate on this Bill, in reply to an interruption by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:—
  "I think there is a good deal to be said for that point. Inasmuch as £500,000 is not spent, I do not see there can he ally reason against raising the maximum. I will give further consideration to the point, and, if the hon. Member will put down an Amendment, I will see what we can do in the course of the Debates on this Bill."
  That is as much encouragement as a Member ever gets in regard to an Amendment or a new Clause. I think that justifies me in supposing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may accept this Clause. Apart from the exigencies of the Budget in the year in which this concession was first made, I can see no reason for any limit, provided that the Commissioners are satisfied of the proofs of what has been spent in repairs by landowners. The limit, I think, acts especially hardly upon small estates, because on large estates I do not suppose the percentage spent upon repairs varies very much from year to year, but rather equalises itself. There may be a large expenditure on one farm and less on another. On small estates of two or three or half a dozen farms there may be no great

  2161
  expense in one year, but another year there may be some big roof to be entirely renewed Yet, though a landlord may have a long series of heavy outlays, he can only claim 25 per cent. I know one estate upon which during eleven years nearly the whole income was put back into the estate, not to increase rents, but to maintain it, and having been put in first-rate order the annual outlay still runs to the 25 per cent. which is allowed to be deducted. That percentage of 25 per cent. is only the normal expenditure necessary to maintain the estate in first-class order when it already is in first-class order to begin with. Where a landlord sets to work to spend a large sum upon his estate he is penalised by being allowed only to make this 25 per cent. reduction. I think landowners are the only class who are treated in that way, and practically they are found guilty until they can prove themselves innocent—they are held liable until they can prove the contrary.
  I think the best solution is that which the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Hicks Beach) proposes in a later Clause which places landowners under Schedule D, for they would then be treated like ordinary tradesmen and shop-keepers, and could invite the Commissioners to estimate the amount upon which Income Tax is payable, and that would be a considerable advantage. They might not accept the estimate of the Commissioners unless it is below what they are actually receiving, and if it exceeds the amount, then they have the power of submitting their accounts and paying exactly that which is due. On the Second Reading of this Bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed that he had already done all that was necessary for the landowner, and he rather jeered at them because they did not take advantage of the concession he had made. I cannot think of anybody else who would be entitled to say, "I am justified in taking your money if you are not careful enough to see that I do not take too much." It should be quite as much the duty of the Chancellor, and those who work under him, to see that the subject is not overcharged, or wrongly charged, as it is to see that he pays that which he ought to pay, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no right to say it is the landowners' fault if they have not taken advantage of the concessions he has made. The Central Land Association is particularly
  2162
  associated with this question, and under the secretaryship of the hon. Member for Wilton they first brought this matter before the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that body has endeavoured to bring it to the notice of landowners. That, however, is not their business; it ought to be the business of the State, when making the concession, to see that the merits of it, and the opportunities offered, are brought home to those whom it is intended to benefit. I hope the Attorney-General will see his way to accept this Clause.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I recognise the spirit in which the hon. Member has moved this Amendment, and I quite see the force of the observations that he has made. It must be borne in mind that the restriction this Amendment would remove when introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a great improvement on the condition of things that had existed hitherto. I know the view of my right hon. Friend on this point up to the last moment, and his difficulty is that the amount of the deductions which are claimed under this concession are amounting to more year by year and are increasing from the point of view presented to him more rapidly than hitherto. It is a little too early to say at what stage you should increase this concession, which was only started in 1910. It is a little difficult to say at what stage you can remove a restriction altogether, and it must be remembered that what you remove you cannot very well replace, and therefore it is very difficult to say what amount or what further extensions should be made until we have had a little more experience of the working of the Act. We have only had three years' experience; indeed, I doubt whether we have had more than two, because the first year it scarcely seems to have been known. Although I do not far a moment want it to be understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer recedes in the slightest degree from what he has said, I desire to say that we must wait still a little longer. It might very usefully form the subject of discussion when we come to consider the Revenue Bill next Session. This is not an answer in principle, I agree, to the arguments of the hon. Member, but it is a practical answer. There is nothing a Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to guard himself against more than the giving away of revenue, and the removing of restrictions of this character might have the effect of giving

  2163
  away revenue beyond the concession which he attempts in the first instance to make. Therefore, all I would ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind is that at this moment we cannot give effect to the view which he has put forward and which we accept.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: It is very unfortunate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot be here, though I quite understand the reason. This particular new Clause has been put upon the Paper by my hon. Friend on the distinct and direct invitation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who used words which are usually accepted in this House as a pledge to deal with the matter. He said:—
  "I certainly will give further consideration to that point, and, if the hon. Member will put down an Amendment to that effect, I will see what can be done in the course of the Debates on this Bill."
  That is going very near to giving a pledge to do something. The Attorney-General has taken exactly an opposite line to that taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It will be in the recollection of those in the House than when this matter was discussed on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer took exactly the opposite view and chaffed us on this side of the House because the claims had been so ridiculously small. That was his whole point. Now the Attorney-General tells us that he cannot accept this Amendment because the sum is growing so fast that the danger of exceeding the limit of £500,000 is great. That is the only reason the Attorney-General could give us. The Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Second Reading told us that the sum was so ridiculously small that it was not worth considering, and he chaffed us for not having asked for more and invited us to put down an Amendment, and now the Attorney-General refuses the Amendment because the sum is growing so fast that although it is now only £68,000, it is likely to exceed £500,000. There is another very material point. The Attorney-General told us that he hoped a Clause might be introduced in the Revenue Bill next year.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That goes further than what I said.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I quite agree. The right hon. Gentleman said that the matter could be raised on the Revenue Bill. I have no doubt that he was present in the House a short time ago when we had a
  2164
  definite assurance from the Government that the Revenue Bill and the Committee stage of it would be brought on at an early period next Session. We have also been told that the Finance Bill will be taken later. The Attorney-General said that the Clause could be put down to the Revenue Bill, not that the Government undertook to put it down.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I said it might be discussed.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Will the Attorney-General give me an assurance that the Clause will be in order on the Revenue Bill?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: At the moment I said it I certainly thought that it would be in order, but the very fact that the hon. Gentleman raises the point shows there is a doubt, and of course the Rules of Order are not for me to decide. It must not be taken that I have given any pledge that it will be accepted.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us his opinion that it could be introduced in the Revenue Bill? That would be of great value. I take it that having said we could introduce it in the Revenue Bill he himself is of that opinion.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Of course, when I was speaking I thought that the matter could be discussed on the Revenue Bill, and all I can say is that is my view at present. I certainly am not going to give any pledge in the matter. I know how technical these matters are. Various matters have to be considered before you can say whether a thing is in order or not, but, as far as I can say at present, I think that it would be in order, but I limit it to that.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I quite realise that the Attorney-General cannot decide a point of Order himself and that it must be decided by the Chair, but still it does carry great weight with us that the Attorney-General has given it as his opinion that a Clause to this effect can be introduced in the Revenue Bill. He will see that the point is very material with regard to the pledges the Government have given, because it makes a very great difference to my hon. Friend whether he can raise this matter on the Revenue Bill early next Session or whether he will be relegated to the Finance Bill in the last

  2165
  week of the Session. The issue is really one with which the Government do stand pledged to deal. The question of the five years' average appears to me to have been rather lost sight of when the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke on the Second Reading, because he complained that very few claims had been sent in. Claims on an average of five years can be made more immediately in the case of large estates than in the case of small estates, because on large estates the accounts are carefully kept, and the labour is well defined to different objects. The first year this new concession came into operation the owners of large estates would, in many cases, be able to make claims on the accounts kept at the estate office, but in the case of small estates, where a man has a job here and a job there, doing repairs to an outbuilding one day and perhaps some work in the house another day, and where no regular accounts are kept showing exactly where different men were working at different times, it would take five years before a five years' average could be secured in order to make a claim. The Attorney-General will agree that the kind of people who would make these claims would be very scrupulous only to make a claim on sound evidence. I willingly admit that the Treasury, so far as my experience goes, have interpreted this Clause in a liberal spirit. They have not attempted to question accounts which, on the face of them, were genuine, and they have not attempted to ask questions which would make it difficult or impossible for owners to make their claims.
  The Treasury have dealt with this in a perfectly fair spirit. Where the owner has been able to show that he has expended the money and where he has been able definitely to assert that he has spent it on repairs for the estate, then there has not been the kind of inquiry whether it has been spent on this particular cottage or that. But many of the owners of small estates have not been able to show what their expenditure on repairs and maintenance has been over the whole estate, and probably they will not be able to do that for a period of another two years, when the five years will have expired after the passing of the Act, and that is a reason, I believe, why fewer claims have been sent in than would otherwise have been the case. I must say I expected, after the pledges given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we should have had some definite concession, at any rate within the limit of
  2166
  the £500,000 which the Chancellor of the Exchequer pledged himself to devote to this purpose. I am bound to say, although we realise that the first concession was in reality a promise which entitled my hon. Friends behind me, and which entitled me to press him to carry out the original pledge, we are only getting now a sum of £68,500, and I hope when the next Revenue Bill comes in that will all be changed. I do not know whether my hon. Friend proposes to press this to a Division; if he does so, I shall support him in the Lobby as a protest. I think he will be perfectly justified in going to a Division, but in any case, when the Revenue Bill comes in next year, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make up his mind what he proposes to do, and will carry out his pledge.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: I support the Amendment. I have another Clause on the Paper which I prefer, but now that the subject has been raised I do not think the Committee will care to have another discussion on a similar Clause; therefore, I shall give my support to my hon. Friend's Amendment. It is only as a matter of equity and not as a concession at all that I advocate this. Income Tax is supposed to be levied on people in accordance with their income. Every person gets an income of a certain sort.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: This new Clause deals only with the limit of exemption. Is the hon. Member in order in dealing with the question whether the Income Tax corresponds with the income, and whether the Schedule A should be changed to Schedule D.
  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): The hon. Member has not yet raised that point.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: I was saying that the Income Tax is supposed to be levied on the amount people may have received, and therefore I, for one, see no reason why it should differ between income derived from land and income derived from anything else. This Clause at present under discussion does not entirely carry that out. I support it because it goes a certain extent in that direction. I, for one, fail to see why a person who derived income from landed property should not be able to make a return under Schedule D in the same way as people carrying on other business make returns. The person you want to encourage is surely the

  2167
  person who spends money on his estate, and who does his best during his ownership to keep the estate in good condition and repair. A person must spend money in order to do that, and he should be encouraged, but under the present conditions, you do exactly the reverse. You penalise the man who spends money on his estate, and he gets nothing more in the way of benefit than the person who spends nothing. I think that should be rectified. The House will remember that in 1909–10 the Chancellor of the Exchequer put aside £500,000 in order to grant the concession he then made, and I venture to suggest that the difficulty which has been experienced in making out the return in accordance with the proposals of the Government is responsible for so few claims having been sent in.
  Personally, I should have been quite content if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had seen his way to accept the new Clause of my hon. Friend only on condition that the total relief granted by the Exchequer should not exceed £500,000. I believe that would have met, to a very considerable extent, the cases of the people who did take the trouble to keep those accurate accounts demanded by the Treasury in order to show that they had spent more than the allowance of 25 per cent. on the upkeep of their estates. But, unfortunately, the Treasury have not seen their way to do this; they have only promised to give the matter due consideration next year if the subject is raised on the Revenue Bill. We have heard that sort of promise before, without any very material results, and I must confess, until we get something more satisfactory from the Government, I shall feel justified in urging my hon. Friend to take a Division on his Amendment. It is, I repeat, not a matter of concession. All we are asking for is that a man should receive some sort of an allowance in proportion to the amount of income which he spends on the necessary upkeep and repair of his estate. It must be an advantage to the country that landowners should do this, and it is in order to encourage them in so doing that I support my hon. Friend.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I feel I ought not to give a silent vote on this subject, because the matter was first raised by the Central Land Association at a time when
  2168
  I had the honour of being the secretary of that body, acting under the guidance of Lord Onslow, then chairman of the executive committee. In that capacity, and in conjunction with the Surveyors' Institute, the Land Agents' Society, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree these are very fair bodies to go to in order to obtain facts, because they represent the greater part of agricultural land in this country—
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: The land-owning interest.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: And this is a question which only affects the agricultural land-owning interest directly. As a result of the returns obtained through these media without any sort of selection, I discovered that there was in effect on all well-managed estates in the country an average of something like 30 per cent. expended under these sub-heads in England and Wales, and an average of 40 per cent. expended in Scotland, where the expenses as compared with income are much greater than south of the border. A deputation went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1909, and I am bound to say that he listened most courteously and sympathetically to the views we laid before him. He made an admission at that time that if he were to meet what he admitted to be the well-founded grievances of what he called good agricultural landowners, it would probably involve the Exchequer in a sum of about £3,000,000, which he did not then see his way, as Chancellor of Cle Exchequer, to afford. I do not think that is an overestimate. It was an estimate made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the advice of his own technical experts in the Inland Revenue. If it is not an overestimate, what is the fact? It is that agricultural landowners, as compared with other income receivers in the country, are being mulcted to the tune of £3,000,000 a year, which not only ought they not to pay, but by paying which they are in fact failing to keep up their estates in such a condition as hon. Gentlemen interested in the land on both sides would like to see those estates maintained.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: How does the hon. Member arrive at the estimate of £3,000,000?
  Mr. C. BATHURST: The £3,000,000 is an estimate made by the Chancellor of the

  2169
  Exchequer himself, after taking the advice of his own officials at Somerset House. After comparing a large number of these returns, which I did as secretary of the Central Land Association, I should think that if anything it is probably an underestimate rather than an overestimate of the amount. However, for our purposes to-day, it is not really material. The question really is whether landowners ought to be treated in a different way as regards their net incomes from any other class of the community. I go as far as to say, and I think everybody in the House will agree with me, that those who desire landowners to do their duty, both as regards their tenants and the farm labourers living on their estates, ought to do all in their power to remove their reasonable grievances. I am sure this is a reasonable grievance. Whatever may be said of most landowners as a class, and of most agricultural landowners in particular, they are receiving a very small return upon the capital invested in their properties. I do not think my statement will be disputed, when I suggest that 3 per cent. would be regarded as a rather high average of the return from agricultural land. Compare that with those who have money invested in other property and undertakings, such as cotton manufacturers, steel manufacturers and mine owners, who must be receiving, at any rate in these days of booming industry, anything from 15 per cent. to 20 per cent., who are being allowed these very deductions that we ask in the case of the landowners shall be allowed on their small incomes. Surely, it is an unanswerable case. I should like to see the proposal of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Hicks Beach) adopted in preference to that before the Committee. It is so obviously fair that if Schedule D were made to apply to incomes of all sorts, in every case what was the actual net income and nothing but it would come to be taxed, as in fact it ought to be taxed. There is one little difficulty in the machinery at our disposal to-day, which is that we have to pay the full amount of Income Tax under Schedule A, and we have to recover it back as best we can from the Exchequer. I do not know why landowners as a class should be put to this extreme inconvenience and trouble to which other owners of property are not put. I hope that some hon. Members from the other side of the House who are, or who profess to be, interested in the im-
  2170
  provement of agricultural conditions, particularly the lot of the agricultural labourer and his housing, will say a word in support of this Amendment.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: The hon. Member is so very reasonable that I believe he would acknowledge at once that if we made a change in the collection of Income Tax upon landed property, and changed it from Schedule A to Schedule B, or extended the limits, so that £3,000,000 a year less was calculated under Schedule A than at the present time, and if the landowners got the benefit of the £3,000,000, the value of their agricultural land would immediately rise by the capitalised amount of twenty years' purchase of the £3,000,000. The change in the taxation under Schedule A, if made in the way hon. Members opposite propose, would result in landowners benefiting to the extent of twenty years' purchase of £3,000,000 or thereabouts. It seems to me there is a great deal in all the arguments used on the other side. I am quite certain they honestly believe that it is to the advantage of the country that the landlord should spend a great deal of his gross income on repairs and improvements. With that we on these benches are in hearty agreement. What we say is that the incentive or inducement to improve ought to be given to landlords, but not at the expense of the rest of the community, and that the total amount which is raised under Schedule A at the present time from the landed property should be based not upon the improvements that the landlord makes, but upon the value of the land, whether he makes improvements or not. In that case the bad landlords would pay more, and the good landlords—those we want to encourage—will pay less. All those estates which are well improved would gain the £3,000,000 advantage. I doubt whether it is £3,000,000. I dare say it is £1,000,000. Good landowners would thereby receive the advantage, and the bad landowners, whom we want to discourage, would contribute to the benefit of the others, thus making the account square, so that the taxpayers as a whole would not suffer any additional burden.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: Does that mean that the hon. Member would base the Income Tax on the capital value? If he would, that is in direct contradiction to every other basis of Income Tax.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: That is my suggestion. Under Schedule A, Income Tax is

  2171
  levied upon the rental or rateable value. I suggest that it should be levied upon the capital value of the land instead of upon the property with the improvements. Thereby you would effect exactly those improvements the hon. Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. C. Bathurst) and the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Hicks Beach) have advocated. You would encourage the man who improved his property, and at the same time avoid the pitfall of making a large present to the landed interest at the expense of the rest of the taxpayers of the country. You would effect an increase of employment, an increase of housing, and an increase of housing, and an increase in money well spent, and would not be making a present to the landowners. I submit to hon. Members opposite that if they will look at the question fairly, not from the point of view of the landlord interest, but from the point of view of the public interest, they will see it would be unfair to relieve one particular class, the landlord class, of this vast body of taxation, thereby increasing the value of their land, land which has been subject to Income Tax under Schedule A for over seventy years—it would be unfair to relieve them of the hereditary burden they have borne all those years at the expense of the rest of the taxpayers of the country. I regard all Amendments which relieve landlords at the expense of the rest of the taxpayers as being bad, although the intention of hon. Members opposite to encourage improving landlords is at bottom an excellent one. Hon. Members opposite really desire to see improving landlords encouraged—I am sure no hon. Members really want to help the bad landlord who starves his land from capital and is probably an absentee—why not then, not by putting Income Tax under Schedule B instead of Schedule A, put it on a sound foundation and call upon the owners of land to contribute under Schedule A of the Income Tax, not according to the use to which they actually put the land, but according to the use to which the land might be put?
  Mr. MOUNT: I cannot agree with the conclusion to which the hon. Member has arrived, but I agree with some of the arguments on which he has founded those conclusions. He seems to have admitted that landlords have a claim to be put upon Schedule D, instead of upon Schedule A.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: No.
  Mr. MOUNT: I understood, at any rate, that that was part of his argument, though he went on to say that by so doing you would add a great deal of material value to the landlord. I should like to put to him a concrete proposal that by the present system of taxation you are imposing a burden upon the landowners in the country which it is not quite fair that they should be asked to bear. I should like to ask the hon. Member whether he would not consider a little more carefully whether there is not something to be said upon the other side even on the lines of the argument which he has brought forward. I should like to remind the Committee of what was the object which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has in view, and which previous Chancellors of the Exchequer had had in view, in making this allowance which has been made under Schedule A. There is no doubt they realise that the owners of property under Schedule A had a claim to certain remissions of taxation under the Income Tax for the amount they were spending in the upkeep of their property, but they were also careful to try and avoid, so far as they could, any undue loss to the Exchequer, and, therefore, they made a limit, in the first place 12½ per cent. and later on 25 per cent., upon the amounts which were allowed to landowners under Schedule A. But the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he made the allowance of 25 per cent., made it perfectly clear that he was prepared to forego an amount of £500,000 a year to the Exchequer. There has not been anything like that amount spent by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in any one year under the 25 per cent. allowed, and I think we are entitled to ask why it is that when we were promised an allowance to meet the necessary repairs and upkeep which landowners ought to spend upon their properties, when he was prepared to allow £500,000 a year, whether we should not have, at any rate, a considerable extension of the limit which he is prepared to give for the purposes of these repairs. I welcome what was said by the hon. Member with regard to the encouragement which ought to be given to good landlords, to those who spend a considerable amount of their gross income upon the upkeep of their property; but if he is prepared to support in the Lobby those opinions which he has voiced, we ought to claim that he should go into our

  2173
  Lobby and support our Amendment, because there is no doubt that many a landlords does consider whether he shall do certain repairs and alterations and improvements one year or another, because he feels that he will have to pay an Income Tax of 1s. 2d., or it. may be 1s. 8d., upon the expenditure which he has incurred. If the hon. Member and his Friends really intend to do what they can to encourage landlords to spend as much money as they can on their property, I suggest that he should come and support us in the Lobby.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not think the hon. Member (Mr. Wedgwood) quite understands the question. It is not a question as to whether Income Tax is right or wrong, but merely one of justice. Income Tax means a tax upon your income, and in every case that I know, except in the case of an owner of land, tax is levied upon the income that you receive. In the case of a landowner the tax is levied not upon the income that he receives, but upon a fictitious amount which he is supposed to receive, and all I understand my hon. Friend desires to do is to put the landlord in the same position as anyone else with regard to the payment of Income Tax. I do not agree with the hon. Member in his foible of a single tax, but I believe he is a fairminded person. I want him to divest his mind of any question about land and to look at the matter as it really is. His method of raising taxes may be better than this, but if you have an Income Tax it should be a tax upon income and not a tax upon something which you do not receive and which is not income. Under these circumstances I hope we shall have the hon. Member in the Lobby with us. Should he vote with us on this occasion, he will in no way be precluded from advocating a different system of taxation later on, but he will merely show that he is fairminded and wishes to put all people, even if they have the misfortune to own land, upon an equal footing with regard to the justice of their demands and the justice of the claims which are made upon them.
  Mr. WHELER: I should not have risen to support the Clause if it had not been for the very disappointing reply the Attorney-General gave. I was in the House when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the statement which has been referred to, and I certainly took it as being something very near a promise that something should be done in this direction. We
  2174
  are only asking that Income Tax under this heading should be deducted where income has been received, and if we are not going to be met in this way, speaking as a landowner myself who has endeavoured to do his best with the property entrusted to him, it is a very great discouragement to those who want to improve their property and erect dwelling-houses for the people who live on it. I have gone through this calculation and seen what I could get out of it on my own estate. The amount I got was very small in proportion to the expenditure, which I was only too ready to make and go on making to-day, though as far as deductions for Income Tax are concerned, they are only a mite in proportion to the expense one incurs. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer, knowing this Clause was coining on, might have taken a little less time away from the House. There are other Clauses not so important to him, but this is a Clause on which he undoubtedly gave us an understanding that something would be done. We are only asking for something to be done in common fairness to those who are doing their best to improve their property, and the least he could have done would be to try and be here and give some explanation, because the Attorney-General has taken a line entirely different from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer took when it came up before. It is very hard to reconcile the two lines of argument, the Attorney-General's to-night and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's a few weeks ago, and it seems to me that because the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows he is in a difficulty he is not here, and it is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs, and I shall certainly join in the protest by voting against the Amendment.
  Captain CLIVE: I should like to support the appeal my hon. Friend has made. We all recognise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is but human, and is a very hard worker, but this is a case that concerns his honour very directly. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has now on three separate occasions given, not a pledge, because he is too clever a politician to commit himself to an absolute pledge, but he has given what in all reason amounts to a promise that he will favourably consider this. You cannot go on favourably considering for three years, and then at the end of that period say that the time is not long enough, and that you should have a fourth year, and do nothing. Surely that is not treating the matter in a proper

  2175
  way! Even the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) has spoken in sympathy with us, although he has a different way of arriving at the same result. Nobody, not even the Attorney-General himself, has advanced any argument against our proposal. I am sure that the speech which the right hon. and learned Gentleman made was not one which would have gained for him his high position in the law. I suggest to him that this is a matter of honour. I should like to move the adjournment of the Debate in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be invited to come and give his reasons for his change of front since so recent a time as the Second
  Reading of the Bill. Everybody must have felt that on the Second Reading a promise was given that a properly worded Amendment on this subject would be accepted, and now the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here to explain his change of front. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is naturally unable to give the explanation, and so the Debate becomes a hollow farce, instead of being a proper discussion of a perfectly reasonable proposal.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 55; Noes, 189.

  Division No. 271.]

  AYES.

  [9.27 p.m.

  Baird, John Lawrence

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

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Barnston, Harry

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Boyton, James

  Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cassel, Felix

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

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

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lewisham, Viscount

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

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Fell, Arthur

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Mount, William Arthur

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES..—Captain Clive and Mr. Hicks Beach.

  Grant, James Augustus

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Gretton, John

  Pretyman, E. G.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Delany, William

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

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Adamson, William

  Devlin, Joseph

  Higham, John Sharp

  Alden, Percy

  Dillon, John

  Hodge, John

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

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hogg, David C.

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Doris, William

  Hogge, James Myles

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Duffy, William J.

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Barlow, Sir John Emmett (Somerset)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Hudson, Walter

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Falconer, James

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Boland, John Pius

  Ffrench, Peter

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Field, William

  John, Edward Thomas

  Bowerman, C. W.

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

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

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Gill, A. H.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Goldstone, Frank

  Joyce, Michael

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Keating, Matthew

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

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

  Kelly, Edward

  Chancellor, H. G.

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

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Gulland, John William

  Kilbride, Denis

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  King, J.

  Clough, William

  Hackett, John

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Rossendale)

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockermith)

  Cowan, William Henry

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Leach, Charles

  Crumley, Patrick

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Cullinan, John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Lundon, Thomas

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Hayward, Evan

  Lyell, Charles

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  O'Malley, William

  Sheehy, David

  McGhee, Richard

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

  Shortt, Edward

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

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

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

  O'Shee, James John

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Snowden, Philip

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Meagher, Michael

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Thomas, J. H.

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Molloy, M.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Mooney, John J.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Morgan, George Hay

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Wardle, George J.

  Morrell, Philip

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Waring, Walter

  Morison, Hector

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Reddy, M.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Muldoon, John

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Webb, H.

  Munro, R.

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

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

  Neilson, Francis

  Richardson, Thomas (Whltehaven)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Nolan. Joseph

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

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

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Roe, Sir Thomas

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

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  O'Dowd, John

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

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

  Scanian, Thomas

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

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glos., Bridgeton)

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section 19, Sub-section (7) of Finance Act, 1907.)
  "Section 19, Sub-section (7), of the Finance Act, 1907, shall be amended so as to include in the expression "earned income," any income (including annuities) accruing to any person from investments or property which have been acquired wholly or in part by such person, or the husband or wife of such person, out of moneys earned by such person, or the husband or wife of such person, in any trade, business, vocation, or profession, or in any employment, or otherwise by the personal effort, skill, or ingenuity, of such person, or the husband or wife of such person, and where such investments or property have been partly acquired out of moneys earned as aforesaid, or where any annuity has been partly purchased out of moneys so earned, a proportionate part of the income arising from such investment or property, or a proportionate part of such annuity, shall be deemed to be earned income."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  While the Budget of 1907 was under consideration and the distinction between earned and unearned increment was under discussion the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prevailed upon to allow pensions to be treated as earned income. If
  2178
  you allow pensions to be so treated, I cannot see why you should not, in common justice and equity, also allow the income from savings, which of themselves have been derived from a man's earnings, to be also classified as earned income. When a man saves his income and invests the money or purchases an annuity you treat that as unearned income, and if he is rich enough not to invest his money but to allow his capital to accumulate, his descendants, if he has any, have to pay a large sum. That is obviously putting a premium upon unthrift and encouraging people to spend the whole of their income. I have no doubt that the Chancellor will say that this Amendment is desirable, but that it is quite impracticable in its working, because he would have to depend upon the personal declaration of the Income Tax payer. I do not see any very great difficulty about that, because at the present moment the Chancellor of the Exchequer is very glad to receive personal declarations when he wishes to collect Income Tax or when he wants to collect the Super-tax, and he is quite willing to trust to the accuracy of the returns. He is also content to receive personal declarations from people who want to get exemptions or abatements. Therefore, I cannot see why he should not also accept the personal declaration that a certain definite proportion of income is derived from savings accumulated during the active portion of a man's life, and it is because I

  2179
  wish to encourage people to save during the active portion of their lives so as to have the compensation at the end of their lives of comparative prosperity that I beg to move this Amendment.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: When the question of extending the concessions with regard to earned income to pensions was first raised the Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, was very doubtful as to the principle and the expediency of making that concession, but on the whole the balance of argument was in favour of treating pensions as portions of the income which a man earned, and therefore the pension is not a saving, but is only a part of a man's income, the payment of which you defer until he has retired from the service. On that ground the Amendment was accepted. But the present proposal in the first place is, I think, quite impracticable. If a man has been for twenty or thirty or forty years in business, then, according to this Amendment, if his income or portion of it is derived from investments of savings that he has made, he is to be charged on the ninepenny rate. The hon. Gentleman says that his own declaration ought to suffice, and that if he makes a statement that his investments arise from money which he had saved, that ought to be conclusive. If not how are you going to check it? You have difficulties enough in checking the declarations made by the subject now which only deal with the income of the preceding year; but this would involve examination of accounts extending over twenty, thirty, or forty years in order to discover whether the money which he has got to-day was earned or inherited or got by some other means not earned. It is quite an impracticable policy. I do not think that it could be carried out, and I cannot possibly accept the extension. I think that the hon. Baronet who pressed for the inclusion of pensions was quite prepared to take the statement that the inclusion of the pension did not necessarily justify the claim of those who save money to treat it as earned income when they invested it later in life.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not remember with regard to pensions, but I do not see any difference between a pension which is a deferred income and the savings of an income. Take the case of a man in business. He makes £3,000 a year. He is a
  2180
  prudent, saving man. He only spends £1,000 out of that £3,000. After twenty years or so he finds himself the possessor of 50,000. On that he retires. What is the difference between that man and the Civil servant who receives an income of £3,000 a year and spends the whole of it, but when he retires he is granted a pension of £2,000 a year on the ground that it is deferred pay. I see no difference between those two cases. I should rather say that the exemption should be in favour of the person who out of the £3,000 a year only spends £1,000, and resists the temptation to spend the whole of his income and makes a saving for himself and his family, while the Civil servant gets the deferred money which he could not touch if he wanted, because the State, acting as a provident and wise parent, refuses to give him the whole amount of what he was earning during the time he was earning it, but gives him a pension. I do not see why that pension should be considered as earned money, while the savings of the man of business on which he has retired are not to be considered as earned income. I must say I do not see where the difficulty mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman comes in. Surely it is perfectly easy, taking the case of a man with an income of £2,000 a year, for the Income Tax Commissioners to ask him to make a declaration that none of the money came to him by inheritance or under a will. It would be perfectly easy to consult the records at Somerset House, which would show whether certain people had received money under wills or from inheritance. If they did not, then there are no means of which I am aware by which they can get money save by their own exertion. That may or may not be the case; but I do not see there is any difficulty in requiring a declaration from the person as to whether his income is derived from gift under a will or inheritance, or whether it is derived from savings. My idea, however, is that all these exemptions never should have been made; I think it is a mistake to introduce them; but if you exempt the pensioner, you certainly ought to exempt a man who has saved his earnings.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and negatived.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Leasehold Insurance Premiums.)
  "Any individual who claims and proves that under policies taken out with any recognised life insurance office for redemp-

  2181
  tion of leasehold property having sixty years or less to run, shall be entitled to allowance in respect of the annual premiums paid."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. BOYTON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The object of this Clause provides that any person shall be entitled to allowance on Income Tax in respect of annual premiums paid on a leasehold policy. It has been long felt a great hardship that Income Tax should have to be paid on leasehold investments as on freehold. The economical and careful person who guards himself against depreciation by taking out policies gets no allowance for the premium he pays to the insurance company, although the insurance company who invests his premiums pay Income Tax upon the earnings from them. Thus the Government get double Income Tax. That seems to me to be anomalous, more especially in view of the fact that a person who insures his life can do so up to about a fifth of his income, and receive an allowance in respect of the premiums. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not like the narrowness or the wideness of this Amendment, he could, of course, limit the investing power of the person in leasehold redemption to the same amount as in the case of life insurance—a fifth of the income. I submit that it would be doing an act of justice to accept this Amendment.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This, in principle, is really the same as a proposal made earlier in the evening, and which was discussed, namely, the question of wasting assets. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Pollock), who moved that Amendment, used an argument showing that there was a distinction between what he proposed and the Clause which is now submitted, and he said there was no case for this one at all. I must say I think he demonstrated that there was a stronger case in respect of wasting assets than there is for this proposal. I can only say that if we once began to introduce these exemptions the Income Tax would gradually disappear.
  Mr. BOYTON: It is done in the case of life insurance, and it is the same principle.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There was a good deal of policy in that. The idea was
  2182
  rather to encourage life insurance at the time that provision was introduced, and it was not altogether the recognition of any definite principle. I agree with what the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) said when he objected to the introduction of these exemptions. They lead to complications, and a good many people escape who ought not to escape, while a great many people who can show a much better case still remain liable.
  Mr. COTTON: Every time I write a cheque for Income Tax I wish it was for ten times the amount.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and negatived.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Income of Husband and Wife Not to be Aggregated.)
  "For the purpose of Super-tax the incomes of husband and wife shall not be aggregated."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time."
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  I had this Amendment down on the Paper for the Revenue Bill, which was not taken, and I took it off the Paper and now move it in regard to this Bill. It is a very simple Clause, and, I think, a very just one. There can be no reason why, for the purposes of the Super-tax, the income of the husband and wife should be aggregated. As the Committee knows, the income of a person liable to Super-tax is upwards of £5,000 a year. It is perfectly well known that there are wives of taxpayers who have anything from £1,000 to £2,000 or £3,000 a year and upwards, and in that case the income is either settled upon the wife or the money is entirely in her control. Therefore, the husband, though he may be assessed for Super-tax by his wife's income being added to his own, has practically no control whatever over her income, which, being added to his own, makes him liable for Super-tax. It may be that in the smaller cases settlements do not occur and that the husband has control over the wife's money, but in all the larger cases which are touched by the Super-tax. I think I am absolutely correct in saying that in nine cases out of ten the control of the money is entirely in the wife's hands. I know of several cases where the husband had to pay Super-tax on account of his wife's income of which

  2183
  he never had any control and of which he never received a farthing, while the wife refused to pay the Super-tax. I do not say that is a usual case, but such cases do occur. In the case of a brother and sister, or of two brothers or of two sisters keeping house together, the incomes are not aggregated, and why, therefore, should the income of a wife over which the husband has no control be added to the income of the husband? It is, I think, most unfair, and cannot be justified on any ground whatever. It may be said that where the husband has control over the money then he ought to pay Super-tax, and I do not know that I should be averse to the insertion of that in my Amendment. As it would be difficult to draw the Clause in that way, I simply put it down in the way I have moved it in order to have the opinion of the Chancellor upon it. I endeavoured in former years to move the Clause, but as the Debate usually occurred in December at about six o'clock in the morning I did not have the opportunity. I was taken to task earlier in the evening by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil) for being too kind to the Government. I think I deserve some thanks for that attitude, and I hope the Chancellor will not forget that I have been subjected to obliquy for having assisted him too much, and that the least he can do is to give my new Clause a sympathetic hearing.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As a Member of the Government, I can absolve the hon. Baronet from the charge brought against him. I am perfectly certain that in all cases he has done nothing except to drive a very good bargain for his party, and I do not think the Noble Lord need be under any misapprehension that the hon. Baronet is likely to give any point away to the Government. This proposal raises exactly the same point of principle as that raised by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson), and the same considerations apply in both cases. If this Clause were accepted, the other Amendment could not be resisted, and this would have to be done for the general Income Taxpayer, and the result would be an enormous hole in the revenue derived from Income Tax. I say now, as I said then, that it is not merely because of loss of revenue, but on principle I think
  2184
  this proposal is wrong. You must in these cases treat the household income as one. It is the only fair way in which you could do it, to tax people according to their available means of livelihood. If you had a case of a husband and wife, each with £4,500 per year, under this proposal they would escape Super-tax altogether, while if either of them had £5,100 per year, that person would be subject to Super-tax, while in the first case the income would be very much greater. The same argument applies to the other Amendment, and I must refuse this on principle and on the ground that it would be disastrous to the revenue.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I would not like my hon. Friend to think that I passed a general criticism on him, as it was only a passing and venial offence to which I referred. Apart from that, I confess I think he is right in this matter. I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the two cases really in principle are the same, and I agree with him that there is a good deal to be said for the view that you should consider the household expenses as one. The difficulty of that view is that it is not the view that is adopted for the purpose of taxation, except in the case of the husband and wife. In the case of an irregular union there would be no aggregation, or in the case of two sisters living together, or in the case of two brothers, or a brother and sister, and, in fact, in no other case. This is really based on the principle that husband and wife are to be regarded as one for the purposes of income as well as for other purposes. That has, however, entirely passed away. The Married Women's Property Act really destroyed that idea, and subsequent legislation has carried it further in every direction. For every other purpose husband and wife are, so far as their commercial entity is concerned, entirely separate. In taxation alone, they are treated as one. I do not think that is defensible. You can have a theory on which you can tax a house and not a person. That is not our theory. Our theory is that you tax a person. In that case I cannot see on what ground you are to treat husband and wife for this purpose as one person when you do not treat them in any other, commercial or property, as one person any longer. For these reasons it appears to me that the argument of my hon. Friends is absolutely incapable of refutation. This is merely a relic of an

  2185
  older and less civilised state of things, when we had a different view as to the relations of husband and wife from a property point of view.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I must really protest against the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It, at any rate, has the benefit of novelty, but it is absolutely fallacious. You do not tax the household income. If a husband and wife were living apart there would be no exemption from this tax at all. The principle has nothing to do with the household entity. Other people living together are not taxed in the same way. It has never been suggested that the tax was upon the household income. A possible reason against accepting the new Clause might be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot afford it, but no successful attempt has been made to defend the anomaly of treating the income of husband and wife as one. It is an anomaly arising from the old common law principle that the husband and wife for all purposes were one. That has ceased to be the state of the law, and in common justice this new Clause ought to be carried in the case both of Income Tax and of Super-tax.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not deal with the suggestion that in the case of a husband having the full control and enjoyment of his wife's income he should be liable to the Super-tax. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would say whether he thinks there is something in that point.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think that that really happens. What does happen is that the income available for running the establishment is largely the
  joint income, and, therefore, the means available for paying the tax are larger. I do not think there is anything in the argument of two sisters or a brother and sister living together. That is purely a voluntary agreement, terminable at will. That with which we are dealing is a legal union, and you have to get the intervention of law to terminate it.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: They could live apart by consent.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Whether in a case of that kind there should be different arrangement is another point. The hon. Baronet is not pleading the case of people living apart, whether by consent or otherwise. He is on the general proposition of married people, which is altogether different from the case of a brother and sister or two sisters living together.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: It really is not different from the point of view of property. It is from the point of view of marriage, but from the point of view of property there is no distinction at all.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am rather surprised at the view of the Noble Lord. If his noble relative were present I think he would administer a very severe rebuke.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: You cannot pet over the Married Women's Property Act.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There is a very serious distinction between the two as far as the law is concerned.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 51; Noes, 192.

  Division No. 272.]

  AYES.

  [10.12 p.m.

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Gretton, John

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Barnston, Harry

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

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Boyton, J.

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Snowden, Philip

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Cassel, Felix

  Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cecil, Lord R. (Harts, Hitchin)

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Larmor, Sir J.

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

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Worthington-Evans. L.

  Duncannon, Viscount

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

  Younger, Sir George

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Fell, Arthur

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir F. Banbury and Mr. Rawlinson.

  Fisher. Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Gibbs, G. A.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Malley, William

  Adamson, William

  Hazleton, Richard

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

  Alden, Percy

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

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Shee, James John

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Hodge, John

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Hogg, David C.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Hudson, Walter

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Boland, John Pius

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  John, Edward Thomas

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Bryce, J. Annan

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

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Reddy, Michael

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

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Keating, Matthew

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Kelly, Edward

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Clough, William

  King, Joseph

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

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

  Robinson, Sidney

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Cowan, William Henry

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

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

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

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Cullinan, John

  Lundon, Thomas

  Scott. A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Sheehy, David

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Shortt, Edward

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

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Alisebrook

  De Forest, Baron

  McGhee, Richard,

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Delany, William

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

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Dillon, John

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Tennant, Harold John

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Thomas, J. H.

  Doris, William

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

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Duffy, William J.

  Meagher, Michael

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Falconer, James

  Molloy, Michael

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Wardie, G. J.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Morgan, George Hay

  Waring, Walter

  Field, William

  Morrell, Philip

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Morison, Hector

  Watt, Henry A.

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Webb, H.

  Gill, A. H.

  Muldoon, John

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Munro, Robert

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Goldstone, Frank

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

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

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Neilson, Francis

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

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

  Nolan, Joseph

  Williamson. Sir Archibald

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

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

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

  Gulland, John William

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Hackett, John

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  O'Dowd, John

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

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

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

  Bill reported with Amendments; as amended, to be considered to-morrow (Tuesday).

APPELLATE JURISDICTION [SALARIES AND PENSIONS].
Resolution reported,
"That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund, of the Salary and Pension of any additional
2188
Lord of Appeal in Ordinary appointed under any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to the number and duties of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, provided that the sum paid in salaries in any one year to the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary appointed under this Act shall in no case exceed twelve thousand pounds."
Mr. HERBERT CRAIG: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of

2189
my hon. Friend the Member for Pancras—to leave out the word "twelve" ["shall in no case exceed twelve thousand pounds"], and to insert instead thereof the word "five."
The House has already agreed that in a Bill of this kind it is right and proper that there should be a limit set to the amount of money to be provided. It seems to me that if there is to be any value in that maximum limit it should be fixed as clearly as possible. As regards this question of inserting five thousand pounds, instead of twelve thousand pounds, we know that there is a Royal Commission sitting, and we have every reason to hope that in the Report of that Royal Commission there will be some recommendation that judges should be retired at a specified age. I have an Amendment on the Paper lower down proposing that these two new Law Lords, proposed to be set up under this Bill, should be confined to judges who had served their time and qualified for a pension, and if, as many of us hope, we are going to have that limit of age, then you would be able to find amongst these judges to fill these posts, to use the words of the Memorandum, that appears upon the face of this Bill, "English judges of the finest quality." You are going to have a supply of these judges ready at hand, and already in possession of pensions of £3,500 a year each. Therefore, if you confine these appointments to these ex-judges, you would only require in each case an additional £2,500 a year to bring the salaries of each of the Law Lords up to £6,000 a year. Here we are creating two of the most expensive offices known to our Constitution, and everybody in favour of economy must be agreed that if we can do it without detriment to that great office of Law Lordship, we should do it as cheaply as possible, and that can be done by retiring two nisi prius judges at an early age. These judges deal with trials and hear witnesses, and their work is very different from that of the Lords-in-Ordinary, who have only to sit two or three days a week and a couple of hours each day. These judges would be specially qualified as English judges of the highest quality to take these appointments. Therefore, I have great confidence in moving this Amendment, and recommending it to the consideration of the House.
Mr. WATT: I beg to second the Amendment, and I am only sorry that the hon. Member for St. Pancras is not here to
2190
move it himself. The Amendment is that £5,000 should be substituted for £12,000 in the huge sum which is to be paid to the judges under this Bill. The idea at the back of that limitation is that it is considered by us that one new judge would be quite sufficient to satisfy the claims of the Dominions for extra judges. All that the Dominions seek is that a larger quorum of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should sit on Dominion cases and the quorum present is at least three. The objection the Dominions have to such a quorum is that occasionally in their own Courts more than three judges—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): The hon. Member will recollect that Mr. Speaker's ruling, given in very definite terms, was that a Resolution is not the occasion to debate the Bill. The hon. Member is referring to Amendments to the Bill itself. Those Amendments should not be discussed on the Resolution, and we should wait until we get into Committee on the Bill.
Mr. WATT: Then I will confine myself to the limitation of £5,000, instead of £12,000. The sum of £5,000 was the salary originally intended for two judges. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware of the fact that this is the third Session in which an Appellate Jurisdiction Bill has been brought before the House, and on the two former occasions it was practically defeated. At first the salaries were put at £5,000, but not withstanding the fact that the two previous Bills were thrown out, the Government now come forward with a third Bill, and they raise the salary from £5,000 to £6,000. My argument is that the view originally held by the Government that £5,000 was quite sufficient should prevail. I am surprised that after this Bill has been practically rejected twice by the House that the Government have the courage to bring forward this measure a third time, and not only to do this, but they are now proposing to increase the salaries of the judges. When this Bill was formerly before the House, we had the assistance of the Labour party in opposing the appointment of these judges, but now for some unknown reason the Labour party are not assisting us on this occasion. The reduction I suggest is that one judge is sufficient to give the quorum desired by the Dominions, and I think the salary of that judge should be

2191
£5,000, an amount which the Government thought was sufficient on two former occasions.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I will endeavour to obey your ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in answering the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend. The object of this Amendment is not quite easy to discern, because the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved it said he did so for the purpose of enabling him to pass a Resolution to give effect to an Amendment which he had on the Paper that judges who had retired would be able to serve if they received £2,500, which, with their pension, would give them a salary of £6,000. I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman who seconded the Amendment desires to reduce it to one Law Lord and to pay him a salary of £5,000. I have already explained to the House, both on the Second Reading of the Bill and also when in Committee on this Resolution that the object of this Bill is to give the same salary to the two new Law Lords as the four Law Lords have had ever since 1876. It does not raise anybody's salary, and it does not add anything to the salary; it does not raise the pension or add anything to the pension. It puts the two new Law Lords on exactly the same basis as the four Law Lords have been ever since the year 1876. I hope that will commend itself to the House, and that they will see that is the only way in which this Bill can be properly carried out. It is a little difficult to understand how you can have two Law Lords standing at a lower salary than four others with whom they form the same tribunal? The hon. and learned Gentleman who moved seems to think that. it would be sufficient that you should have sitting in the Supreme Tribunal for the United Kingdom and also for the Dominions, the highest Court in the British Empire, men who have retired on account of ill-health, or old age, or because of some infirmity and because they have already served as many years as they consider they can usefully serve. I really do think that is an impossible proposition. I doubt very much whether the hon. Gentleman had in mind the fact that these judges would have to sit in the House of Lords. They would, when they retired, actually sit in the Supreme Tribunal where, during their active period, they had only sat as judges of the first instance. It is obvious that would be quite an impossible state of
2192
things. We have already, by the Resolution which is before the House, limited the salaries to a sum not exceeding £12,000 for the two judges, which makes it impossible to pay any higher salary than has been paid ever since 1876 without any question. I was rather surprised to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman, who is a Member of the Royal Commission, stating what he thought was going to be the views of the Commission which has not yet reported, and which, so far as I know, has not yet sat and deliberated.
Mr. H. CRAIG: I did not say what I thought would be the Report, but what many of us hoped would be the Report.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The hon. and learned Member is a member of the Commission, and that is what drew from me the observation. I should not have thought anything of it if it had been said by any other hon. Member. It is a little, unusual that a member of a Royal Commission should express his views in that way. This Amendment stands in the name of the hon. and learned Member for. East St. Pancras (Mr. Martin), and it is most regrettable that he is not here and that advantage should have been taken of the Amendment standing in his name, to, move it when it must be known that so far as he was concerned he was perfectly satisfied. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I alit speaking of the result of a conversation which took place with the Lord Chancellor, and in reference to a document which I hold in my hand.
Mr. MORTON: He told me he was not at all satisfied, but that was all he could get.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I understand that he was not satisfied, but that he got the best he could, and then went away to Canada, having made it impossible for him to move any of his Amendments after the discussion that had taken place. I, therefore, think it a little strange that we should have an Amendment moved in his name. The hon. and learned Member seemed to think that he was moving it for the hon. and learned Member for St, Pancras.
Mr. BOOTH: I hope we shall hear nothing more about the views of the hon. Member for East, St. Pancras (Mr. Martin). The House of Commons is quite capable of dealing with this question, and when the Attorney-General puts forward his own

2193
view it does not gain added weight from the views of an absent Member. The right hon. and learned Gentleman argued that it was impossible that in a body like the one being set up, some men should be paid higher salary than others. He suggested it was incongruous and unworkable. But he is a Member of a Government which has done that very thing, because in the Mental Deficiency Bill there are Commissioners in receipt of a salary of £1,500 a year, and the Home Secretary has promised that new ones shall be appointed at £1,200 a year. As one who likes to support the Government on every possible occasion, I must point out the quandary they get into through one Department not knowing what is done by another.
Mr. KING: I should like to point out that all the present Law Lords have not the same salary. The Lord Chancellor has a considerably higher salary than the other Law Lords.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Not as a Law Lord.
Mr. KING: The Attorney-General was very much at sea when he argued that all judges must stand on an equality as regards salary. I raise my voice against this on the ground of economy, and I particularly want to hear the views of the Opposition on this, because when there is a very small economy proposed plenty of them are ready to vote for it, but when it is an economy involving thousands of pounds they are dumb dogs, all of them. We know the reason in this case. One of these appointments is to go to one of their friends. Let some responsible Member of the Opposition give voice to their views on tins occasion.
Mr. MORTON: I object to this on the same grounds as the last speaker. It is high time we studied economy. I do not believe these judges are wanted at all, but no doubt they have already been selected. It is so easy when we are spending other people's money. I was sorry to hear the Attorney-General make the remarks he did about the hon. Member for East St. Pancras. No one can object to an hon.
Member who has been so regular in his attendance going away a little early on his holidays. Then as to the remarks made about the Royal Commission. I submit that the Government have no business to be going on with this Bill at all pending. the Report of the Royal Commission, seeing that when the appointment has been made we may find the Royal Commission reporting in favour of something very different. Expenditure should not be rushed in this way at the moment a Royal Commission is considering the self-same matter. It is late in the day of the Session to ask this. House to be economical, but I do think that this year there has been more reckless squandering of public money than there has ever been before. I hope the House will say that £5,000 is, if anything, more than ought to be paid for these new posts.
Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: It is not quite fair to assume that those who oppose this Grant are animated by any sort of indifference to the interests of the Colonies. I certainly am not conscious of being more indifferent to the interests of the Empire than those who support this Grant. What I feel is that we have been asked to make a large addition to the judges this year, and I do not think the present condition of the bench has been sufficiently surveyed before those additions were made. I should like to have seen a Report of the Royal Commission. I believe that there are probably some judges on the bench—there certainly were in my own country until not long ago, when certain changes were made—who would be better retired, and that if the full bench of judges was in active operation it is probable that these new appointments would be unnecessary. It is on these grounds, and not because of any indifference to the needs of the Colonies being met in the High Court here, that I associate myself with those who advocate the reduction of the Grant.
Question put, "That the word 'twelve' stand part of the said Resolution."
The House divided: Ayes, 207; Noes, 36.

Division No. 273.]

AYES.

[10.45 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Acland, Francis Dyke

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Bird Alfred

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

Banbury. Sir Frederick

Beland, John Pius

Anson. Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

Barlow, Sir John Emmett (Somerset)

Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Boyton, J.

Baird, John Lawrence

Barnston, Harry

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Bryce, J. Annan

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

Parker. James (Halifax)

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Higham, John Sharp

Parry, Thomas H.

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

Hills, John Waller

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Cassel, Felix

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Illingworth. Percy H.

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Chancellor, Henry George

Ingleby, Holcombe

Pretyman, Ernest George

Clancy, John Joseph

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

John, Edward Thomas

Pryce-Jones, Colonel Edward

Clough, William

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

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Joyce, Michael

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Cotton, William Francis

Keating, Matthew

Reddy, Michael

Cowan, W. H.

Kellaway, Frederick George

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Craik, Sir Henry

Kelly, Edward

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Crumley, Patrick

Kerry, Earl of

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Cullinan, John

Kilbride, Denis

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

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

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Lardner, James C. R.

Robinson, Sidney

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

Larmor, Sir J.

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Delany, William

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Devlin, Joseph

Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Lewisham, Viscount

Royds, Edmund

Dillon, John

Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Doris, William

Lundon, Thomas

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Duffy, William J.

Lyell, Charles Henry

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

Duke, Henry Edward

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Duncannon, Viscount

McGhee. Richard

Scanlan, Thomas

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Fell, Arthur

Macpherson, James Ian

Sheehy, David

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Shortt, Edward

Ffrench, Peter

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Simon, Rt. Hon, Sir John Allsebrook

Field, William

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

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

Meagher, Michael

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Stewart, Gershom

Fletcher. John Samuel

Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Molloy. Michael

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Gibbs, George Abraham

Morgan, George Hay

Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

Gill, A. H.

Morrell, Philip

Tennant, Harold John

Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Grant, J. A.

Morison, Hector

Thorne. G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Greig, Colonel James William

Mount, William Arthur

Toulmin, Sir George

Griffith, Ellis Jones

Muldoon, John

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

Munro, Robert

Waring, Walter

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

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

Webb, H.

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

Neilson. Francis

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Gulland, John William

Nolan, Joseph

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

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

O'Brien. Patrick (Kilkenny)

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Hackett. John

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

l White, Patrick (Meath. North)

Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

O'Doherty. Philip

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

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rnssendale)

O'Donnell. Thomas

Wolmer, Viscount

Harcourt. Robert V. (Montrose)

O'Dowd, John

I Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

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

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

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

O'Malley. William

Younger, Sir George

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

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

Yoxall, Sir James' Henry

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Shaughnessy. P. J.

Hayward, Evan

O'Shee, James John

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. W. Bens and Mr. W. Jones.

Hazleton, Richard

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Henry, Sir Charles

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

NOES.

Adamson, William

Hodge. John

Pringle, William M. R.

Booth, Frederick Handel

Rogge, James Myles

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Bowerman, Charles W.

Hudson, Walter

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Bridgeman, William Clive

Jowett, Frederick William

Snowden, Philip

Byles, Sir William Pollard

King, Joseph

Thomas, J. H.

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

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

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Wardle, George J.

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Gilmour, Captain John

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Goldstone, Frank

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Gretton, John

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

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Outhwaite, R. L.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Herbert Craig and Mr. Watt.

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

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Questions, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL.
The following Notices of Motion appeared upon the Paper relating to the Order for Committee on the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill:—
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to divide the Bill into two Bills, the first dealing with the constitution of the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords in relation to the hearing of United Kingdom appeals and the second with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in relation to the hearing of appeals from the Dominions and Colonies."—[Mr. Herbert Craig.]
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee to divide the Bill into two Bills, the first dealing with Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and the second dealing with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council."—[Mr. King.]
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): Those Instructions are out of order, because the Bill is not of a nature to fall easily into two parts. It would seem to require entire redrafting.
Mr. HERBERT CRAIG: The purpose of the Bill is set forth in the Memorandum which is printed on the face of the Bill. In that Memorandum there is quoted a resolution which was passed by the Imperial Conference in 1911.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to open up the question of the Memorandum. It is a question of the procedure of this House as to whether the Instructions are in order. I took care to get the Speaker's own words on the question, and they are those which I have delivered to the House.
Bill considered in Committee.
[Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Additional Lords of Appeal.)
His Majesty may appoint two Lords of Appeal in Ordinary under Section six of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, in addition to the four Lords of Appeal in Ordinary whom he may appoint under Sections six and fourteen of that Act and the law relating to the appointment and qualifications of Lords of Appeal under the said Section six, and to their duties and tenure of office, their rank, and otherwise, shall apply to any Lord of Appeal appointed under this Section.
Mr. KING: I beg to move to leave out the words "two Lords," and to insert instead thereof the words "one Lord."
I think the appointment of one Lord under this Bill would be quite sufficient. One Lord would suffice to raise the quorum for all practical purposes. It is only very seldom that a proper quorum cannot be obtained. In view of the alterations in the law that will be necessary when the Royal Commission report, I would ask the Committee not to act too hastily now, and to be content with the appointment of one Law Lord.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It is quite true that the Royal Commission is sitting, though I do not profess to know when or what it is going to report. But it is not inquiring into this matter at all. It is quite true that we are getting some general recommendations which may be generally adopted when we see them. But what we are doing here is redeeming the pledge given by the Government to the Dominions at the Imperial Conference in 1911, when this matter was discussed at considerable length. At the conference the Government pledged itself to appoint two new Law Lords. We want two to have a sufficient number of Law Lords to have two Courts, the Judicial Committee, and also the House of Lords. I hope that the hon. Member will not persist in this Amendment in view of the pledge which he has already given.
11.0 P.M.
Mr. MORTON: I hope that my hon. Friend will stick to the Amendment. One evil is very much better than two. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the Royal Commission, and said that he did not know what they were going to report. I do not suppose that they know themselves. What is proposed is to appoint two judges more, so that the others can have more holidays. These judges are not wanted at all. They are squandering the people's money, and at the very most we ought to have only one of them. We know that once these things are begun they are never reduced. We ought to have had the Long Vacation question settled and other reforms carried out before doing anything of this at all. There are to be two Lords. Who are going to be appointed? The hon. Member for East St. Pancras told me that so far as he understood, they were already selected and settled upon. The idea of rushing the Bill now is to put them in their

2199
places and to give them a good long holiday and spend our money.
Mr. WATT: I support this Amendment. On the occasion of the Debate on the Financial Resolution I said the object of the Bill was to facilitate a larger quorum of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to sit on oversea cases. What is the number of those who can sit on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council? I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many could be called upon to sit in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. His answer was:—
"There are sixteen members of the House of Lords who are qualified to sit to hear appeals in the House of Lords, and fourteen who can sit on the Judicial Committee. Ten of these receive salaries of an aggregate amount of £60,600, and five draw pensions amounting in all to £21,000 one receives no payment from British funds."
This is a total of £81,000; and pensions, £7,500, make £89,000. This Bill is about to add £12,000 more. I was dealing with the point of how many could be called upon to sit on the Judicial Committee.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The hon. Member says "called upon."
Mr. WATT: Who can sit on the Judicial Committee. Apart from the fourteen, there are twenty-three who now hold or have held judicial positions, and who also could be called upon to form the quorum. That quorum is called upon to sit very few days in the year. In 1910, sat 98 days; in 1911, they sat 101 days, and in 1912 they sat 101 days. Those figures were given by the Attorney-General himself in answer to a question. So that fourteen members of the House of Lords can sit, and there are twenty-three judges who may sit, making thirty-seven judges who are able to sit on this quorum and to constitute this quorum for seventy-eight days in the year. The Government do not think that sufficient. They want another two, and they bring in this measure and insist on it being put through. The Attorney-General referred to the pledge of the Government, but that, of course, was subject to the sanction of the permission of the House, and in this Bill the House is being asked to consent to or dissent from the promise they have given. All that the Dominions asked was for a more substantial Court, or that more judges should sit on their cases when they came from the other end of the world than have sat in their own Dominions. A quorum can quite readily be got for
2200
seventy-eight days of the year out of those at present available. I venture to think when the facts are known in the Committee, they will back up the Amendment.
Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM: I do not understand why the Government want to steam roll their own supporters, and why at the end of the Session they are pushing through measures against their own supporters who have loyally supported them for the greatest part of the Session. When we came to deal with the King's Bench the Government met those in opposition by the appointment of a Royal Commission to consider the problem there and report on the subject. We are now asked to appoint two additional judges without any information at all as to the hours of those judges or other particulars. The holidays in this case are longer than in that of the King's Bench, and we have no time-table before us. I think it is wrong for the Government to cast aside in effect the promise they have made in respect of the reform of the judicial system. The appointment of one Law Lord would have the effect of carrying out the proposal of the Government which is bound with the pledge the Prime Minister gave to the Colonial Conference to appoint two judges of the highest or finest quality. I do not know what they mean by highest or first quality.
Mr. MORTON: Because they are of more than one quality.
Sir A. MARKHAM: The Government are not treating their Friends well in this matter. They are going to carry the Bill by steam-rolling their own supporters. That will not conduce to the passage of a number of other Bills which they want to get through. If my hon. Friend goes to a Division I shall support him.
Mr. PRINGLE: A consideration which ought to affect our minds in coming to a decision on this announcement is the fact that this is a temporary measure. It is true that the pledge in fulfilment of which the Bill has been brought in was given in 1911, but we have the assurance of the Prime Minister that next Session the Government is going to bring in proposals for the reform of the House of Lords, for the entire reconstitution of that Assembly. If this is done, the House of Lords as at present organised for judicial purposes must also be vitally changed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why"] Obviously so because its judicial character is to a large

2201
extent determined by its constitution as a branch of the Legislature.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question before the Committee is whether one or two judges shall be appointed.
Mr. PRINGLE: My argument is that if this is a temporary measure we ought to limit the number of vested interests created by it. Its temporary character is a consideration which weighed very much with the hon. Member for East St. Pancras (Mr. Martin) in withdrawing his opposition to the Bill. He was closeted with the Lord Chancellor, who told him that it would certainly be a temporary measure because of the reconstitution of the House of Lords.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot go into that question now. The question before the Committee is two judges or one.
Mr. PRINGLE: If next year the appellate tribunals of this country and of the Empire are to be recognised, it is obviously our duty to see that in a temporary measure we do not create any more vested interests than we can help. If you appoint a larger number than is necessary you to a certain extent prejudice your powers of reform when the reconstitution of the tribunal takes place.
Mr. HOGGE: There is another substantial reason why we should limit the choice of these Lords to one. Everyone knows that in these appointments politics to a large extent count more than the legal knowledge of the gentleman appointed. Rumour, it is well known, as already pointed to certain gentlemen to occupy these posts. One is to come from the Labour party and the other from the Irish party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name."]
Mr. W. THORNE: They can do the work as well as some of them anyhow.
Mr. HOGGE: I hope when I have finished that the hon. Member will get up and give us his reasons for that statement, so that we may be enabled to make up our mind on this important point. I shall be interested, as one who knows nothing about law, to see whether in the selection of one Lord the man's legal knowledge weighs more than his politics. I prefer to put the Government in a position to appoint a man because of that knowledge, and not to find them in the easy position of appointing two men because of their poli-
2202
tical opinions to the exclusion of their legal knowledge.
Mr. KING: The right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General did not when I sat down make the statement I expected. The hon. Gentleman the Member for East St. Pancras went about the House shortly before he went away showing one Member after another a statement of promises which had been given to him by the Lord Chancellor. On the strength of these he felt so contented that he left the House before this Bill came on. I object to our discussing the Bill this time of night—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That has nothing to do with the Amendment: it is a question of one judge or two.
Mr. KING: Most respectfully and seriously I would point out that some pledges and promises have been given in another place, and to one hon. Member of this House, that ought to have been given from the Treasury Bench to the whole Committee. We are at a distinct advantage.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is the second time I have had to call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that he is going outside the area of discussion.
Mr. KING: I have finished.
Sir A. MARKHAM: The Attorney-General has not answered my question as to the days sat and the amount of work done by the judges?
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It is difficult for me to say how many days, as I have not the figures before me, but the judges sit continuously until the work is disposed of. That work is very arduous, and it involves not only a great deal of time in Court but a very large amount of time outside. A judge must very carefully prepare his knowledge of the various systems of law of the different countries. Anyone who is familiar with the work of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and also of the House of Lords will feel a great deal of admiration for the way in which the judges discharge their duty. They do sit, in fact, until they dispose of the effective cases, or practically all the effective cases, brought before them. Anyone who thinks their labours are easy makes a very great mistake.
Sir A. MARKHAM: What are the numbers of the arrears now?
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: There cannot be to get at the sittings you must add the much in the way of arrears now, because they have been sitting continuously in order to get through with the work.
Mr. MORTON: The Attorney-General ought to be able to tell us how many days they sit. He gave the figures to my hon. Friend.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That is not really accurate. The hon. Member in the answer he read purported to give the number of days the judges sit in the Privy Council, but he left out of consideration altogether that some of the judges sit on other days in the House of Lords, so that if you want
to get at the sittings you must add the number of sittings in the House of Lords as well.
Mr. MORTON: That is only another reason why we should not go on with this Bill to-night, and it is a monstrous and scandalous state of things that we should spend the taxpayers' money without proper information.
Question put, "That the words 'two Lords stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 20.

Division No. 274.]

AYES.

[11.24 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Gill, A. H.

Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Gilmour, Captain John

Molloy, Michael

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

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Morgan, George Hay

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

Goldsmith, Frank

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

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Goldstone, Frank

Mount, William Arthur

Baird, John Lawrence

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Muldoon, John

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Munro, R.

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

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

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

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

Neilson, Francis

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

Nolan, Joseph

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Gulland, John William

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Barnston, Harry

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Hackett, John

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

O'Doherty, Philip

Bird, Alfred

Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

O'Donnell, Thomas

Boland, John Pius

Harcourt. Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

O'Dowd, John

Bowerman, C. W.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

Boyton, James

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

O'Malley, William

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

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

Bryce, J. Annan

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hayward, Evan

O'Shee, James John

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hazleton, Richard

O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

Henry, Sir Charles

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Cassel, Felix

Higham, John Sharp

Parry, Thomas H.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Hills, John Waller

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Hughes, S. L.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Chancellor, Henry George

Illingworth, Percy H.

Phillips, John (Longford, South)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Clancy, John Joseph

John, Edward Thomas

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Jones, Rt.Hon.SirD. Brynmor (Sw'nSea)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Clough, William

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Joyce, Michael

Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgomy B'ghs)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Keating, Matthew

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Cotton, William Francis

Kelly, Edward

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Craik, Sir Henry

Kerry, Earl of

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Crumley, Patrick

Kilbride, Denis

Reddy, Michael

Cullinan, John

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

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

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

Lardner, James C. R.

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Delany, William

Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Lewisham, Viscount

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Devlin, Joseph

Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Dickson, Rt. Hon C. Scott

Lecker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Robinson, Sidney

Dillon, John

Lundon, Thomas

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Doris, William

Lyell, Charles Henry

Roe, Sir Thomas

Duffy, William J.

Lynch, A. A.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Duke, Henry Edward

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich)

Royds, Edmund

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

McGhee, Richard

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

Fell, Arthur

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

Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

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

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Ffrench, Peter

Macpherson, James Ian

Scanlan, Thomas

Field, William

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Sheehy, David

Fletcher, John Samuel

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

Shortt, Edward

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Meagher, Michael

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

Gibbs, George Abraham

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Waring, Walter

Wolmer, Viscount

Stewart, Gershom

Webb, H.

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Wheler, Granville C. H.

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

Talbot, Lord E.

White, J, Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Younger, Sir George

Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

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

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Tennant, Harold John

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. W. Bonn and Mr. W. Jones.

Toulmin, Sir George

Wing, Thomas Edward

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

NOES.

Adamson, William

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Watt, Henry A.

Booth, Frederick Handel

Morrell, Philip

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

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

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Gretton, John

Outhwaite, R. L.

Hodge, John

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. King and Mr. Pringle.

Hogge, James Myles

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

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

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. HERBERT CRAIG: I beg to move to leave out the words "under Section six" ["His Majesty may appoint two Lords of Appeal in Ordinary under Section six"] and to insert instead thereof the words "for the purposes."
This is a first of a series of Amendments designed to embody in the terms of the Bill the words or some of the words of the Memorandum which appears on the face of the Bill. I would ask the Committee to remember that urgency is being claimed for the Bill because it is designed to give effect to a resolution which was passed at the Imperial Conference. That resolution appears in the Memorandum which is printed with the Bill.
"The proposals of His Majesty's Government then were 'that they should add to the highest court of appeal, both for the United Kingdom, and the Dominions, and Colonies, by selecting two English judges of the finest quality; that the quorum should he fixed at, say, five.'"
That is the promise which has been given to the Colonies and which this Bill is designed to fulfil, and urgency is claimed for it by the Prime Minister on those very grounds. When the question whether or not this Bill should be dropped came up the other day the Prime Minister, in refusing to drop the Bill, used these words:—
"The Appellate Jurisdiction Bill is introduced in response to a definite pledge given by this country at the Imperial Conference in 1911, to the representatives of our Dominions."
It is because that promise has been given to the Dominions urgency is claimed for this Bill. I would respectfully suggest to the Committee that the Colonies are not at all concerned with the House of Lords as a judicial tribunal. What they are con-
2206
cerned with is the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council before which body their appeals come. Their appeals are not taken by the House of Lords, and what they are anxious to have is an increase in the quorum of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and it is for the purpose of providing an additional personnel, in order that that quorum may be constituted that this Bill has been brought forward. That is the whole and sole excuse for this Bill. So far as I am concerned if words are drafted into the Bill to secure the fulfilment of the promise made to the Colonies I shall be entirely satisfied. But we think that the Government are using the promise they made to the Colonies of a larger quorum of the Privy Council as an excuse for creating, what I am afraid they have always been rather too anxious to create, more judicial appointments of a very costly character—a proceeding in which they are sure of the support of eager lawyers on both sides of the House. I will ask the Government when they steamroller their faithful supporters here as they are doing to-night—and in the country as well—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have read through Section six, which the hon. Member proposes to leave out, and I really cannot connect the hon. Member's remarks with that Section.
Mr. CRAIG: I understood you to rule that my longer Amendment, which appears beneath the one I am now proposing, is consequential, and in moving to omit "under Section six" I was dealing with both Amendments together.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: But I can see no relevance in the arguments the hon. Member was using to the Section he was, moving to omit.
Mr. CRAIG: I understood you to rule I should not be able to move my Amendment lower down unless I so proposed to omit "under Section six." I do not wish to make a speech on both Amendments, and, therefore, I was trying to deal with both in one speech.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: But I have been unable to connect the remarks of the hon. Member with the Amendment.
Mr. PRINGLE: Is not my hon. Friend's Motion a proposal to substitute wider words than those embodied in Section six, and is he not therefore in order in explaining the wider terms he proposes to introduce into the Bill?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is entitled to give reasons for leaving out "under Section six," and he can also give reasons for substituting the Amendment which stands in his name.
Mr. CRAIG: As I understand your ruling, I am to confine myself to the Amendment which stands lower down on the Paper—to leave out from the word "Act," to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words—
"Provided that only judges who shall have already retired or become entitled to retire upon the maximum judicial pension shall be eligible for appointment under this Section, and that an additional Lord of Appeal in Ordinary so appointed shall not be entitled by way of salary to any greater yearly sum than that required to make up the difference between his pension as a judge and the salary of a Lord of Appeal as fixed by Section six of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876."
That proposal is founded on hopes we all entertain. I think I am entitled to resent the imputation cast upon me by the Attorney-General that as a member of the Royal Commission I ought not to make any reference to the hopes which the House entertains regarding the Report that may be forthcoming from that body. My opposition to this Bill however is largely because the measure has been brought forward before the Royal Commission has reported. I think I am entitled to say that, on the evidence which has been printed and is public property, showing to what the Commission is directing its attention, we all hope that the outcome of the Report of the Commission will be that a retiring
2208
age limit may be placed upon the judges. If that were done we shall have provided a large staff of men eminently qualified to fill the posts which are created by this Bill. If you confine these appointments to ex-judges who are already in the enjoyment of a pension of £3,500 a year, you will, without reducing the salary payable to a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, be able to satisfy the wants created by this Bill at a total cost of £5,000 a year, instead of £12,000 a year. My scheme shows the Committee an easy way of saving the country £7,000 a year. In the constituencies we are met most frequently by the cry, very often raised by Conservative candidates that this Government has gone out of its way to increase highly paid posts. I hope that upon this Amendment I shall have support of the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) who has made such a reputation for himself as an economist.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: On a point of Order. I understood that the hon. Member was moving the Amendment at the bottom of the page of the Amendment Paper.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member only indicated it for the information of the Committee.
Sir A. MARKHAM: I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. We have been seeking that judges shall retire at the age of seventy, but here we are asked to take the view that when they have reached the age of seventy we should ask them to do something which they are physically unfit to do. We shall be defeating the very principle for which we have been contending, namely, that judges, like all other public servants, should retire at a definite age. It cannot be right to take them from the High Court, where they have had to attend to a totally different class of business.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I should like to endorse the appeal of my hon. Friend. It is really impossible to give effect to this Amendment It is no doubt conceived in a spirit of economy and with a desire to effect some reform, but it would not be of the slightest use here. What is desired is to appoint judges to sit in the Judical Committee of the Privy Council on Appeals and also who can sit in the House of Lords so that you may draw on these two additional judges either for the one tribunal or the other

2209
according to which requires assistance most. You could not possibly appoint judges who have retired either because they are no longer fit to carry on their work, it may be because of age or because of weakness or some infirmity, or it may be because they think they have done their best work and that therefore they ought to retire. But the idea that in order to carry out the pledge given to the Imperial Conference in order to give them the best tribunal the British Empire can we should only give them the worn out judges in order to be able to get them at £2,500 a year instead of the salary which you pay the Law Lords is a proposition which I think my hon. and learned Friend will not on reflection ask the Committee to divide upon.
Mr. PRINGLE: I think the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend (Sir A. Markham) have somewhat misconceived the position of my hon. Friend (Mr. Craig). It is quite true that for the purpose of the appointments to be made the state of things which he has in view does not exist and to that extent I do not think he should press his Amendment. But at the same time, in view of what is likely in the future when there is a compulsory age for retirement for Judges of the High Court it would be possible to recruit the Courts of Appeal from the ranks of the retired judges. If they have all retired at seventy it does not follow that they are all worn out judges. Many may be still at their best and it would not be proposed by my hon. Friend to put all these retired judges in the Court of Appeal. The proposal would only be that the Government should elect such of them as were distinguished judges. But in view of the fact that the appointments now to be made are appointments under the existing state of things my hon. Friend would be well advised to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I beg to move, after the word "rank" ["tenure of office, their rank"] to insert the words "salary and pension."
Mr. WATT: I have an Amendment to leave out these words, and therefore I oppose this Amendment The effect of leaving the words out would be that the Lords to be appointed would not be, in regard to salary and pension, in the same position as regards Lords
2210
of Appeal at present in office. I think the new judges to be appointed should not be put in the same position as regards salary and pension as the Lords at present existing. I take up that position because of the Government's own attitude in their earlier dealings with this matter. Under Section 3 of the Bill brought in in 1911 the new Lords were to have £5,000 a year instead of £6,000, and under Section 7 the pension was to be £3,500. Under the Bill of 1912 also the salary was to be £5,000 and the pension £3,500. These Bills having been rejected, the proposal in this Bill is that the salary of each new Lord shall be £6,000. If these words are omitted it will be possible for the Treasury to pay the new Lords £5,000, and to correspondingly reduce the pension. What I wish to know is why the Government have changed their views as to the salary to be paid. I back up my Amendment by the views which the Government held for two years.
Sir A. MARKHAM: I should like a promise from the Government. I am willing to be squared with a very small piece of bread if the Attorney-General will give it. I wish the hon. and learned Gentleman to give a promise on behalf of the Government that they will not grant a pension of £3,500 a year to judges who have only served eighteen months in the public service. A case of that kind happened three or four years ago. I cannot see that Ministers professing to represent a democratic Parliament could go on to any public platform in the country and defend the granting of such a pension to a judge who has served less than two years. Under the 1876 Act it is entirely in the discretion of the Government whether they will give pensions to judges or not. There is some time limit which the House could reasonably seek to impose on judges and if the Attorney-General would say that the Government would not grant a pension to any judge who has not had five or ten years public service that would satisfy at all events my objection.
Mr. KING: I would support the appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield. I am confident from the way in which the hon. Member for East St. Pancras spoke to me that he had a definite pledge from the Lord Chancellor. It was all written down and was shown repeatedly to several Members on this side

2211
of the House. It is really very trying to us who are bearing the burden and the heat of the day if we cannot have at any rate some part of the pledge which has been given to a colleague of ours who has gone away on a holiday. I would appeal in the most serious manner to the Prime Minister who is present or to the Attorney-General to make public for the House what has been promised to the hon. Member for East St. Pancras.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: In response to the appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for the Mansfield Division I think that we shall be able to satisfy him—not in this Bill, but we shall no doubt very soon have the Report of the Royal Commission in which various matters such as pensions will be discussed or at any rate they will come up for review, and it is possible to say this: We shall be prepared to deal with this question of the pensions, I will not say upon the exact terms suggested of not giving a pension to a judge unless he serves ten years—
Sir A. MARKHAM: Five or ten years.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I will not say any exact number of years, but we shall certainly consider the subject of the scale of pensions granted to judges when they have to retire after a very short time. It may happen sometimes that through some misfortune a judge may have to retire after a very short period, though it is of very rare occurrence. In my recollection it only happened once in circumstances very well known. The Government are going to consider that in the spirit in which my hon. Friend suggested it.
Sir A. MARKHAM: Will that apply to Law Lords?
12.0 P.M.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Yes. It will apply to all judges. There is not a word about pension in the statement made to the hon. Member for East St. Pancras. If in order, I would be quite prepared to make a statement. I have already made one. I told the Committee a little while ago that the Privy Council and the House of Lords sat on and after the 1st August, and I am quite prepared to state what they did, but it really does not touch the question of pension. With regard to the question of an Imperial Court of Appeal, the statement was made that after the Second Chamber is dealt with that question will
2212
be taken up. I do not think that there will be any necessity for the retiring of judges and the appointment of new judges, The present judges will at least form the nucleus of an Imperial Court of Appeal. That is all I can say in regard to the matter. Reference has been made to the hon. Member for East St. Pancras (Mr. Martin), who was concerned with various questions, among them the right of barristers from the Dominions to appear before the House of Lords, and whether the House of Lords could grant that right without a statute. The Lord Chancellor expressed the opinion that the House of Lords could grant this right of audience without legislation. As head of the Bar I must reserve the rights of the Bar in reference to this matter. The Lord Chancellor also stated that the Privy Council would be ready to meet any requisition as to costs that is appropriate, and would make any necessary inquiry into the matter.
Mr. BOOTH: I make the appeal that we should have done with any interview in which the hon. Member for East St. Pancras took part. The hon. Member has gone away, and it would appear that more importance is attached to him in his absence than when he was here.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. WATT: I beg to move, after the word "pension," in the Amendment last inserted, to leave out the words, "and otherwise" ["and otherwise shall apply"].
These words apply of course to an emolument in the form of each Lord of Appeal having a secretary at a salary of 400 a year. I understand that the present Lords of Appeal have each a secretary at £400 a year. I understand these words refer to this particular emolument and by my proposal the new Law Lords would not be entitled to have a secretary or amanuensis.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: My hon. Friend may rest content about the prospect of an amanuensis being appointed. There is no such thing in existence paid by the State. These words simply provide for anything that may escape attention and are intended to put the new Law Lords in exactly the same position as the other Law Lords who have not a secretary or amanuensis, and it certainly is not the intention to appoint a secretary or clerk for the new Law Lords.
Mr. WATT: I do not persist with my Amendment, but from a reply either of the right hon. Gentleman or the Chancellor of the Exchequer I thought there was a clerk or amanuensis, but I am speaking from memory.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: At the end of the Clause add the words, "Provided that the sum paid in salaries in any one year to the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary appointed under this Act shall in no case exceed £12,000."—[Sir Rufus Isaacs.]
Mr. WATT: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words, "Provided that the Lords of Appeal so appointed are under fifty-five years of age at the date of their appointment."
In the course of an interview with the Prime Minister he indicated that this was the best Amendment of our stock. The Law Lords have to serve fifteen years before they are entitled to a pension, and that brings them to the age of seventy. In order to encourage them to retire at that age I move this Amendment. Everyone knows that judges remain on the bench much too long. The ages of judges are extraordinary. I find that on a certain date the ages of various judges were, eighty, sixty-eight, seventy-one, seventy-one, sixty-four, sixty-one, seventy-five, and so on. There was only one under fifty-five years of age, and he was fifty-one. The sitting on of judges drawing salary is an evil, and my Amendment is intended to meet it.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: This is an Amendment which my hon. Friend cannot expect us to accept. The question is being considered in relation to the King's Bench where I should have thought it had more application than in the Court of Appeal. You may have very excellent men over fifty-five years of age, and there is no reason why they should not be appointed. It is very difficult to say at what age a judge ceases to be able to perform his judicial functions. When my hon. Friend was referring to the ages of judges, every lawyer must have thought of one of the most distinguished ornaments the law has ever had in this country, Lord Halsbury, who at a very advanced age has done great service and continues to discharge judicial functions in a way that is the envy of
all. [An HON. MEMBER: "He is a diehard."] I am not prepared to accept either
2214
this Amendment or that proposing that these judges should retire at seventy years of age. That question will have to be discussed when we get the Report of the Royal Commission, but I do not think such a limitation should be placed here for the first time. If anything of the sort were done it ought to be of general application, and not applied simply to the new judges hereunder appointed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. WATT: I beg to move, at the end of Clause, to add the words, "Provided that if disabled by permanent infirmity from the performance of the duties of their office the pension granted to such Lords of Appeal by way of annuity shall be in strict proportion to the number of years served in such office."
The hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield got a promise from the Attorney-General that his idea would be carried out. I desire that it shall be carried out fully. A judge is entitled to a pension after fifteen years service. We had the case quoted where a judge who had only had one or two years service was granted by the Government the full pension. No one objects to this particular judge getting the pension. He doubtless brought a medical certificate. But everyone who desires exemption from attendance at one or the other function knows how easy it is to get a medical certificate if ill. The principle of a full pension for less than full service is bad. If a judge serves one out of fifteen years he should get one-fifteenth of the full pension; if he serves two years he should get two-fifteenths, and so on.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not suppose the hon. and learned Gentleman desires me to say more than that everything I replied to the hon. Baronet I would now apply to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself. The matter has been very fully discussed. I cannot commit the Government, and I would not commit myself, to the proposal put forward. I certainly do agree that this is a matter which might be considered, and which will be considered when we discuss the whole question.
Dr. CHAPPLE: Pointed reference was made to me by an hon. Member who spoke of the case with which medical certificates were got. He failed to say how they were got. I would like to tell hon. Members for their information—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is out of order.
Mr. HOGGE: May I ask the Attorney-General a question before my hon. Friend consents to withdraw his Amendment? What he has said is very good, but it would not apply to these two judges. These conditions would not be retrospective and these two judges would be subject to the same conditions as now exist. So that my hon. Friend's appeal with regard to these two judges is not covered by the Attorney-General's remarks.
Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.

CLAUSE 2.—(Lords of Appeal to be Ex-officio Judges of Court of Appeal.)
Every Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, whether appointed before or after the passing of this Act, who at the date of his appointment would have been qualified to be appointed an ordinary judge of the Court of Appeal, or who at that date was a judge of that Court shall be an ex-officio judge of that Court, but no such Lord of Appeal shall be required to sit and act as a judge of the Court of Appeal unless upon the request of the Lord Chancellor he consents so to do, and whilst so sitting and acting he shall rank therein according to his precedence as a peer.
Mr. WATT: I beg to move in Clause 2 to leave out the word "whether" ["whether appointed before or after the passing of this Act."]
I desire to limit to those appointed after the passing of this Act the privilege of being ex-officio judges of the Court of Appeal. There are a number of consequential Amendments.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: As I understand my hon. Friend wishes to secure that only the new Law Lords shall be ex-officio members of the Court of Appeal. I do not quite understand why he wishes that because the whole object we have in view is that the Law Lords should be able to sit in the Court of Appeal. You could not accomplish that unless you passed this Clause. I hope my hon. Friend will not persist in this Amendment.
Mr. BOOTH: I beg to move to leave out the words "but no such Lord of Appeal shall be required to sit and act as a judge of the Court of Appeal unless upon the request of the Lord Chancellor he consents so to do, and whilst so sitting and acting he shall rank therein according to his precedence as a peer." I move this Amendment in order to obtain some explanation as to why these words have been put in.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The object of inserting those words is to provide that no Lord of Appeal shall be required to sit and act as a judge of the Court of Appeal unless requested to do so by the Lord Chancellor and unless he consents to do so. From inquiries I have made I am able to state that there are no cases of judges having refused to do any of this work, and unless you have these words in the Bill the Law Lords could not sit in the Court of Appeal at all.
Mr. BOOTH: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 3 and 4 added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Salaries and Pensions of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary.)
"Section 6 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, shall, as respects any Lord of Appeal in Ordinary appointed after the passing of this Act, have effect as if the amount of the salary mentioned therein were £5,000 instead of £6,000, and Section 7 of the same Act shall, as respects any Lord of Appeal so appointed, have effect as if the amount of pension therein mentioned were £3,500."
Clause brought up, and read the first time.
Mr. WATT: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: On a point of Order. I wish to ask whether this new Clause is in order? We have already, in an earlier Clause, provided that the salary and pension shall be the same as that which is provided under Section 6 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, and, therefore, it cannot be in order to provide

2217
in a new Clause that the salary should be £5,000 instead of £6,000.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that is so, and the Clause moved by the hon. Member is not in order.
Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (REMISSION OF DEBTS).
Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to authorise the remission of arrears of principal and interest due to the Public Works Loans Commissioners in respect of Eyemouth Harbour and of certain claims under the Drainage (Ireland) Act, 1842, in pursuance of any Act of the present
2218
Session relating to Local Loans.—[Mr. Gulland.]

PUBLIC WORKS (LOANS) BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment.
The remaining Government Orders were read and postponed.
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 22nd July, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five minutes before One o'clock a.m., Tuesday, 12th August, 1913.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  DENBIGSHIRE INSURANCE COMMITTEE.
  DENBIGSHIRE INSURANCE COMMITTEE.
  Surveyors of Customs.
  Surveyors of Customs.
  National Schools (Ireland).
  National Schools (Ireland).
  Nuns Employed as Teachers (Ireland).
  Nuns Employed as Teachers (Ireland).
ROYAL NAVY.
  OIL STORAGE.
  OIL STORAGE.
AIRCRAFT.
  ENGINES FOR AIRSHIPS.
  ENGINES FOR AIRSHIPS.
  Army Supplies.
  Army Supplies.
  Universities and University Colleges (Reports).
  Universities and University Colleges (Reports).
  Coal Mines (Accidents).
  Coal Mines (Accidents).
  Street Processions (Collections).
  Street Processions (Collections).
  Rubber Forests (Natal).
  Rubber Forests (Natal).
  Cattle Landing Charges, Merklands, Glasgow.
  Cattle Landing Charges, Merklands, Glasgow.
  Education (Scotland) Fund.
  Education (Scotland) Fund.
  Group-Leaving Certificates.
  Group-Leaving Certificates.
  Cost of Living.
  Cost of Living.
  Removal of Gravel (Porthcawl).
  Removal of Gravel (Porthcawl).
  Rural Postmen, Newport (Essex).
  Rural Postmen, Newport (Essex).
  Office of Works (Departmental Committee).
  Office of Works (Departmental Committee).
  Development and Road Improvement Funds Bill.
  Development and Road Improvement Funds Bill.
  Dumbartonshire Magistracy.
  Dumbartonshire Magistracy.
  Evicted Tenants (County Cavan).
  Evicted Tenants (County Cavan).
HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (MEDICAL SERVICE) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
SCOTTISH INSURANCE COMPANIES (SUPERANNUATION FUND) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a(The Earl of Craven), and reported from the Committee. (No. 172.)
KIRKCALDY AND DYSART WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment: The said Amendment to be considered To-morrow.

METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
BARRY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
BELFAST CORPORATION BILL.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS (RAILLESS TRACTION) BILL.
SILLOTH GAS BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Select Committee to meet To-morrow, at Three o'clock: Leave given to the Committee to report from time to time.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 18) BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: Further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

WESTMINSTER HOSPITAL BILL.
WESTERN VALLEYS (MONMOUTHSHIRE) RAILLESS ELECTRIC TRACTION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

EAST HAM CORPORATION BILL.
Moved, That the Order made on the 22nd of April last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 19th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to: Bill read 2aaccordingly and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, in moving the Motion that stands in my name in reference to the East Ham Corporation Bill I think I ought to explain very shortly the circumstances. The Bill has just been read a second time by your Lordships to-day. It was considerably delayed in the House of Commons, but I have satisfied myself that that delay was not the fault of the promoters. It was due to certain procedure in the House of Commons. The Bill has been very much discussed and very much disputed. It will be fought here, and it obviously, for reasons into which I need not enter, requires very careful consideration. It will take, I am advised, several days in Committee, and for all I know your Lordships might desire to discuss it on Report and Third Reading. Therefore I think it is essentially a Bill which, in accordance with precedent, might well he carried over until next session, when there will be more time for its consideration. The Bill having originated in another place it will be necessary to communicate your Lordships' decision to the other House, and I will see that that is done this evening if your Lordships agree to this Motion.
Moved, That the promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with the Bill, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than three

1737
o'clock on the day prior to the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period be paid:
That such Bill shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than three o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit after the next meeting of Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session:
That the proceedings on such Bill shall be pro formâonly in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages:
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply to such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.— (The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly: Ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them with the said Resolution, and to desire their concurrence.
SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
IPSWICH DOCK BILL. [H.L.]
READING CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
1. Provisional Regulations made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Welsh insurance Commissioners acting jointly, amending the National Health Insurance (Outworkers) Regulations (Wales), 1913;
2. National Insurance (Joint Committee) Amendment Regulations—Provisional Regulations, dated the 7th August, 1913, made by the Treasury under section 83 of the Act;
3. Regulations, dated 6th August, 1913, made by the Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Scilly Isles Insurance Committee) Regulations, 1913:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed. (No. 173.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal I beg to move the Motion which stands in his name. It is the Motion which is usually moved at this period of the session, but it is only made use of, of course, with the assent of noble Lords opposite.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be suspended for the remainder of the Session.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 7) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered (according to order), and agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 12) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Conunittee.—(The Earl of Craven.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I would ask, if it is not inconvenient to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, that the Committee stage should be postponed until to-morrow. Certain verbal Amendments will be necessary as the result of consultations that were taking place when your Lordships met this afternoon. The Amendments are little more than drafting, and I think it would be more convenient that they should be made in Committee.
Committee of the Whole House put off till To-morrow.

TRADE BOARDS ACT PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 15) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3aTo-morrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 22) BILL.
RIBBLE FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed.

POST OFFICE (LONDON) RAILWAY BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Craven.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): I wish to make a statement regarding the supply of electrical energy. The Select Committee struck out a clause which appeared in the Bill as it came up here from the other House. I will tell your Lordships what it was, but not with a view to moving an Amendment now, because we want to have the clause as we desire to see it restored printed so that your Lordships may consider it on Report. The point is this. The Post Office have their own generating station for electricity. This privilege was given to the Department in the time of the late Government, when Mr. Austen Chamberlain was Postmaster-General, and the central Post Office buildings are supplied with electricity from this source. This is a Bill to enable the Postmaster-General to construct, for the purposes of the Post Office, an underground railway or tube for conveying letters and parcels from the east to the west of London and vice versa, and the Department have always contemplated working the line with their own electricity plant. That was so settled in another place, but the Select Committee of your Lordships' House, under the impression, I presume, that this was a case of municipal trading or something of that kind, struck this provision out, and the position now is that the Post Office are precluded from using their own generating station. I only mention the matter now so that your Lordships may know that it is our intention on Report to put down an Amendment to restore the clause as it was in the Bill when it came from the House of Commons.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I am sorry that Lord Newton, who was Chairman of the Committee by whom this Bill was
1740
considered, is not in his place to-day. That is, of course, pardonable, as the noble Lord did not know that it was the intention of the Government to raise the matter. I am bound to say, having read the evidence which the Post Office gave in support of the clause, that in my opinion the Committee could not possibly have come to any other conclusion than that at which they arrived. It is not that the Post Office are going to use their existing plant; they are going to greatly increase their plant. They are not proposing to increase their station, it is true, but they are proposing to put in more machinery at a substantial cost of public money. I understand that we are to discuss the matter to-morrow, but I thought it well to enter this caveat. I do not think that the Committee were frightened by any proposal regarding municipal trading, but were convinced by the evidence that the desired permission should not be given.
LORD MONK BRETTON: There is a much graver question involved in the extension of the Post Office electricity scheme than would at first sight appear, because it would affect the position of the London County Council and their powers in 1931, when they become the electric light authority. I am not prepared to say more at the moment, but I know that very strong exception was taken in the London County Council to the position in which they and the public would be placed by the creation of another electricity undertaking in London. The clause in question was opposed by the companies, and I believe it would be opposed by the boroughs which run electric light undertakings in London. I hope that before any action is taken regarding the decision arrived at by Lord Newton's Committee sufficient time will be given for us to consider the matter and to consult with those who are interested.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not wish to discuss the matter now. An Amendment will be put down for tomorrow. I am informed by the Post Office that their desire is to work their own line and to use their existing generating station, thus reducing the standing charges in respect of that station. It is not a case of wasting public money, but of reducing the standing charges which the Post Office already have. No doubt this would necessitate a greater output of electricity for the purpose, but the standing charges are there.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I understand that the suggestion of the noble and learned Viscount is that the House should reserve judgment on the point until we have seen the clause on the Paper to-morrow. I think that would be convenient.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I would remind the House that there are only four or five days remaining of this session. Surely it is a serious matter to dispute the finding of a Committee without any notice being given to the Chairman of the Committee to be present. I know nothing about what the Committee did; but as the Lord Chairman has stated that in his opinion the Committee arrived at a right decision, surely an Amendment should not be moved to upset that decision without adequate notice being given.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 17 agreed to.
Clause 18:
Compensation for damage by working.
18.—(1) In addition to the provisions of the enactments incorporated with this Act with respect to compensation for lands taken or injuriously affected, the Postmaster-General shall make compensation to the owner, lessee, and occupier of any land, house, or building which is injuriously affected by reason of the working of the railway (including the working of lifts and any other works in connection with the railway), notwithstanding that no part of the property of such owner, lessee, or occupier is taken by the Postmaster-General:
Provided that all claims for compensation under this section shall be made within two years from the commencement of the working of the railway, or within two years from the time when any substantial change is made in the weight or size of the rolling stock used on or in the method of the working of that part of the railway where the injurious affection is alleged to have arisen, and all such claims shall be settled by arbitration.
(2) An arbitrator under this section may with the consent of all parties concerned hear together any class or group of claims under this section.
(3) For the purposes of this section the expression "land house or building" shall be deemed to include mains pipes valves plugs syphons and other apparatus of the Metropolitan Water Board and of the Gas Light and Coke Company.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I should like to know whether there is any explanation why the period of two years is inserted in the proviso to subsection (1) of this clause. Two years from the commencement of the work is a very short period in which to decide whether or not the electric railway is going to do damage to your house. It
1742
so happens that I may be personally affected by one of these railways, but it may take two years from the commencement of the work before the railway gets anywhere near my house, or two years might expire before any trains run upon it.
THE EARL OF CRAVEN: It is not a line for trains, but a 9 ft. tube for conveying parcels.
THE EARL OF DERBY: As I understand, the proposal is to have a small train. There will not be a man on the train, but if will be an electric train to convey parcels. It seems to me that two years from the commencement of the work is a very short time in which to find out whether or not, the scheme is doing damage to your property, and I therefore move that "five years" be substituted for "two years."
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 30, leave out ("two") and insert ("five").—(The Earl of Derby.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It would be more convenient to take this Amendment to-morrow with the other Amendment of which I have given notice.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I am afraid I shall not be here to-morrow. As the Government are taking the Committee stage of this Bill to-day perhaps I may be allowed to move the Amendment now.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would remind the noble Earl that I have had no notice at all of his Amendment. The Home had been given no notice of my Amendment, and therefore I did not press it to-day. I hope the noble Earl will also consent to postpone his Amendment.
THE EARL OF DERBY: Very well. I will get one of my noble friends on the Front Bench to move the Amendment for me to-morrow.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 and remaining clauses agreed to.
The Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 178.)

UNDEVELOPED LAND DUTY.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN rose to ask whether it is the fact that in many cases where land is liable to Undeveloped Land Duty, the duty amounts to 50 per cent. or upwards of the highest income obtainable for the present time; also to ask whether the Government is aware that while in town planning schemes the use of the land is restricted to certain classes of building, the Undeveloped Land Duty on such land is based on a site value calculated on the unrestricted use of the land; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: The Undeveloped Land Duty is, I think, the heaviest and the most unjust of all the land taxes under the Budget of 1909–10. Undeveloped Land Duty is imposed on the difference between the value of land for agricultural purposes and the assessable site value of the same land. In order to meet this duty the owner of the land has only the income which he is at the time receiving, but he is taxed upon the capital value of what the land is assessed at. In saying that this duty amounts to 50 per cent. or upwards of the highest income obtainable at the present time I have put it at a very moderate figure, because in a great many cases it amounts to a great deal more than 100 per cent. I will give your Lordships a few instances to show how this tax operates. I may say that the instances are innumerable; they exist all over the country in the neighbourhood of every town, but I am taking some in the neighbourhood of Birmingham, because Birmingham is also under the town planning scheme.
Here is one case. It concerns three acres of land. The present income is£7 10 s.; the capital value on which the duty is assessed is£2,490, and the amount of the duty is£5 4s. As against£7 10 s. income the owner has to pay£5 4s. duty, and it is calculated that in fifteen years that land may be developed. That is not the only hardship, because five years hence this land will be revalued. It may not have been developed—indeed, the valuer does not expect that it will be developed for fifteen years—but at that time the capital value may be considerably increased, and therefore the duty payable would be also considerably increased. The owner of this property has to pay£5 4s.in duty out of an income of£7 10 s. until such time as the land is developed, and
1744
when it is developed, if it is found to be of a higher value than it is assessed at—if the owner receives more for the land than it is assessed at at the end of those fifteen years—he will be liable to Increment Duty on the difference.
Here are other cases. Three acres of land, present income£6 10 s., duty£4 13 s. 9d.; 13½acres, present income£20, duty £9 5s. 7d.; eight acres, present income£12, duty£3 13 s. 4d.; six acres, present income£18, duty£10 13 s. 6d.; five acres, present income£11, duty£5 10 s. There are not only hundreds but thousands of such cases. Here is a particularly hard case. It is an estate called the Little Aston estate, near Sutton Cold-field, eight miles from Birmingham. It consists of rough heath land of no value at the present time, but£5 is got for it for rabbit shooting. The duty on that is no less than£20, so that the owner has to pay every year four times the amount that he derives from that land. That might go on for fifteen or twenty years. Suppose that the land is then not developed, what is the result to the owner? Really his whole property has been confiscated. I have been told since arriving at the House this afternoon of a noble Lord who also has to pay in respect of a certain portion of his property Undeveloped Land Duty to the extent of four times the amount of the annual income he receives. How can a charge of that sort be justified?
Now I come to my second Question. This is a much harder case than those which I have just laid before your Lordships. When a town planning scheme is made—and a town planning scheme has just been made in Birmingham, which is the case I have in mind at the moment—it is usual to set apart certain portions of the land for certain purposes. For instance, houses are to be erected on one portion and factories are not permitted; on another portion factories are permitted and houses are excluded; and so on. So that the purposes to which the owner may put his land are restricted. Owners contend that in many cases this restriction of the purposes to which they may put their land is a very great hardship to them, and they will incur very great loss thereby. How does Undeveloped Land Duty tell in that particular case? They are taxed on the value of the land as available for purposes without any restriction whatsoever. There is,

1745
therefore, a double hardship. It is all very well to call this a tax. It is not a tax; it is an extortion. It is such a tax as would be imposed by a Turkish or Bulgarian tax-gatherer or somebody of that sort. Surely in this country we have a right to expect that the taxing authorities shall have some regard to justice and to fairness. I beg to ask the two Questions standing in my name, and to move for Papers.
Moved, That there be laid before the House Papers relating to Undeveloped Land Duty.—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD STRACHIE): My Lords, the answer to the first Question is in the affirmative if an owner lets land for agricultural purposes at a rent which is less than its value for building or trade purposes. In answer to the second Question, Undeveloped Land Duty is charged on a valuation of the land as on April 30, 1909; and, following the precedent of the Metropolitan Valuation Act, 1869, the valuation cannot be reviewed for five years. Accordingly no restrictions imposed since 1909 which depreciate the value of the land can be taken into account until the next periodical valuation.
The noble Earl will not expect me, of course, to deal with the details of particular cases of which I have had no notice, but I will deal broadly with his statement as regards the Undeveloped Land Duty being a ridiculous one. That may be one point of view; but there is another. The object of the Undeveloped Land Duty is to prevent land in or adjoining great towns from being "held up" by the owners when it is ripe for building purposes. The noble Earl quoted a case where land valued at£2,490 was let for£7 10 s., and upon which Undeveloped Land Duty of£5 4s. was charged. But if the value of this land is£2,490—and apparently the valuation has not been appealed against—surely that land ought to be let at more than£7 10 s. a year. It is much more likely that it could be let at£100 a year.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The noble Lord will remember that fifteen years hence was the time stated by the valuer as that at which it might be developed.
LORD STRACHIE: When laud is "held up" and used for agricultural purposes when it might be used for more beneficial purposes the taxpayer loses in consequence. Land is not subject to the Undeveloped Land Duty unless it can be used for a better purpose than agricultural purposes, and if it can be used for better purposes and is being "held up" by the owner it is only right that the general taxpayer should not suffer. As regards the restrictions under town planning schemes, these restrictions were imposed since April 30, 1909, and, as I have explained, there are only quinquennial valuations, and nothing can be done to increase or decrease the valuation in the meantime. But this cuts both ways. It is quite possible that the restrictions may have the effect of actually increasing the value of the land. The restriction, for instance, that no public-house should be put on the land might have the effect of increasing the value, and people might be more likely to purchase land in that district. There is the question both of appreciation and depreciation, which, under the Act, cannot be settled under the five years.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Does not the noble Lord beg the whole question when he talks of land being "held up"? Does the noble Lord contend that all the land which is subjected to Undeveloped Land Duty could be built upon at the present moment if the owners wished it? The noble Lord knows perfectly well that for one case of an owner deliberately "holding up" his land there are ten cases where the owner could not get his land built over whatever efforts he made to let it for the purpose. Therefore the noble Lord's explanation has no justification at all. He may think it an equitable mode of raising money. That is a wholly different question. But to try and explain the position away by saying that land is being "held up" is really throwing dust in the eyes of the public. Then as regards the reply to the second Question. A man may have land available for building at a future date, and which he intends to put into the market for that purpose. That has been valued at a certain rate, and he is paying the duty upon it. But when the land is included within a town planning scheme and all the plans which he had previously made for the development of his property are altered, it may be that the value for development has depreciated.

1747
Yet we are asked to think it is just that he should be called upon to continue to pay a tax based on the supposition of a future development which has since become impossible owing to the operation of another Act of Parliament, because another man might have an adjoining property on which the Town Planning Act would have had a contrary effect.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I do not know whether I correctly gathered the answer which the noble Lord gave me, but what I think he said was this. He spoke of land being let for agricultural purposes which might be used for other purposes. Does he mean that if a man can prove that he cannot use the land for any purposes other than agriculture he will be freed from the Undeveloped Land Duty? There are plenty such cases. The noble Lord talks of land being "held up." Lord Selborne has just exposed the absurdity of that answer. I know instances in which the valuer has said that the land may not be developed for forty years, and yet the duty is charged upon that land. The Chancellor of the Exchequer refers to this duty as "only a half-penny in the£." "Who can grudge," he asks, "a halfpenny in the£?" That is a mis-statement of the facts. This is a tax upon capital, and I confess that of all these land taxes this one appears to me to be by far the most unjust.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, it seems to me that two things are being somewhat confused—in the first place, whether, as the noble Earl on the Front Bench put it, this is a fair and reasonable way of raising money; and, in the second place, whether in particular cases the Act is being fairly and properly administered. Those are two entirely different questions, but they seemed to suffer a certain confusion in the noble Earl's speech.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I did not say anything as to the Act being unfairly administered. What I said was that the Act itself was unfair.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: That is to say, the noble Earl does not think that this is a proper and reasonable way of raising money. It has never been contended on this side of the House that this particular tax is only to be applied to
1748
cases in which it could be shown that land which might be profitably built on tomorrow is being by deliberation kept out of the market. There are no doubt a certain number of cases where land which might be sold or let for building is "held up" because people think that the building estate as a whole will increase in value, and that the revenue which they sacrifice by postponement will be more than made up to them by the enhanced price or rent which they may get in a certain number of years. There are cases of that kind. But there are also cases in which land would not be considered to be what a speculative builder would call "ripe for building," but at the same time, as we venture to think, an impost of this kind might very properly be charged on it. On the other hand, suppose the owner of the land can show that it is definitely impossible for him to obtain more than an agricultural rent or more than the price of agricultural land if the land actually is put up, then in such a case, if he were to appeal, he would, I have no doubt, be excused the sum which might mistakenly have been charged. It cannot be denied that in a conceivable or isolated case a mistake is liable to be made, but such a mistake, we hope, would be corrected on appeal. I have no desire to renew the old Budget argument of whether this tax on undeveloped land is a reasonable or an unreasonable one. I confess, so far as my recollection goes back, I had thought that of the various taxes proposed in the Budget of 1909–10 this one was considered by noble Lords opposite to be the least objectionable as compared with the Increment Duty, or in some cases, perhaps, the Mineral Rights Duty. I was under the impression that this particular placing of a tax on what is called in a somewhat vague expression "building land" was considered by noble Lords opposite to be in the main not unreasonable.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I would remind the noble Marquess that the operation of the Town Planning Act on the Undeveloped Land Duty was not part of the original discussion. That Act was passed subsequently.
LORD STRACHIE: If before 1909 the land had been laid out for a garden city and the restrictions had already been imposed, then it would not have come under valuation without restrictions.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My point was that the noble Marquess did not think we should reargue the question of the Budget of 1909–10, and I ventured to remind him that the effect of the Town Planning Act was subsequent to that and could not then have been foreseen.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: That is quite true; but, as my noble friend Lord Strachie has said, land which was actually laid out at that time for building development in the character of a garden suburb or a garden city was given a large measure of freedom from these particular imposts.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES (AMENDMENT) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I hope the House will give a Second Reading to this Bill. It is the same Bill as that which was introduced into your Lordships' House last session by Lord Ashby St. Ledgers. In the Bill as introduced into the House of Commons this session there were provisions as to a limit of holdings of shares and also as to exemption from Stamp Duty, but strong objection was taken to both of these clauses in the House of Commons and as a result both have been dropped out of the Bill. The Bill, therefore, is once more in the shape in which your Lordships passed it last session. It has been taken up by His Majesty's Government at the request of the Co-operative Union, Limited, which numbers 1,550 societies with a membership of nearly 3,000,000, and has been drafted in consultation with and has been approved by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies.
The chief alterations made by this Bill, alterations which were accepted by your Lordships last year, have reference to, first, the auditing of accounts. In future one of the auditors must be a public auditor, so that there shall be a proper audit under public control. Clause 4 provides that there shall be a list of shareholders made triennially. The most important clause is Clause 5, which amends the principal Act as to nominations. It is provided that a member of a registered
1750
society may nominate any person or persons to or among whom there shall be transferred at his decease such property in the society as may be his at the time of his decease, but if on the death of the nominator the amount of his property in the society comprised in the nomination exceeds£100, the nomination shall be valid to the extent of£100 but not further or otherwise. This clause sanctions the practice which has been adopted by co-operative societies of treating the nomination as taking effect, not when the nomination was made, but when the person making the nomination died.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Strachie.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, this is the annual Bill for the ratification of certain taxes imposed by the Isle of Man. I beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Strachie.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

MENTAL DEFICIENCY AND LUNACY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Bill is exactly the same in its principles as the English Bill, but there are variations owing to the local authorities and other institutions in Scotland being different. Instead of a new Board of Control as in England, the existing Lunacy Board in Scotland, which is a large Board differently constituted from the English Commission, will be taken and additions will be made to it. Otherwise there is no substantial difference between the two

1751
Bills, and unless your Lordships desire me to do so I do not think it necessary to trouble you by going into the minutiœ of the clauses. I have been through the Bill and to the best of my judgment there is no departure from what I have stated, and I venture to recommend it to your Lordships as a thoroughly good and useful measure.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I am bound to say that the explanation which the noble and learned Viscount has given us is one of unusual brevity. Probably he is right in saying that it is not necessary to go into the details of the Bill, but I wish to point out that, though the duty is imposed upon a district board or parish council to provide for these defectives, there are no means of enforcing it. If the noble and learned Viscount will look at Clause 26 he will see this proviso—
"Provided that nothing in this Act shall be construed as imposing any obligation on a district board of control or a parish council or a school board to contribute towards the maintenance of defectives in institutions or under guardianship where the contributions out of moneys provided by Parliament under this Act is less than one-half of the net amount of the cost of such maintenance."
And further on in Clause 37 there is a proviso to the effect that—
"Unless Parliament otherwise determines, the aggregate amount so paid"—
that is by the Treasury—
"in any financial year shall not exceed£20,000."
Therefore if the whole cost of these defectives exceeds£40,000 there is nothing to oblige the district board or the parish council to carry out the Bill. I should like an explanation of that, because it seems rather to go to the root of the Bill and to prove that it will not be of much value if those clauses remain as they are.
"THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The proviso in Clause 26 which the noble Earl has quoted is only a limitation where the contribution out of moneys provided by Parliament is less than half of the net amount of the cost of maintenance. When the State contributes half, the obligation attaches. As to the other point, it is calculated on a similar ratio. Although the machinery of this Bill is, of course, different, the principles are just the same as in the English Bill.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: It amounts to this, that neither under the English Bill nor under the Scottish Bill is there any obligation to carry out the purposes of the Bill if the amount exceeds in the one case£150,000 and in the other case£20,000.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did not say that. The£150,000 and the£20,000 are just to carry on with. It is the intention of Parliament to supply more money as and when it is required.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: This is the first time we have received that piece of information.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Wednesday next.

MISDESCRIPTION OF FABRICS BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, this Bill originated in the House of Commons as a Private Member's Bill. It was then described as the Fabrics Misdescription Bill, and had for its object the dealing with flannelette. This question was taken up by Mr. Theodore Taylor in another place in consequence of the many accidents, especially to children, through their flannelette clothing catching fire. A Home Office Departmental Committee was appointed to inquire into the matter. The only recommendation that the Committee made was that the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887 should be amended making it penal to describe as non-inflammable material which was not non-inflammable; but the Board of Trade, under whose province it would have come had it been desirable to amend the Merchandise Marks Act in that direction, pointed out that they did not think that that Act could be used for this purpose, because the Act only dealt with false trade description, and to describe flannelette as non-inflammable and safe in other ways was not a misdescription under that Act. Therefore it became necessary either for the Home Office to take this question up or for some private Member to deal with it. As I have explained, this Bill was brought into the House of Commons by Mr. Theodore

1753
Taylor and passed through that House, and is now sent up to your Lordships by the Government and comes before you as a Home Office Bill.
The Bill is modelled on the Rag Flock Act of 1907. It prohibits the sale of any textile fabric described as non-inflammable unless such textile fabric conforms to such standard of non-inflammability as may be prescribed by regulations to be made by the Secretary of State. There was strong opposition on the part of traders in the House of Commons until the Bill was altered to apply not only to flannelette but to all textile fabrics. The Manchester Chamber of Commerce, which represents the trades interested, pointed out that it would be very unfair to prejudice the sale of one particular article, flannelette, when there were many other textile articles that ought to be treated in the same way; but they withdrew their objection after the Bill had been turned into one dealing not with flannelette only but with textile fabrics. There was another objection taken—namely, that if this Bill passed into law it would give a very unfair preference to the firm of Messrs. Whipp Brothers and Tod, who have a "non-inflam" flannelette which is treated by a special process found by tests made by the Home Office Committee to be, as they stated, non-inflammable. But in order to facilitate the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons the owners of this valuable patent wrote to Mr. McKenna saving that they were ready to give up their patents, and they trusted that the result of their so doing would be a speedy diminution in the number of accidents in which children have been the chief sufferers through their flannelette clothing catching fire. Great praise is due to this firm for their willingness to revoke their patents in order that the Bill might pass through the House of Commons. I hope that your Lordships will have the same feeling as the House of Commons had, the matter being put on the ground of being fair all round to traders, and that you will pass the Bill in the interests of the children, and so help to diminish to a considerable extent accidents to children due to their flannelette clothing catching fire. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. (Lord Strachie.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

PUBLIC HEALTH (PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF DISEASE) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, this Bill is an amendment of the Public Health Act, 1875, Section 281, under which joint boards can be created. It was not thought at the time what the effect of the creation of these joint boards would be. When a joint board has been created which joins up one or more sanitary authorities for some such purpose as, for instance, an infectious hospital to serve one or two authorities, the effect is that those particular areas under the joint board are themselves unable to deal with any of the matters dealt with by that joint board. For example, where there is a joint area for the purpose of an infectious hospital, one of the areas under the joint board might think it desirable to set up a dispensary for the treatment of tuberculosis. Under the Act at the present moment they would be debarred from doing so, and the object of this Bill is to make it possible for that particular area if they think fit, notwithstanding that they are under the joint board for hospital purposes, to set up a hospital or dispensary in their own area which would not be used in common by the rest of the other areas. There is also a provision for regulations being made under the Act of 1875 as regards the treatment of cholera or any other epidemic, and these regulations are to be sent out to the local authorities. That Act was, of course, in force before the passing of the Local Government Act of 1888. County councils did not exist then, and there is no power for the Local Government Board to enforce their regulations upon county councils to deal with this question. But county councils are protected under this Bill, and are not required except in cases of great emergency to act in this matter. There is also power given to county councils for the treatment of tuberculosis, or any sanitary authority may provide for it if they are sanctioned to do so by the Local Government Board. I beg to move the Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The noble Lord has given an interesting account of a Bill on a subject which is of the utmost concern to us all. But I think there is something almost as important as the subject-matter of the Bill—I refer to the form of Clause 3. I am surprised that the noble Lord did not dwell at rather greater length on Clause 3, which says—
"It shall be lawful for the council of any county or for any sanitary authority to make any such arrangements as may be sanctioned by the Local Government Board for the treatment of tuberculosis."
That is quite a new method of legislation. It is only an example of how the real control of these matters is passing from Parliament to Government Departments. I think this Bill might be correctly described as a Bill for making Mr. John Burns a national dictator in respect to the treatment of tuberculosis. I am not at all sure that that is not a wise thing to do, but it is a new departure, and I ask your Lordships to mark how these things are put before us at the end of the session without any explanation of the reason -for this action or where it may lead to. I am not sure that Mr. John Burns is not one of the few people I should be rather pleased to live under as a dictator, still I should like to know a little beforehand what is involved in the dictatorship. What effect does this clause have on the existing powers of county councils and all the other county authorities, and to what extent does it supersede the health authorities as existing at present? There is another very important question, How does it affect the rates? All we are told is that the council of any county or any sanitary authority may do anything it likes with respect to the treatment of tuberculosis providing that it gets the approval of Mr. John Burns. I submit to your Lordships that that is a new method of legislation, and that it deserves rather more explanation than we have received from the noble Lord. As I said at first, it is only one further stage in the process through which we are going of transferring to the Public Departments, through the means of by-laws and regulations, the control of legislation winch has been hitherto reserved by Parliament to itself.
LORD MONK BRETTON: My Lords, the noble Lord who introduced this Bill stated what was its scope, but he did not state what its scope was as it was introduced in another place. Its scope in another place
1756
was far wider. Instead of the word "tuberculosis" in Clause 3, the word was "disease." The County Councils Association considered the clause as it stood with the word "disease" and heartily approved of that word and of the clause as it then stood. They thought that it was desirable that county councils should have that power. When it came up in another place Mr. Hayes Fisher raised a very important matter. He said, "Supposing the London County Council got tins power as regards disease, and got the power, therefore, of creating hospitals in London on the rates, it might eventually lead to a revolution in the London hospitals which are supported on voluntary terms." On that, Mr. John Burns accepted an Amendment and put in "tuberculosis" instead of "disease." I am instructed to say, on behalf of the County Councils Association, that they are very sorry that the word "disease" could not stand. Of course, every one will concede that it is impossible to do anything which will affect the administration of the voluntary hospitals of London.
The object of my remarks is to ask His Majesty's Government whether before this Bill gets to the Committee stage it would not be possible for the noble Lord, who is himself in sympathy with the County-Councils Association, to bring forward an Amendment which would safeguard hospitals in the great cities and enable rural county councils to have these powers as regards disease in rural districts. It would be a very valuable power in certain counties. There are places in out of the way parts of England where it would be a great advantage if the local authorities could create a hospital other than for tuberculosis only, and put it upon the rates. It is a purely enabling thing, and it is also a thing which is under the control of the Local Government Board. As the County Councils Association are very much disappointed at the change which was made in another place I hope His Majesty's Government will consider as to whether they cannot again broaden the scope of the Bill while safeguarding hospitals in towns like London.
LORD STRACHIE: I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, did not think that I went at sufficient length into this Bill. My reason for not going more into detail was that there are so many Bills before your Lordships at the present moment that I wanted to be as brief as I

1757
possibly could. With regard to the point raised by the noble Earl on Clause 3, I would point out that it is not the President of the Local Government Board who initiates the request for these powers. He merely has the right to sanction or not to sanction the application for these powers by the various local authorities. If the local authorities like to spend their own money they have a perfect right to do so. They are elected by the ratepayers, and the ratepayers are the proper persons to direct them if they do not approve of the expenditure.
As regards the question raised by Lord Monk Bretton, the vice-chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of the County Councils Association, of which it is true I am also a member, I would point out the difficulty, which he himself must be aware of. This Amendment was moved by Mr. Hayes Fisher, as the noble Lord very truly told us, but I would remind him that Mr. Hayes Fisher sits on the Front Opposition Bench in another place as an ex-Minister, and when an Amendment is so moved it naturally looks as if it came from the Opposition. The President of the Local Government Board thought that if he could accept the Amendment it might mean a safe passage for the Bill, and that if he had not accepted it the Bill would not have gone through the House as practically an unopposed Bill I will certainly take an opportunity of consulting the Local Government Board as regards this matter, and see if anything can be done to meet the wishes of the noble Lord and the County Councils Association.
On Question, Bill lead 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

MENTAL DEFICIENCY BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I think I am not alone among your Lordships in having been somewhat appalled to read, not this morning but this afternoon, because it was not obtainable this morning, the
1758
Marshalled List of Amendments we are now asked to consider. When a few days ago the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, criticised the drafting and the nature of some of the clauses of this Bill, and especially the confusion which some of the wording seemed to involve, we were told by the noble and learned Viscount that great care had been given to it, and that if there was any error it was that it had been considered too much rather than too little, and he thought that the bill was exceedingly well drawn. I see that the noble and learned Viscount has no less than 91 Amendments to this Bill, which is his own; yet he told us that the Bill had received too much rather than too little consideration. I find it very difficult to understand the position of the proposer of the Bill, who first tells us "Do not amend the Bill because great care has been taken over it," and then places on the Paper 91 Amendments for our consideration to-night, in addition to any others which may be moved from other quarters. It is hard enough to expect the House to consider Amendments of this kind, which, as I say, were only obtainable this afternoon, even if there were no other questions in the background; but when to that there is added a strong injunction upon us not to amend the Bill because Amendments will involve discussion in the other place and the Bill may be lost, I find myself in a position of some perplexity as to what it is that we are practically expected or desired to do. Of this I am quite sure, that the country at large ought to realise the position in which this House, which we are constantly told is a House of revision, is placed in a matter of this kind.
This House, whose duties were to be to revise carefully Bills sent up, is now handed this afternoon, within a day or two, one may almost say within a limited number of hours, from the time when the Bill must leave this House if it is to pass at all, a series of Amendments such as this, and I see no way at all of holding the Executive Government responsible for this situation. Of course, we all realise what the difficulty is now. It is all very well to appeal ad misericordiam to us now and say, "You ought to help to get this Bill through in this difficulty." I think it is the right appeal to make. But how did it arise? This Bill was before Parliament last session and it was withdrawn, to the distress of very many of us, and we at

1759
once set to work to press upon the Government that the Bill ought to be reintroduced at the earliest possible moment in order that, being properly considered, it might become law this session. All through the present session we have been urging the Government to go forward with this matter. Some little time ago I was urged to head a deputation to the Prime Minister on the subject of pressing for this Bill to be pushed forward. I had already written, along with many others, a published letter pressing that the Bill should not be delayed, and we were informed unofficially that the deputation was really not necessary because the matter was in hand and well forward. The Bill has gone forward, no doubt, in a way. But it comes to us within a day or two of the end of the session in a condition which requires the amount of amendment that I have referred to in the view of its own promoters. It also requires, and I think justly, on the part of some others who are members of this House a good deal of handling and treatment if it is to be the kind of measure that we should desire to see. That is not the position in which we were led to understand that tins House, with its powers of revision so markedly reserved to it and, if I may say it without disrespect, almost boasted of as having been reserved to it, ought to be placed.
Having said all that, and I fear I could say a great deal more about what I feel to be the wrongness of the position, I venture to appeal to those who have Amendments —including the noble and learned Viscount himself—to realise the gravity of the Lord Chancellor's statement the other night as to what might happen if opportunity is given for a full reconsideration of this Bill in its details in the other House of Parliament. It would be, in my judgment, a disaster of the very gravest kind if a second disappointment were to be given to the country as regards the passing of a Bill which all workers for the public good, all philanthropists, medical men, Poor Law officers, the clergy, and other people who have to do with the homes and the lives of the pool: every day have been crying out for for years past. It was a grave and terrible disappointment to us when this Bill was withdrawn last year, and if we are to be told now that it is to be withdrawn again because of difficulties in the other House of Parliament, let us realise on whom the responsibility rests. It
1760
cannot be said to rest upon this House. It has come here at this time with a request that we should consider it. The details have been put before us, and I am perfectly certain that any noble Lord in this House wherever he is sitting, the occupants of the Front Government Bench as clearly as any one else, will realise that the position is simply- a gross wrong to us and to the country as regards the powers which we are supposed to exercise and the responsibility which, whether we exercise those powers or not, will afterwards be regarded as resting upon us. I still venture to hope that very many of the Amendments will not be pressed, because from what we were told the other night, and from our information from other sources, we have been led to believe that the result might be the loss a second time of this Bill. Therefore I do, before we go into Committee upon the Bill, appeal respectfully to noble Lords, including the noble and learned Viscount himself, to remember the position in which we are at this moment placed, and to do nothing that will imperil the Bill, which I am quite certain is urgently called for by all those who care most about and understand best what are the needs of the country in this respect.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the most rev. Primate has made an appeal to me, and I thoroughly appreciate the spirit in which he has made it. But there is a real difficulty here. Of course, we all feel that it is very undesirable that a Bill of this kind should come before your Lordships with so little time for revision, but I am afraid there will always be a risk of that happening. Whatever Government is in power it will naturally take up its time with the measure it is most anxious to get through. Might I take this as an example, that a Tariff Reform schedule happened to be taking up the time of the House of Commons. I venture to assert that in those circumstances we should find ourselves squeezed for time with such a measure as we have now got before us, however important it might be.
The situation to-day is this. The other House has only two or three days more of working time. It is all very well to say you might sit longer. Theoretically you might, but practically you cannot. There is so much to be got through in the House of Commons that it is only by sitting on till the small hours of the morning that the

1761
work can be done, and under the rules of the House a certain number of Members must be present and it is important to get business expeditiously transacted. Therefore if the Bill is to go back to be again dealt with, it will, under these conditions, be imperilled, because there is a small element in the other House who regard this Bill with great hostility based on principle, but a hostility which causes them to resort to every means in their power to wreck its progress. I think that we should be running very serious risks if we sent this Bill back with much that is debatable.
The most rev. Primate has spoken of the number of Amendments. I agree that the number is very formidable. What this Bill has suffered from has been excessive zeal on the part of the people interested in it. They have pressed Amendments and alterations, and the business of the draftsman—who originally drew this Bill, I think, admirably, and I have some experience of these things—has been to get into shape what was in an unshapely form. Still, it is by no means the fault of the draftsman that we are pressed at this time. I think it is a case for great forbearance on all sides. As the most rev. Primate has appealed to me, I will say this. I have on the Paper a number of Amendments which are nearly all drafting ones. If they could be carried they would improve the Bill, but I had already thought of what the most rev. Primate said, and I have been through the Amendments with the draftsman and will undertake to move alone that are not necessary. I can cut them down to about a half. There is nothing in them that is contentious or more than putting into shape compromises and arrangements agreed upon in another place. I have also been carefully through the Amendments of the noble Marquess (Lord Salisbury) and the other Amendments, and I will accept such as I can in order to save the Bill. There are sonic which I think he will see when I put the case to him ought not to be accepted, for substantial reasons; but there are some which I can accept and I will try to meet him as much as I can. I hope this House will unite in making the necessary effort, and I think it is an effort, of forbearance to save this Bill from the jeopardy of which the most rev. Primate has spoken and which one cannot but recognise as a real jeopardy in the last week of the session.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think yon must have listened to the speech of the noble and learned Viscount with feelings of surprise. If I rightly interpreted the speech of the most rev. Primate, it was to the effect that he thought some sort of explanation was due from the noble and learned Viscount, for the very strong line he took on Second Reading when the particular character of this Bill and of its present draftsmanship was criticised. He took a very high and indignant line then, and was very angry with the critic, the humble individual who now has the honour of addressing your Lordships. Of course it is not the fault of the draftsman. We know that the Government draftsmen, who faithfully serve all Governments, are as good as they can be, awl we have no complaint whatever from that point of view. But the present draftsmanship of this Bill as passed under the leadership of the Government through the House of Commons is abominable. That is the plain fact, and that is what I ventured to tell your Lordships and the Government last Thursday when -NC were denounced for the language we used.
The most rev. Primate has now called attention to the real state of things, and the noble and learned Viscount, instead of saying anything in the nature of an apology, said with a smile that this sort of thing always must occur, and that the House of Commons must always in these matters, which vitally concern the liberty of the subject, pass bad Bills; and a little humorous twinkle in the eye of the Lord Chancellor is to suffice for us!It is a scandal that the noble and learned Viscount, knowing that the Bill is badly drafted, should intend that it should remain badly drafted because of the difficulties of the Government in another place, when it is really, after all, only a question of keeping the House of Commons and your Lordships sitting for a few days longer. That, I venture to say, is nothing short of a scandal. The noble and learned Viscount did not notice a great deal of what was said by the most rev. Primate. He did not seem to remember that this Government, of which he is a distinguished ornament, have deprived your Lordships of all power except the power of delay and revision. If we delay a Bill we are held up to obloquy be the noble Viscount's colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer,

1763
and if we want to revise a Bill we are told, "It is too late, because there are difficulties in the House of Commons; it is a very important Bill and it is badly drafted, but that is not the fault of the Government; it is the fault of the House of Commons." Your Lordships observe they always throw the blame on the House of Commons. So much the worse for the country. A bad Bill must be passed into law, and your Lordships are deprived of the power which resides in you still of revising the Bill.
I do not intend to use what small influence I have in this House in order to induce your Lordships to put in a number of Amendments which may wreck the Bill. That is not my intention. But we must do our best to put the Bill into shape in the time we have at our disposal. That is our elementary duty. We are trustees for the country and are bound to do our work; and if the Government cannot manage the House of Commons let them make way for another Government which can. That is the proper answer to the kind of argument which the noble and learned Viscount has addressed to us from the, Woolsack. I earnestly hope that the Bill may not fail, but I also hope that the Government will not withdraw their drafting Amendments. We should put the Bill into as good a shape as we can without pressing too much points of difference between us. I cannot ask your Lordships to believe that our proper duty at a moment like this is to abrogate absolutely our place in the Constitution and the obligations which we owe to the public.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the conciliatory tone which was adopted by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has not, I observe, had the result of mollifying the noble Marquess opposite. I confess that of the two criticisms which have been made I prefer that form of complaint which the most rev. Primate thought it necessary to utter upon the manner in which this Bill has appeared before this House and the attempts which have been made on the Paper to suggest Amendments to it. When the noble Marquess challenges us by saying if we cannot manage our affairs better in the House of Commons we ought to make room for those who can, I wonder where those are to be found. My experience of previous Parliaments does not make me
1764
think that they are to be found on the Benches opposite. I can quite understand that it seems a poor excuse for the hurried procedure which we have to adopt to say that such has always been the case, and it is not an excuse on which I like to dwell, but it is an excuse which has to be made in the face of an observation such as that which fell from the noble Marquess. I have not got clearly in my mind the circumstances which surrounded the advent in this House of the Factory and Workshop Bill in 1901, but that was a measure somewhat similar in its general purport and character to the measure we now have before us—that is to say, it was not a measure which excited the feelings of the two Opposite sides of the House in a Party sense, and it was a measure of social reform. But my recollection of it is that it received practically no amendment here on the ground that time pressed. The House of Commons had dealt with the Bill late in the session, and the result was that your Lordships were not able to give full consideration to it. And we remember that in the case of the Licensing Bill of 1904, which came up hurriedly to this House and was a highly contentious Government measure, the Government of the day were obliged to withdraw their own Amendments at the last moment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think so.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: That was the case, I think the noble Marquess will find, in respect to the Licensing Act of 1904. I quite agree that a measure of this kind is one which might most fitly and to the general advantage occupy the careful and considered attention of this House, yet if we are to be singled out for special reprobation in this matter we are obliged to draw attention to what has happened in the past. We all know that the career of this measure in another place has been a troubled one, not in the sense of its having been a matter of acute Party controversy, but both last year and this certain provisions in it have aroused almost a frenzy of feelings and prejudices on the part of some worthy representatives of the people who have, as I venture to think, misconceived the object of His Majesty's Government in relation to those provisions. All that I can do, therefore, is to join in the appeal which the most rev. Primate made, an appeal which has not fallen on

1765
deaf cars in the case of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, because I am certain that he is anxious to boil down as far as possible the rather formidable roll of Amendments which he has laid on the Table. He will, I know, as far as possible, confine the changes to those which can be by general agreement treated as improvements of the form of the Bill; and so far as noble Lords opposite will be willing to act in the same spirit and to avoid anything which might imperil the ultimate passage of the Bill we shall, of course, as my noble and learned friend has said, be grateful.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Definition of defectives.
1. The following classes of persons who are mentally defective shall be deemed to be defectives within the meaning of this Act:—

(a) Idiots; that is to say, persons so deeply defective in mind from birth or from an early age as to ho unable to guard themselves against common physical dangers;

(b) Imbeciles; that is to say, persons in whose case there exists from birth or from an early age mental defectiveness not amounting to idiocy, yet so pronounced that they are incapable of managing themselves or their affairs, or, in the case of children, of being taught to do so;

(c) Feeble-minded persons; that is to say, persons in whose case there exists from birth or from an early age mental defectiveness not amounting to imbecility, yet so pronounced that they require care, supervision, and control for their own protection or for the protection of others, or, in the case of children, that they by reason of such defectiveness appear to be permanently incapable of receiving proper benefit from the instruction in ordinary schools;

(d) Moral imbeciles; that is to say, persons who from an early age display some permanent mental defect coupled with strong, vicious or criminal propensities on which punishment has had little or no deterrent effect.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have put an Amendment on the Paper to leave out from paragraph (c) the words "or for the protection of others," in order to get from the Lord Chancellor a rather clearer explanation of the exact policy of the Bill in reference to the definition of a
1766
"defective." I am afraid that I did not make myself clear to him on the last occasion. If he will look at the words which I propose to omit for the purpose of raising this point he will see that a defective is subject to the operation of this Bill if he requires "care, supervision, and control for his own protection or for the protection of others." I do not say for a moment that that is an improper provision in itself, but the effect of this definition when you take it in conjunction with Clause 2 and the other clauses of the Bill is that a defective who, according to the words of the Bill, requires control not merely for his own protection but for the protection of others may be put under guardianship, or in an institution, or be subject to any of the resources that are open to the authorities.
Let us take the case of a child who is a defective and who exercises a very deleterious effect by his example on his brothers and sisters. I take that as a moderate illustration of the case I want to put. It is thought right in a case of that kind that the defective should be taken away from his home and placed, let us say, in an institution. Shortly after that, the authorities come to consider whether he ought to be detained there. The Bill prescribes that after the first year such a consideration has to take place, and then at intervals of five years after that. I take as my concrete case after the first year, when the authorities begin to consider whether he ought to be detained there. By Clause 11 there are certain things which they are told to take into account. It is expressly laid down in the course of that clause that all they have to consider is whether the defective ought to be detained there any longer in his own interests. Nothing is said about the interests of other people in the whole length of Clause 11. The fact that he is a danger or sets a bad example to other people is not taken into consideration at all throughout that clause. It all rests, in terms, upon whether he ought to be detained in his own interests. Indeed it goes in one particular case so far as to say "in the interests of the defective alone." I shall propose as a substantive Amendment to strike out the word "alone," although I do not think that will have the desired result. The Government ought to have made up their minds, if I may say so now that we have passed from the atmosphere of heat to the calm atmosphere of the discussion of the Bill, at a much earlier

1767
stage upon which horse they intended to ride, whether the defective was to be detained simply because he was a danger to himself, or because he might be in an alternative case a danger to other people. They have not quite made up their minds and I have put down this Amendment in order to draw attention to the point and to ask the Lord Chancellor what the policy of the Government in this respect is.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 25 and 20, leave out ("or for the protection of others").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not surprised that the noble Marquess should have drawn attention to this point. But there is not really an inconsistency between Clause 11 and Clause 1. The apparent inconsistency arises from the special report which the persons who inspect the defective—I am talking now of Clause 11, subsection (4)—are to make as to whether the defective is still a proper person to be detained in his own interest. A certificate is to follow, and that subsection deals with what the certificate is to be directed to. But earlier in the clause the Board in considering whether they shall depart from the order and determine the custody of the defective, are instructed to consider the report and certificate "and the means of care and supervision which would be available if he were discharged." So that they are to take other circumstances into account. If you go back to Clause 1 you will see the meaning of it. The words in paragraph (c) are for the protection of others. There it is a definition clause which begins by saying that a mentally defective person is to be deemed a feebleminded person, and feeble-minded persons are dealt with in this paragraph (c); and you may provide for their special custody if, among other things, it is required in the case of those defectives for the protection of others. This has been very much before us in framing the words as we have framed them. We have considered the case of a family in which one of the boys is mentally defective. One of the most horrible tendencies in the case of defectives is a tendency to indecent exposure. A boy of that kind could be taken care of by his parents if they were the only persons to be considered, but there are the other children to be considered, and it is particularly degrading to them. Therefore these words are put in.
1768
But they are not inconsistent with Clause 11 where it says that the certificate and the report are to refer to the defective alone. I ask the noble Marquess, therefore, not to press his Amendment. This has been thought out, and Clause 1 has been framed in this way to enable the course which I have described to be followed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I cannot honestly pretend that I am satisfied with the explanation of the noble and learned Viscount, but that is, perhaps, because I am not a lawyer and am not qualified to follow him as accurately as a lawyer would. But I do believe that as a matter of fact there is a discordance in the Bill, although I do not think it is one of the greatest importance, and it is certainly not one on which I should press an Amendment. If the noble and learned Viscount will take the responsibility that there is no discordance between the clauses such as I have pointed out, his authority is infinitely better than mine, and I shall be willing to withdraw the Amendment. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will assure us that, even if it is considered under the provisions of Clause 11 that there is no further need to detain the defective in his own interests, it is still open to detain him for the protection of other persons.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Provision is made in the case of his being a detriment to his brothers and sisters, but there may be some other place he could be sent to where he would not be under such strict supervision as he was before. There might be a relative, for example, who would agree to take him, and that would be one of the special circumstances to be taken into account by the Board as provided for in the earlier part of Clause 11.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Circumstances rendering defectives subject to be dealt with.
2.—(1) A person who is a defective may be dealt with under this Act by being sent to or placed in an institution for defectives or placed under guardianship—

(a) at the instance of his parent or guardian, if he is an idiot or imbecile, or at the instance of his parent if he is under the age of twenty-one; or

1769

(b) if in addition to being a defective he is a person—

(i) who is found neglected, abandoned, or without visible means of support, or cruelly treated; or

(ii) who is found guilty of any criminal offence, or who ordered or found liable to be ordered to be sent to a certified industrial school;

(iii) who is undergoing imprisonment (except imprisonment under civil process), or penal servitude, or is undergoing detention in a place of detention by order of a court, or in a reformatory or industrial school, or in an inebriate reformatory or who is detained in an institution for lunatics or a criminal lunatic asylum; or

(iv) who is an habitual drunkard within the meaning of the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900; or

(v) in whose case such notice has been given by the local education authority as is herein-after in this section mentioned; or

(vi) who is in receipt of poor relief at the time of giving birth to an illegitimate child or when pregnant of such child.

(2) Notice shall, subject to regulations made by the Board of Education, to be laid before Parliament as hereinafter provided, be given by the local education authority to the local authority under this Act in the case of all defective children over the age of seven—

(a) who have been ascertained to be incapable by reason of mental defect of receiving benefit or further benefit in special schools or classes, or who cannot be instructed in a special school or class without detriment to the interests of the other children, or for whom the Board of Education certify that no suitable special school or class is available;

(b) who on or before attaining the age of sixteen are about to be withdrawn or discharged from a special school or class, and in whose case the local education authority are of opinion that it would be to their benefit that they should be sent to an institution or placed under guardianship.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not move the first two Amendments standing in my name. I think they would be improvements, but I can get on without them, and I would rather not risk the perils to which they might give rise in another place. In paragraph (a) of subsection (2) I have an Amendment which I think is highly desirable and ought to be moved. It is to leave out the word "for" and insert "as respects," with a view to bringing in this consequential Amendment—namely, to leave out "no suitable special school or class is available" and to insert "there are special circumstances which render it
1770
desirable that they should be dealt with under this Act by way of supervision or guardianship." The reason is this. In the Bill as it stands the words are "or for whom the Board of Education certify that no suitable special school or class is available." There is provision in the Education Acts now for making special schools, but that provision has only been to a very slight extent made use of. Except in London and two or three large boroughs in the North of England the local education authorities have not put in force their powers under the Defective and Epileptic Children Act. The result is that the Board of Education are by no means anxious that the local education authorities should be encouraged to be more slack in that respect, and as a matter of fact there is a proposition before Parliament to furnish them with greater powers and more money for the purpose. Still they are apt to be slack and not to be too zealous. Therefore the Board of Education are anxious that the clause should run "or as respects whom the Board of Education certify that there are special circumstances which render it desirable that they should be dealt with under this Act by way of supervision or guardianship," the object of course being that they should be educated under the education authorities in schools properly provided for the purpose, and that the local education authorities should not be given an excuse finder this Bill for not fulfilling their duty of providing the schools.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 2, leave out ("for") and insert ("as respects").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 3, leave out from ("that") to the end of line 4 and insert ("there are special circumstances which render it desirable that they should be dealt with under this Act by way of supervision or guardianship").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Power to deal with defectives at instance of parent or guardian.
3.—(1) The parent or guardian of a defective who is an idiot or imbecile, or is under the age

1771
of twenty-one, may place him in an institution or under guardianship: Provided that he shall not be so placed in an institution or under guardianship, except upon certificates in the prescribed form signed by two duly qualified medical practitioners, one of whom shall be a medical practitioner approved for the purpose by the local authority, and, where the defective is not an idiot or imbecile, countersigned, after such inquiry as he shall think fit, by a judicial authority for the purposes of this Act, stating that the person to whom the certificate relates is a defective and the class of defectives to which he belongs, accompanied by a statement, signed by the parent or guardian, giving the prescribed particulars with respect to him.
(2) Where a defective has been so placed in an institution for defectives or under guardianship the managers of the institution, or the person under whose guardianship he has been placed, shall, within seven days after his reception send to the Board of Control hereinafter constituted (in this Act referred to as the Board) notice of his reception and such other particulars as may be prescribed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have an Amendment to Clause 3, to leave out the word "or" in the second line ["imbecile, or"] and to insert "and the parent of a defective who though not an idiot or imbecile," but I do not propose to move it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Bill remains absolute nonsense if the noble and learned Viscount does not move it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: On what point?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understand that this Amendment is directed to making Clause 3 the same as Clause 2, and as Clause 2, paragraph (a), now runs, the parent or guardian may act without petition or a trial in the Court if the defective is an idiot or imbecile, and the parent can alone act if the defective is under twenty-one, a distinction being drawn between the parent or guardian and the parent alone; in other words, the guardian has not got this power in the case of a child under twenty-one. When we come to Clause 3, the corresponding amendment has not been made, and the parent or guardian stands alone and the parent or guardian there has authority if the defective is under twenty-one. The reason is that a change was made in Clause 2 in the last stage in the House of Commons, and the Government have not made Clause 3 to read with Clause 2.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is another amendment which will get over that difficulty at another stage. I do not think it is very important one way or the other, and I am anxious to avoid anything that is unnecessary. The noble Marquess will, I think, find at a subsequent stage of the Bill that that will be put in order; but I repeat I do not care about it one way or the other, and perhaps it would be a little better drafting to put this in here if the noble Marquess wishes it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes; I do wish it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Very well; I will move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 12, leave out the second ("or") and insert ("and the parent of a defective who though not an idiot or imbecile").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 17, after ("authority") insert ("or the Board").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I move to leave out from subsection (1) the word "countersigned" ["idiot or imbecile, countersigned"] and to insert "also signed." The object of this Amendment is to make the endorsement of the judicial authority more formal in this case where the parent or guardian acts without petition. As the Bill stands, all that the magistrate is called upon to do is to countersign the certificate or declaration or whatever it is of the medical officer, and only to make such inquiry as he thinks fit. The word "countersigned" is a very unsatisfactory word, because it is generally used to mean nothing more than to verify the signature and the fact that the particular certificate has been made regularly and is in order. What we want is that the magistrate who adjudicates in this case should definitely use his discretion in the matter and make up his mind, just as he would in the case of a lunatic or any other person who is to be detained by the State, as to whether the facts are true as stated. If he not only countersigns but signs the certificate, that by itself makes a difference. But I go on, as your Lordships will observe, to also

1773
provide in the consequential Amendment which follows, that the signatories of the certificate are severally satisfied, and so on. That would include the magistrate himself, and in that way we should be quite certain, not only that the magistrate had verified the signature of the medical officer, but that he himself was satisfied of the facts so far as he was able from the circumstances laid before him.
Amendment moved—
Pare 3, line 18, leave out ("countersigned") and inert ("also signed").—(The Marquess of salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I cannot honestly say that it makes much difference in law, but I will accept the Amendment. It may be a slight improvement.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 19, leave out ("such") and insert ("due").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think this Amendment makes a considerable difference, and also the consequential Amendment of the noble Marquess to line 19, to leave out "as he shall think fit." The effect of these two Amendments would be to substitute for the words "after such inquiry as he shall think fit," the words, "after due inquiry."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The insertion of the word "due" makes it something that may come under the review of a Court of Law. "Due" means whit is due according to law. The one thing that was understood was that the proceedings under Clause 3 should not partake of the nature of formal legal proceedings, but that the utmost latitude should be given to the judicial authority to do the right thing; and in Grand Committee the words which are now there were inserted in deference to a request made on Report stage by Lord Hugh Cecil and were agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No; those were different words.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am told that tie words in the Bill were accepted. There was a discussion about it and they were accepted
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I apologise to the noble and learned Viscount. I cannot honestly say that I know what passed, and I do not pretend to know.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Probably neither of us knows accurately, but I am told that the words that are here are the words that were agreed upon on Report after a discussion. But be that as it may, the substance is the important thing. The word "due" takes away the wide discretion—it is limiting as well as extending—which the judicial authority is to have, and imports into it the nature of a judicial proceeding. I hope, therefore, that the noble Marquess will not press the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope the noble and learned Viscount will let me have this Amendment. He is a great legal luminary and upon a matter of law it would not be becoming in me to say a word against his view, but there is one thing he cannot know as well as I do—namely, the kind of way in which a country magistrate would behave. The noble and learned Viscount has never had the opportunity that I have had of seeing how this is actually done, and I do not think he realises that these kind of things tend to become to the highest degree perfunctory. That is the great danger. I have not had much but I have had a certain amount of practice in the administration of the Lunacy Acts, and I know the kind of way in which doctors expect magistrates to certify a lunatic as insane and shut him up, and there is a very great risk that it should become in the highest degree a perfunctory performance. We want to avoid that. If we say to the magistrate that he is to make such inquiry as he thinks fit he is apt to pay very little attention to it. He will say, "I do not think it very much matters. The responsibility is on the doctors and not on me. As the Bill now stands I am to countersign this certificate, but it really is not of very much importance what I do; the matter is really with the doctors, and I have only to make such inquiry as I think fit." An ordinary country magistrate is liable to make a conceivable mistake in that way. Therefore you should tell him in plain language what he is to do. "You have to make due inquiry and see that no injustice is done; that is what you are there for, and that is why you are asked to act." If you mean him to make due inquiry, which is certainly what I mean him to do, you must say so.

1775
The noble and learned Viscount says that this will be reviewable in a Court of Law. By all means. Why should not everybody have justice? Let it be so reviewable. I think it is extremely unlikely to occur, but if there is an injustice done it ought to be reviewed somewhere else. I have no objection to that, and I do not believe the noble and learned Viscount has. I see no point, if he will allow me to say so, in his objection. I think it is quite proper and right in any case where you are going to shut a person up, perhaps for life, that due inquiry should be made. I believe the public will expect it, and a magistrate ought to do so. The noble and learned Viscount must realise that this Bill is a tremendous new departure and a very serious one—I believe a salutary one—and it ought to be hedged round with every precaution. It should be clearly pointed out that the magistrate whose business it is to see that justice is done should make due inquiry before he acts.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope the noble Marquess will not press the Amendment. It may be most important that the person holding the inquiry should take cognisance of circumstances which, without long notice given and preparation made, the law of evidence will not allow him to do. Supposing in the course of an inquiry something very important is to be heard from the relative of a child and the judicial authority admit it, if the word "due" is in the clause the proceedings will be Open to attack and question on the ground that something was let in which was not technically within the law of evidence. It will be open to attack on the ground that some procedure was adopted which the law did not recognise. We want to avoid proceedings of a strictly judicial character. The judicial authority may be the local County Court Judge, and a variety of persons according to circumstances. In this case the great point is that the magistrate is not merely the county justice but is the judicial authority selected. I spend a certain amount of time every week in selecting magistrates for this lunacy work.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think in some counties it is every magistrate.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No; not to my knowledge. Under the Act of Parliament I have to specially designate the magistrates who are to be the judicial authority and it is to be so under this Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think they are appointed by their brother magistrates at the Court of Quarter Sessions, and, unless I am very much mistaken, in Hertfordshire every single magistrate is appointed; and in another county too.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: They are carefully selected by the Quarter Sessions, and I have full power to supplement their number where necessary, and to appoint when representations are made to me. My responsibility as regards every phase of this lunacy jurisdiction is far-reaching. Therefore I am most anxious that the noble Marquess should not press this Amendment. It is a thing over which there may be great controversy, and I think it very undesirable that we should open up controversy in another place.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 20, after ("that") insert ("the signatories of the certificate are severally satisfied that").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have an Amendment in line 21, after the word "defective" ["the certificate relates is a defective"], to insert "within the meaning of this Act." I move this to call the noble and learned Viscount's attention to the fact that sometimes we find the expression "defective" alone and sometimes "defective within the meaning of this Act." I am informed that that may lead to a great deal of trouble in subsequent interpretation. If the Government had said "defective" all through the Bill it would have been easy to interpret, but if they sometimes say "defective" and sometimes "defective within the meaning of this Act" it will lead to different interpretations. If the noble and learned Viscount looks at it and says it is all right, I have nothing more to say.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 21, after ("defective") insert ("within the meaning of this Act").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am relying on the definition clause in which "defectives" are defined. But I will look into it and see whether any Amendment is necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Power to deal with defectives otherwise than at instance of parent or guardian.
4. A defective subject to be dealt with under this Act otherwise than at the instance of his parent or guardian may so be dealt with—

(a) under an order made by a judicial authority on a petition presented under this Act; or

(b) under an order of a court, in the case of a defective found guilty of a criminal offence or liable to be ordered to be sent to an industrial school; or

(c) under an order of the Secretary of State, in the case of a defective detained in a prison, criminal lunatic asylum, reformatory or industrial school, place of detention, or inebriate reformatory;

but no such order shall be made except in the circumstances and in the manner herein-after specified
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Here, again, the point is not of any great importance, but I submit that the drafting of the clause is at present, very obscure, and I believe that the Government would prefer the clause in the way in which it is put by my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 32, leave out ("at the instance of his parent or guardian") and insert ("under paragraph (a) of subsection one of Section two of this Act").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS or SALISBURY: move to leave out paragraph (b). This is a substantial Amendment. As a matter of fact the important place in which paragraph (b) appears is in Clause 8. Clause 8 deals with the procedure in cases of persons guilty of offences. Where a person is convicted by a competent Court of an offence and is found also to be a defective he may be brought within the procedure of this Bill without more ado. There are two methods under which the Court may proceed. They may either direct that a petition should be brought in the usual way according to the normal procedure of the Bill and the case inquired into and certain certificates obtained, or they may dispense with the petition and all those precautions and safeguards and direct that the defective should be confined in an institution, or wherever it may be, with very much fewer safeguards. I submit to your Lordships that this paragraph (b) which allows the fewer safeguards is unnecessary, and that paragraph (a) which contains the full safeguards is the real procedure which the Court ought to adopt. The criminal offences which bring the defec-
1778
tive under the powers of the Bill May be of the most trivial description. Any offence which involves imprisonment at all brings the defective under the operation of these clauses, and the Court before which he is tried is not the High Court or any important Court, but might be an ordinary Petty Sessions Court of the humblest description. He might be convicted of the smallest possible offence, yet if found to be defective by the magistrate he would be without the precautions which the rest of the Bill stipulates for, and he might be confined in an institution practically for life. It is in the highest degree unlikely that the defective who once passes the grates of this Bill will ever be let out again.
There is one other argument I should like to address to your Lordships. A few minutes ago the noble and learned Viscount introduced a corresponding Scottish Bill. I am informed that there is no procedure corresponding to paragraph (b) in the Scottish Bill. Under the Scottish Bill they are quite content with the procedure under paragraph (a)—that is to say, the Court which is seized of the case, and which has convicted the prisoner, instead of of their own jurisdiction, as it were, ruling that the defective is to be brought within the operation of the Bill, direct a petition to be brought and the full procedure to be gone through with all the safeguards. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will realise that the safeguards are a real thing. For instance, there are to be two doctors's certificates instead of one. If the noble and learned Viscount is right that in the case of a great many counties the procedure under paragraph (a) is by a magistrate who is expert to some extent in this kind of case, then should the procedure be under paragraph (b) the magistrate will decide that the man is to be confined in an institution on his own authority, although he may not be an expert magistrate at all but an ordinary magistrate. So that the safeguards are very real which are dispensed with under paragraph (b) and which would be included if the procedure was under paragraph (a). I suggest to your Lordships that the English Bill should be assimilated in this respect to the Scottish Bill, and that we should strike out paragraph (b) from Clause 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, lines 36 to 38, leave out paragraph (b).—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope the noble Marquess will not press this. In Scotland the judicial authority is the sheriff. The magistrates do not try cases in Scotland to anything like the extent they do here. The sheriff is also the judicial authority, and it was perfectly easy to leave it to him. The effect of accepting the noble Marquess's Amendment would be to make it necessary to have a double proceeding. If the Court thinks that there ought to be further inquiry it will refer matters to the judicial authority. I do not think this would be a good Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Presentation of petitions.
5.—(1) An order of a judicial authority under this Act shall be obtainable upon a private application by petition made by any relative or friend of the alleged defective, or by any officer of the local authority under this Act authorised in that behalf.
(2) Every petition shall be accompanied by two medical certificates, one of which shall be signed by a medical practitioner approved for the purpose by the local authority, or a certificate that a medical examination was impracticable, and by a statutory declaration signed by the petitioner and by at least one other person (who may be one of the persons who gave a medical certificate) stating—

(a) that the person to whom the petition relates is a defective within the meaning of this Act, and the class of defectives to which he is alleged to belong; and

(b) that the person is subject to be dealt with under this Act, and the circumstances which render him so subject; and

(c) whether or not a petition under this Act, or a petition for a reception order under the Lunacy Acts, 1890 to 1911, has previously been presented concerning that person, and, if such a petition has been presented, the date thereof and the result of the proceedings thereon; and

(d) if the petition is accompanied by a certificate that a medical examination was impracticable, the circumstances which rendered it impracticable.

(3) If a petition is not presented by a relative or by an officer of the local authority it shall contain a statement of the reasons why the petition is not presented by a relative, and of the connection of the petitioner with the person to whom the petition relates and the circumstances under which he presents the petition.
(4) Where the Board are satisfied that a petition under this section ought to be presented concerning any person, and that the local authority have refused or neglected to cause a petition to be presented, they may direct an inspector or other officer to present a petition, and this section shall apply accordingly.
LORD MONK BRETTON: I have an Amendment, after "authority" in subsection (2), to insert "or Board of Control." In Clause 3 the noble and learned Viscount inserted an Amendment to say that the Board of Control, or the Board as he put it, should be one of the authorities for approving the medical practitioner. I am aware that Clause 5 is not quite on all fours with Clause 3, and if the noble and learned Viscount, who is, alter all, the guardian of lunatics, gives me his assurance that he has looked into the point I will take his advice with regard to this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have no difficulty in accepting the noble Lord's Amendment if he will move to insert "or Board." You do not need to say "Board of Control." I am content to have it in that way, and it fits in with the Amendment we have already made to Clause 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 9, after ("authority") insert ("or Board").—(Lord Monk Bretton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Procedure on hearing petitions.
6.—(1) Upon the presentation of the petition and such documents as aforesaid the judicial authority shall either visit the person to whom the petition relates or summon him to appear before him.
(2) Proceedings before the judicial authority may in any case, if the judicial authority thinks fit, and shall, if so desired by the person to whom the petition relates, be conducted in private, and in that case no one except the petitioner, the person to whom the petition relates, any two persons appointed for the purpose by the person to whom the petition relates, and the persons signing the medical certificates and the statutory declaration accompanying the petition shall, without leave of the judicial authority, be allowed to be present.
(3) If the judicial authority is satisfied that the person to whom the petition relates is a defective and is also satisfied that he is subject to be dealt with under this Act, the judicial authority may, if he thinks it desirable to do so in the interests of such person, make an order either ordering him to be sent to an institution the managers of which are willing to receive him, or appointing a suitable person to be his guardian, and the order shall state the class of defectives to which he belongs, and the circumstances which render him subject to be dealt with under this Act:
Provided that—

(a) where the petition is not presented by the parent or guardian, the order shall not be made without the consent in writing of the parent or guardian, unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the judicial authority that such consent is unreasonably withheld, or that the parent or guardian cannot be found, but consent shall not be deemed to be unreasonably withheld if withheld with the bona fide intention of benefiting the defective; and

(b) nothing in this section shall prevent an order being made, notwithstanding that the person to whom the petition relates does not appear to the judicial authority to belong to the class of defectives to which he is in the petition alleged to belong, if the judicial authority is satisfied that he is a defective.

(4) If the judicial authority is not satisfied that the person to whom the petition relates is a defective, and subject to be dealt with under this Act, or that it is desirable in the interests of such person that an order should be made, the judicial authority may, if he thinks fit, adjourn the case for a period not exceeding fourteen days for further evidence or information, and may order that the person to whom the petition relates shall submit himself to medical examination, or may dismiss the petition:
Provided that, unless the petition is dismissed, the judicial authority shall order a medical examination in any case where the petition was accompanied by a certificate that a medical examination was impracticable.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I move in subsection (2), after the word "relates" ["except the petitioner, the person to whom the petition relates"], to insert "his parents or guardians and." This is not an important Amendment, but it is one which ought to be made. The purpose is to give the parent or guardian a right to be present and to appoint persons to represent them at an inquiry held in private. I have had in view in moving this a point made by the noble Marquess in moving another Amendment. It may be well in the discretion of the Court to have that in, and therefore I propose to put it in.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 5, after ("relates") insert ("his parents or guardians and").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 6, after ("relates") insert ("or by his parents or guardian").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope the Government will accept this Amendment to omit from the end of paragraph (a) of subsection (3) the words "if withheld with the" and to insert "unless the judicial authority is satisfied that it is withheld without a." The clause now provides that where a child is the subject of a petition, let us say by the local education authority, the order shall not be made without the consent in writing of the parent or guardian. It seems perfectly right, of course, that the children should not be shut up without the consent of the parent or guardian, unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the judicial authority that such consent is unreasonably withheld. It is almost common form that the consent which is necessary should not be unreasonably withheld. Then we have to go on and say what we mean by unreasonably withhold. That was the subject of a great deal of controversy in the House of Commons. The words now in the clause are that the consent "shall not be deemed to be unreasonably withheld if withheld with the bona fide intention of benefiting the defective." It is quite clear what the object was of those who urged the Government to put words of that kind into the Bill. It was that where the parent was evidently acting bona fide and was desiring to do his best for the child in the exercise of the discretion which is inherent in the parent, a right which must never be taken away except on great cause shown, then the refusal to give consent should be accepted by the judicial authority. That appears to be the object which those Members had who persuaded the Government to put in these words. But when you come to examine the words they are not so good as they might be, and I propose, with the leave of your Lordships, to make them a little better. It is extremely difficult to know what exactly is intended to be meant by the words "the bona fide intention," and what is meant by calling upon the parents to show that they have a bona fide intention. The judicial authority might say to the parents, "It is quite true you say with tears in your eyes that you will not part from the child, but you are allowing your emotions and affections to warp your judgment, and your intention is not really to benefit the child." If a magistrate used words of that kind the clause would become in this respect perfectly useless and meaningless, and therefore the advantage which the

1783
House of Commons intended to secure to the parent would be rendered entirely illusory. I have therefore redrafted the words and put it the other way. Unless it is quite clear to the magistrate that the parent is withholding consent with no bona fide intention of benefiting the defective then the consent should be taken as not unreasonably withheld. I believe that my words are clearer and stronger than the words in the clause, and I hope the Government will accept them.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 28, leave out ("if withheld with the") and insert ("unless the judicial authority is satisfied that it is withheld without a").(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My difficulty about the noble Marquess's Amendment is one of drafting. I do not think any difference is made in the effect of the words, and after considering them with the draftsman I have come to the conclusion that it makes no difference whether the words go in or not. But here is the difficulty. If the noble Marquess's words are accepted, the last line of the proviso will run thus, "but consent shall not be deemed to be unreasonably withheld unless the judicial authority is satisfied that it is withheld without a bona fide intention of benefiting the defective." There is already a triple negative in the proviso. The Government are responsible for that, and the noble Marquess proposes to add two more. The result is that it is almost impossible to understand it unless you give a good deal of time to it. I am satisfied that the purpose the noble Marquess desires to secure is secured by the wording as it stands, and I hope he will not press the Amendment, as it may give rise to one of those discussions in the early hours of the morning elsewhere which we wish to avoid in the case of this Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am afraid I do not agree that it is only a drafting Amendment. I think it is an Amendment of material substance, but I agree that it is very awkward to have four or five negatives. That is one of the difficulties one meets with in drafting.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid I am to blame for three of them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I only propose to add a paltry two more, but if the Government will not accept the Amendment at this stage I will not press it now. But the noble and learned Viscount, with the dexterity of an old Parliamentary hand, has not, I observe, answered the substance of my argument. The great difficulty will be for parents to understand that their intention is rightly interpreted by the magistrate, who might easily ignore it under the words as they stand. If the noble and learned Viscount will give me some hope that he will consider other words to make it clearer that any real bona fide objection of the parents would be accepted I certainly will not press the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will look into it again with the draftsman and consider it, but at present I think we have covered the whole ground.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Variation of orders.
7.—(1) Where an order has been made that a defective be placed under guardianship the judicial authority which made the order, or any other judicial authority, or, where the original order was not made by a judicial authority, any judicial authority may, on application being made for the purpose by the guardian or by the Board or by the local authority, and on being satisfied that the case is or has become one unsuitable for guardianship, order that the defective be sent to an institution.
(2) A person appointed to be guardian of a defective may, on the application of the local authority or of the Board or of any other person who appears to be interested, be removed from his office by any such judicial authority as aforesaid, and where a person appointed to be guardian of a defective dies, or resigns his office, or is removed from his office, such judicial authority as aforesaid may, on the like application, appoint a suitable person to act in his stead.
(3) An order under this section shall not be made without giving to the relative or other person who presented the original petition and to the local authority an opportunity of being heard.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 25, after ("order") in subsection (3) insert ("or appointment").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The appointment has to be made by order.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The appointment is not made by the Court. It is made by somebody else, and I think the Amendment is necessary. It is the case of a variation of an order which has been already made. In the case of an institution, where there is a variation a new order is made if the defective has to be moved, but where a particular person has been appointed to be a guardian and a new guardian is to be appointed then it is not an order but an appointment, and, unless the words "or appointment" are in, the relatives would have no voice or right to be heard, although a different person was to be made a guardian of the child from the person who was guardian when they were heard before the Court.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The appointment will have to be made by order.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the noble and learned Viscount assures me that that is so, I will not press the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am satisfied of that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have an Amendment in subsection (3), after "giving" to insert "to the local authority, and where practicable." It may not always be practicable to give notice to the person who presented the original petition, and therefore I propose to insert these words. The petition may be presented by somebody who has gone abroad or emigrated, and we want to put in words to provide for that.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 26, after ("giving") insert ("to the local authority, and where practicable").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Amendment in the same subsection, after "petition," to insert the words "and to the parent or guardian of the defective," is to provide that where a change is made the parent or guardian is to have a right to be heard. They ought to have notice like any body else.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 27, after ("petition") insert ("and to the parent or guardian of the defective").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 27, leave out ("and to the local authority").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Procedure in cases of persons guilty of offences, &c. 8 Edw. 7. c. 57.
8.—(1) On the conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction of any person of any offence punishable with penal servitude or imprisonment, or on a child brought before a court under section fifty-eight of the Children Act, 1908, being found liable to be sent to an industrial school, the court, if satisfied on medical evidence that he is a defective within the meaning of this Act, may either—

(a) postpone passing sentence or making an order for committal to an industrial school, and direct that a petition be presented to a judicial authority under this Act with a view to obtaining an order that he be sent to an institution or placed under guardianship; or

(b) in lieu of passing sentence or making an order for committal to an industrial school, itself make any order which if a petition had teen duly presented under this Act the judicial authority might have made, which order shall have the like effect as if it had been made by a judicial authority on a petition under this Act:

Provided that, if the court is a court of summary jurisdiction and the case is one which the court has power to deal with summarily, the court, if it finds that the charge is proved, may give such directions or make such order as aforesaid without proceeding to a conviction, and such a person shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be a person found guilty of an offence.
(2) The court may act either on the evidence given during the trial, or may call for further medical or other evidence.
(3) Where the court so directs a petition to be presented against a person, it may order him to be detained in an institution for defectives or in a place of safety for such time as is required for the presentation of the petition.
(4) Where it appears to any court of summary jurisdiction by which a person charged with an offence is remanded or committed for trial that such person is a defective, the court may order that pending the further hearing or trial he shall be detained in an institution for defectives, or be placed under the guardianship of any person on that person entering into a recognisance for his appearance.
(5) Where it appears to the police authority that any person charged with an offence is a defective, they shall communicate with the local authority, and it shall be the duty of the police authority to bring before the court such evidence as to his mental condition as may be available:
Provided that where it is intended to bring such evidence before the court the police authority shall give notice of the intention to the person charged, and to his parent or guardian, if known.
LORD MONK BRETTON: In Clauses 2 and 5 it is provided that a person can only be made a defective on the evidence of two medical practitioners. The only respect in which this clause differs from Clauses 2 and 5 is that, as it is a procedure in cases of persons guilty of offences, the evidence is oral. An Amendment was moved on this point in another place, and the answer of the Government was that there was nothing to prevent the Court from calling for another doctor if they wanted one. They seemed to consider that an adequate answer. But the point in favour of my Amendment is that it is a very serious matter to put a person away as a defective, and as in the other clauses you have insisted on two medical practitioners it seems reasonable to require the same safeguard in the present case.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 34, leave out ("medical") in subsection (1) and insert ("the") and after ("evidence insert ("of two medical practitioners").—(Lord Monk Bretton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The objection to this Amendment is that it is fettering the judicial authority. They might require three doctors or even four, and if the standard is two it might tend to become a mere formality. I think that in dealing with the judicial authority it is better to leave them quite unfettered to do the right thing. You are not dealing with somebody who does not know his business. They magistrates for this purpose are selected, and in the other cases they are highly competent persons, and I think it is objectionable to fetter the judicial authority in the choice of evidence. They may want more than the Amendment points to, and I ask the noble Lord not to press the Amendment.
LORD MONK BRETTON: I suppose the noble and learned Viscount would not accept "at least two"?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No; because there may be a case in which it is perfectly plain that only one is necessary and in which the Judge can deal with it. I can conceive a case Where it should be the family doctor when all the circumstances are known.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MONK BRETTON: The object of my Amendment at the end of subsection (1) is to provide that in the case of a child the education authority should be able to nominate as the doctor the school doctor where they think that the school doctor is likely to know more about the child than any other doctor.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 13, after ("offences") insert ("Provided also that in the case of any person dealt with under this section for whom a local education authority is providing education under the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act, 1899, one of the medical practitioners aforesaid shall be nominated by such local education authority").—(Lord Monk Bretton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The object of the noble Lord's Amendment is a laudable one if it would only work out as the noble Lord contemplates, but it may be that this particular doctor is not available and it would therefore be a pity to put in limiting words.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know that it will be necessary for me to press the Amendment which stands in my name if the noble and learned Viscount will give me an assurance. The object of the Amendment is to give the parent or guardian or any relative of the defective an opportunity of being heard. The words of the proviso run, "Where it is intended to bring such evidence before the Court the police authority shall give notice of the intention to the person charged, and to his parent or guardian, if known." That is quite right, but it is not sufficient that there should be merely notice given. It also follows that if upon the notice being received the parent or guardian has medical evidence to bring in contradiction of the medical evidence submitted, there should then be an adjournment so that there may be an opportunity of getting it ready. I have been assured that if

1789
notice has been given it would follow that the authorities would give a sufficient adjournment to enable the notice to be acted upon, and if the noble and learned Viscount will assure me that that is provided for I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 35, after ("known") insert ("and on the application of the person charged or of the parent or guardian or any relative of such person, the Court shall adjourn the ease so as to give the applicant an opportunity of calling medical or other evidence to show that the person charged is not defective within the meaning of this Act").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If this is not already provided for, I will see that it is in the Regulations.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Duration of detention under orders.
11.—(1) An order made under this Act that a defective be sent to an institution or placed under guardianship shall expire at the end of one year from its date, unless continued in manner hereinafter provided:
Provided that in the case of any institution the Board may by order direct that orders that persons be sent thereto shall, unless continued as hereinafter provided, expire on the quarter day next after the day on which the orders would have expired under the above provision.
(2) An order shall remain in force for a year after the date when under the preceding provisions of this section it would have expired, and thereafter for successive periods of five years, if at that date and at the end of each period of one and five years respectively the Board, after considering such special report and certificate as is hereinafter mentioned and the means of care and supervision which would be available if he were discharged consider that the continuance of the order is required in his interests and make an order for the purpose:
Provided that where a defective was, at the time of being sent to the institution or placed under guardianship, under twenty-one years of age, the case shall be reconsidered by the visitors appointed under this Act within three months after he attains the age of twenty-one years.
(3) On such reconsideration the visitors shall visit the defective or summon him to attend before them and inquire into his mental condition and the means of care and supervision which would be available if he were discharged and into all the circumstances of the case, and if it appears to them that further detention in an institution or under guardianship is no longer required in the interests of the defective alone, shall order him to be discharged:
Provided that if the visitors do not order his discharge the defective or his parent or guardian may within fourteen days after the decision of the visitors has been communicated to the defective and his parent or guardian appeal to the Board.
(4) The special report above mentioned shall be a special report as to the mental and bodily condition of the defective made, in the case of a person detained in an institution, by the medical officer of that institution, and in any other case by a duly qualified practitioner, and shall be accompanied by a certificate under his hand that the defective is still a proper person to be detained in his own interest in an institution or under guardianship, and the person sending the special report shall give to the Board such further information concerning the defective to whom the special report relates as they may require.
(5) A certificate under the hand of the secretary to the Board that an order has been continued to the date therein mentioned shall be sufficient evidence of the fact.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We now come to a very important clause of the Bill, which the marginal note calls the "Duration of detention under orders." Your Lordships will realise that when a defective is confined in an institution under this Bill there is no reason why he should ever come out again. No doubt in the large majority of cases the injury to or deficiency in the brain of the defective is of a permanent character, and there is not much hope of anything like a recovery. At the same time his condition may be to some extent improved, and if it is not a very bad case and was only a minor case originally the slight improvement may be quite sufficient to make a difference as to whether he ought to be detained or let go again. Another circumstance is that the conditions of the home of the natural guardians of the defective may have changed so advantageously as to make it possible for them to make proper provision for the defective apart from any public institution. Besides those two circumstances you have to take into account the possibility of a mistake being made. These are all reasons why very careful safeguards must be taken, even after the person has been held to be a defective and has been confined in an institution, so that if due cause can be shown he shall be let out again
This is one of the most important parts of the Bill, and the Government in their clauses and subsections try and provide for these contingencies. Subsection (2) of Clause 11 is the principal subsection. It sets out how the Board are to consider a special report on periodical occasions after

1791
the first year, and subsequently in every quinquennial period. They are to consider a special report and certificate of a medical authority and to consider all the other circumstances of the case. But there is one matter which they are not called upon to consider, and which I think they ought to consider—that is the views of an independent medical authority. I most earnestly ask your Lordships to think with compassion of the relatives of a defective shut up under this Bill. Take the case of the mother of a child shut up under the Bill. She probably does not admit that the child is as defective as the authorities hold, and she is probably convinced, and perhaps rightly, that she is the best person to look after the defective, at any rate better than any public institution in the world. She is immensely interested that no mistake should be made and no injustice done, and if any improvement in the child's health has taken place that it should have due effect in permitting the restoration of the child to her own care. All those things every one of your Lordships will feel require the greatest consideration at our hands.
The authorities in these institutions, having to deal with a very large number of cases, become necessarily hardened in their consideration of them—what the French call routinier. They follow along a beaten track and do not give themselves the same trouble to ascertain whether the circumstances have changed as a person closely interested would do. It does seem to me that if in those cases the parents are in a position to have an independent medical examination they ought to have it, and that medical examination ought to be given by the authorities whether the child is to be kept in the institution for another year or it may be for another five years. That is a tremendous sentence upon these unfortunate people and upon the parents, especially the mothers, and I think that the Government ought to provide for an independent medical examination being made if it is asked for under due regulations and at proper intervals. I do not want to put anything unreasonable or impossible or impracticable, but if it is possible it should be considered. This seems to me the simplest and most reasonable Amendment in the world. Suppose any one of your Lordships had a child torn from you and placed in one of these institutions and you were not
1792
allowed to have an independent medical examination at the end of a certain period to see how the child was going on. I doubt if he would not be almost willing to break the law to prevent so great a wrong, and I urge the Amendments in this matter above all the Amendments that I have ventured to put before your Lordships to-night. The object of this Amendment and of a new clause in the Bill which I suggest later on is that there should be under due regulations an opportunity for an independent visit and an independent certificate by a medical authority on behalf of those interested.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 38, after ("mentioned") in subsection (2) insert ("and the report of any duly qualified medical practitioner who, at the request of the defective or his parent or guardian or any relative or friend, has made a medical examination of the defective").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is no difference between the Government and the noble Marquess as to his object, but there is a difference as to how it is to be attained. We have endeavoured to attain it, and I think satisfactorily, in another fashion. The difficulty about giving a right to an independent visit by somebody nominated by the parent or guardian is this, that it is a good thing when it works but in the great majority of cases it does not work. There are a large number of instances under this Bill where an independent person brought in from outside might come in in a very unsuitable mood or manlier, and the result would be that great friction would arise with the officials of the institution over the advent of the outsider. But we have preserved a careful power to order such a visit, so that he should go under the œgis of the authority. The Board can direct a visit by a special medical man selected, if so desired, by the parent or guardian; and, more than that, the powers of the Lord Chancellor which are used for this purpose are preserved. I have not infrequently exercised such powers even under the existing jurisdiction, and it will be open to the Board of Control and to the Lord Chancellor to send au independent physician backed with authority and the status which that authority gives him to make an inspection. That is very much better than his coming in ab extra in the fashion the Amendment suggests. I undertake that there will be no difficulty in the independent doctor

1793
being given authority to make an independent visit whenever a case for it is made out. It is only because we foresee the friction which in nine cases out of ten would arise that we do not like the proposal in the shape which the noble Marquess proposes it. I will undertake that the powers which are already in the Bill will be used, so far as I have any control, in the freest manner whenever a proper ease is made.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Surely that does not meet the point urged by my noble friend. The Lord Chancellor says that he will undertake, so far as he is concerned, that the powers vested in himself or other authorities shall be used on occasion to see that an independent medical opinion is taken. In the first place, the noble and learned Viscount can only answer for himself. In the second place, the whole point of my noble friend's appeal was that the parent should have the legal right to have an independent medical opinion at quinquennial intervals. Surely that is very different front the offer which the Lord Chancellor has made. He really has not made any answer at all to the human appeal which my noble friend made for the right of the mother and the father, independently of any authority, even of the Lord Chancellor, to have at intervals an independent medical opinion as to the state of their child. It seems to me that the plea which my noble friend put forward is an unanswerable one. The Lord Chancellor says that if the Amendment was accepted there would be friction in the asylums. I think it very likely there would be. I know how human nature acts under such circumstances, and that the authorities in an asylum do not like the intrusion of even a brother practitioner from outside. But we have to override the prejudices of the asylum authorities, and to see that a far higher principle is vindicated—namely, the right of the parent to be satisfied by the opinion of his own medical practitioner in whom he trusts. I venture to say that we ought not to allow the amour propre of the officials of the asylum or the chance of friction, which I do not deny, to stand between what I call the inalienable right of parentage.
THE LORD, CHANCELLOR: Again I say there is nothing between us, only a
1794
question of how best to effect the common purpose. If an outside doctor is allowed to be sent in by the parent or whoever it may be, there will be that friction which the noble Earl has described, and the chances of the condition of the unfortunate patient being worse than it otherwise would be. All I suggest is that if the parent or guardian conies to the Board of Control Or to the Lord Chancellor—I can speak for the last official, and I can speak on instructions for the Board—in every case where it is not unreasonable authority will be given for the independent doctor to enter, and entering with the authority of the Board or of the Lord Chancellor behind him he would be in a very much stronger position than he would otherwise be in. That is provided by this Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In which clause?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: According to the regular powers of the Lord Chancellor under the Lunacy Act and the express powers of the Board of Control conferred upon them by the Home Secretary.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They do not give a parent or guardian the right to go to the Lord Chancellor and demand the admission of his own medical adviser.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The parent has that right. I have a case every week, and I order a special inquiry in every case where it is reasonable, and communicate with the persons concerned. The Lord Chancellor has that power, and the Board of Control has it also. I assure your Lordships that there is no desire to interfere with the liberty of the subject here or not to safeguard it. We think that we have done it in the fullest possible way. The sending of somebody from outside into these asylums without any official authority we feel will lead to friction and do more harm to the unfortunate defective than the good that is sought to be done.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: wish I could believe that the difference between the noble and learned Viscount and my noble friend is really as small as

1795
the noble and learned Viscount appears to suppose. I cannot help feeling that there is a substantial difference between the two positions. One objection of the Lord Chancellor to the proposal of my noble friend I can understand. He said that a medical officer sent to visit one of these defectives might approach his task in an unsuitable frame of mind. I can conceive that that might happen, and that there might he some risk of inconvenience. But is it not better to run that risk than to incur the infinitely greater risk of making people believe that when their relatives are taken from them under this Bill they are to be buried away in an asylum, and that there is to be no prospect, except the one opportunity when the defective arrives at the age of twenty-one, of extricating them from their position? This Bill is, of course, a tremendous interference with personal liberty, and I cannot help thinking that it would be worth while straining a point, if it be straining a point, in order to remove from the public mind the kind of impression which I believe might be created unless some Mitigations of this kind are accepted. The noble and learned Viscount gave us an assurance which, of course, we should take from him unreservedly, that as far as he is concerned no obstacle will be placed in the way of a visit from an independent doctor. But that is really not quite the same thing as giving the relatives of the defective the right of requiring such a visit. We have to think not only of people who have access to the high legal authorities, but of very poor and humble people who will be easily discouraged from taking a step of this kind if you place too many obstacles in their way. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will take into consideration the strong appeal made to him by my noble friend, and that he will accept this Amendment.
THE LORD BISHOP OF OXFORD: Might I ask the noble and learned Viscount to explain to us whether this new class of patient whom we are to authorise for compulsory detention are going in this respect to be treated exactly in the same manner as those who are at present subject to compulsory detention? I understood from the noble and learned Viscount that the facilities for exemption were exactly the same in both cases.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
THE LORD BISHOP OF OXFORD: I think that has to be considered. We all of us experience anxiety if we contemplate the possibility of any one being detained who is not really a fit subject for detention, and we must all of us be profoundly anxious to relieve the feeling of anxiety which undoubtedly exists with regard to this Bill. Therefore I think it should be possible without any serious risk to allow what is asked for by the noble Marquess in this Amendment. I understand that the opposition to this Bill in the House of Commons has been from those who were perhaps unduly anxious, but who, at any rate, were anxious with regard to the liberty of the subject. Would not the acceptance of this Amendment be a further step in the direction of removing apprehensions?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is evidently very strong feeling in the House about this, and I can only say that my own conviction is that this step will lead to friction in the future and to the less smooth working of the institutions we are setting up. There is no such power under the Lunacy Acts as they are now, and for the good reason that we have ground for thinking that it would only lead to friction if it were so. I believe that what your Lordships have in view is already provided for, but if your Lordships persist in putting this Amendment in, your Lordships must decide.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 39, leave out ("he") and insert ("the defective").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I put down the Amendment standing in my name for the purpose, in the first place, of calling your Lordships' attention to the extreme obscurity of this clause. In the second place, it is a rather fairer provision than the clause itself provides. Let me call your Lordships' attention to the way in which the clause is drawn, not the way in which it was originally drawn, but as it emerged from the House of Commons. The abnormal subsection is subsection (2). This subsection provides for the consideration of these cases at stated periods—at the end of one year, and then at the end of every quinquennial period. Then there is

1797
a proviso dealing with the special case of when the defective who is an infant reaches the age of twenty-one years. Subsection (3) apparently only refers to the proviso, and does not refer to subsection (2), and then you suddenly come back to subsection (2) again, because subsection (4) refers only to subsection (2) and does not refer to subsection (3). I am quite sure that was not the original intention of the Government or the draftsman: it must have been the result of changes in Committee. As the clause now stands there is to be a consideration with a special report, and, as your Lordships have now decided, a report from an independent doctor if required—a consideration with a special report but without necessarily seeing the defective himself and hearing what he has to say and seeing by his own evidence what the defective's condition is. Then we come to the reconsideration of the special case when he reaches the age of twenty-one. There the defective has to be specially visited and has to be inspected, and anything he has to say anything which they may deduce from his appearance is at their disposal. Then we conic to subsection (4), which provides for the special report belonging to subsection (2). All that is very confusing. What appears to me to be the substantial matter a this, that upon every consideration, whether it is a consideration at, the normal quinquennial periods or a reconsideration at the time of the defective reaching the age of twenty-one years, there should be a personal visitation of the defective by the authorities. I do not understand upon what principle the Government confine that personal visit to the special case when the defective reaches twenty-one years. It appears to me that whenever the consideration takes place the visitors should see, or some one on behalf of the authorities should see, the defective, and that should apply to the consideration under subsection (2) just as much as to the reconsideration under the proviso of that subsection. In order to bring that point out and to obtain from the Government some explanation of what their real intentions are, I propose to insert the words "consideration and" before "reconsideration" at the beginning of subsection (3) so as to make this subsection quite clear.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 6, after ("such") insert ("consideration and").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble Marquess is under some misapprehension as to the structure of this clause. The structure of Clause 11 is this. First, an order is made that the defective must be sent to an institution or placed under guardianship. That order is to expire at the end of a year unless it is continued, and then the order is to remain in force for a year after the date at which it would have expired, and thereafter for successive periods of five years. At the end of each period of one and five years respectively the Board—not the visitors but the Board—after considering such special report and certificate and the means of care and supervision which would be available, are to make an order. Then there is a proviso which deals with the particular case of a defective who at the time he was sent to the institution or placed under guardianship was under twenty-one years of age. In that case, but in that case only, the reconsideration takes place and it is to be by visitors.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Why is that distinction made?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is purely a provision for that particular case.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What is the reason for it?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Because you have the five year periods. The Board is a better authority than the visitors for examining a case. The only reason for bringing in the visitors is this. There may be all over the country a large number of defectives attaining the age of twenty-one and it is necessary to appoint special visitors to see them. Then the case is to be reconsidered by the visitors. On such reconsideration the visitors shall visit the defective or summon him to attend before them, and so on, The procedure is entirely the procedure of the visitors, and the specific case in which they act is on the defective attaining twenty-one. They are the only ones who reconsider. It is really a question of the way the clause should be framed, and I hope I have satisfied the noble Marquess that what has been done has been done, not per incuriam, but to carry out the scheme of the clause.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble and learned Viscount has made it clear with regard to the two cases. But when the Board are acting at the end of the quinquennial period ought they not to make a point of seeing the patient?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Board have very large discretionary powers as to that, and no doubt the defective would be visited by one or two visitors. The contemplation is that the visitation shall be more complete than under the present lunacy jurisdiction.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What I want the noble and learned Viscount to explain is this, why there should be a consideration at the end of five years and a reconsideration when the defective reaches the age of twenty-one. If it is right in the second case—the twenty-one years case—that the defective should be seen by some one and it is so necessary that you actually lay it down expressly in the Bill, then you ought to lay it down expressly in the other case too. There is no reason for the distinction. There is no magic about the age of twenty-one that it should be specially singled out. There should be a personal inspection at the ordinary quinquennial period. As my noble friend said, it does not matter, as long as it is a competent person, who inspects the defective; but clearly if it is necessary that he should be inspected in the one case it is also necessary in the other.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The case of visiting at twenty-one is a case specially provided for, because many infant defectives in the ordinary course of events will attain the age of twenty-one at about the same time all over the country at different places. It probably would he impossible for the Board to overtake all the cases, and therefore machinery by visitors is provided under statutory conditions. But in the case of the Board their duty is to provide for the inspection of every patient at the end of the quinquennial period. The procedure of the Board is not only regulated by very competent persons but prescribed by Regulations framed by the Secretary of State in consultation with the Lord Chancellor, and by Order in Council if necessary. It is only because the visit is in a particular case that the statutory provision has been introduced.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am afraid I have failed to make my meaning clear to the noble and learned Viscount. However, I will not press the Amendment on the present occasion, but I will see whether I cannot draw up an Amendment for a later stage which will make it obligatory on some one or other to visit the patient at the end of the quinquennial stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: word "alone" has been inserted in subsection (3) after the words "in the interests of the defective." It was moved in the other House and was accepted, but it is obvious that it may rule out cases where the further detention is desirable both in the interests of the defective and of his parents. The Amendment is really consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 12, leave out ("alone") and insert ("himself").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12:
Duration of detention not under orders.
12.—(1) Where a defective has been placed by his parent or guardian in an institution or under guardianship it shall be lawful for such parent or guardian to withdraw him from the institution or guardianship at any time on giving notice in writing for the purpose to the Board, unless the Board, after considering what means of care and supervision would be available if he were discharged, determine within seven days that the further detention of the defective in the institution or under guardianship is required in the interests of the defective, and where the Board have so determined no further notice by the parent or guardian shall be allowed till after the expiration of six months from the last precious notice.
(2) Subject to the foregoing provisions of this section a defective who has been placed by his parent or guardian in an institution or under guardianship may be detained in the institution or under guardianship, and the case shall be reconsidered by the Board at like intervals and by the visitors, as if he had been ordered to be sent to the institution or placed under guardianship, and the provisions of the last foregoing section shall apply accordingly.
(3) The managers of any certified institution, or house, or any approved home may discharge any defective placed there by his parent or guardian by giving seven days' notice to the Board.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I move to omit from subsection (1) the words "seven days" and to insert "fourteen days after receiving the notice." This is moved at the instance of the Lunacy Commissioners. The length of notice to be served by a parent or guardian of an intention to withdraw a child placed in an institution is by this Amendment extended from seven days to fourteen days, which is more convenient. This will do no one any harm, and will avoid confusion from unduly short notice.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 37, leave out ("seven days") and insert ("fourteen days after receiving the notice").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I move to leave out in subsection (3) "seven days'" and to insert "one month's." Seven days is very scanty notice to give to the parents or whoever is responsible that the defective is to be discharged from an institution, and it will be almost impossible for them to make the necessary arrangements within seven days.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 11, leave out ("seven days'") and insert ("one month's").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think this Amendment is quite reasonable, and I accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The next Amendment is merely in order that the parent or guardian, if he can be got at, should have proper notice.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 12, after ("Board") insert ("and to the parent or guardian of the defective, if known").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have no objection to that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13:
Power to recover expenses.
13.—(1) Where an order that a defective be sent to an institution or be placed under guardianship has been made under this Act, the judicial authority which made the order or any other judicial authority, or, where the order is not made by a judicial authority, any judicial authority, may, on the application of the petitioner, or of the managers of the institution or the guardian, as the case may be, or of an officer authorised by the local authority, make an order requiring the defective, or any person liable to maintain him, to contribute such sum towards the expenses of his maintenance in the institution or of his guardianship, or, in the event of his death in the institution of his funeral expenses and any charges incidental thereto, including the cost of conveyance to the institution, as, having regard to the ability of the defective or person liable to maintain him, seems reasonable.
(2) Any such order may, on the application of the managers of the institution in which the defective is for the time being detained, or of the guardian, or of an officer authorised by the local authority, be enforced against any property of the defective or person liable to maintain him, if made by a judge of county courts, in the same way as if it were a judgment of the county court, and, if made by any other judicial authority, as if it were an order for the payment of a civil debt made by a court of summary jurisdiction.
(3) An order made under this section may be varied or revoked by the judicial authority which made it or any other judicial authority.
(4) Where a defective has been placed by his parent or guardian in an institution or under guardianship any sum which the parent or guardian has agreed to contribute towards the expenses of the maintenance or guardianship of the defective shall be recoverable summarily as a civil debt.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In order to prevent fighting about the money afterwards it is better that the agreement about money matters should be in writing. I therefore move to add "in writing" after the word "agreed" in subsection (4).
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 1, after ("agreed") insert ("in writing").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think this is an improvement, and I accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Claus 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 15:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment standing in my name to Clause 15 is really a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 35, after the second ("is") insert ("apparently").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The two Amendments to this clause are also drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 10, after ("guardian") insert ("wherever practicable").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 22, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17:
Provisions as to religious persuasion.
17.—(1) The judicial authority, court, or Secretary of State, in determining the institution to which a defective is to be sent under an order, shall endeavour to ascertain the religious persuasion to which the defective belongs, and the order shall, where practicable, specify the religious persuasion to which he appears to belong, and an institution conducted in accordance with that persuasion shall, where practicable, be selected.
(2) A minister of the religious persuasion specified in the order as that to which the defective appears to belong may visit the defective at the institution on such days, at such times, and on such conditions as may be fixed by the Board, for the purpose of affording religious assistance and also for the purpose of instructing him in the principles of his religion.
(3) Where a defective is sent to an institution which is not conducted in accordance with the religious persuasion to which the defective belongs, the defective shall not be compelled to receive religious instruction or religious ministrations which are not in accordance with his religious persuasion, but shall, as far as practicable, have facilities for receiving religious instruction and attending religious services co ducted in accordance with his religious persuasion.
(4) Where an order is made for sending a defective to an institution which is not conducted in accordance with the religious persuasion to which he belongs, the nearest adult relative, or in the case of a child his guardian or person entitled to his custody, may apply to the Board to remove or send the defective to an institution conducted in accordance with the defective's religious persuasion, and the Board shall on proof of the defective's religious persuasion comply with the request of the applicant; provided that the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board that the managers of the institution named by him are willing to receive the defective.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is a slight ambiguity in subsection (4). It says, "Where an order is made for sending a defective to an institution which is not conducted in accordance with the religious persuasion to which he belongs, the nearest adult relative, or in the case of a child his guardian or person entitled to his custody, may apply to the Board," and so on. The word "guardian" is used in two senses in the Bill. There is the ordinary sense, the natural guardian; and there is the guardian appointed under the Act itself. I presume that what the Government mean here is the natural and proper guardian, the person who stands in the place of a parent, but they never use that word except in the composite phrase "parent or guardian." The guardian is the only one defined in the clause, and the word "guardian" is left as it stands without the preface "parent or." I am not particularly enamoured of the definition "parent or guardian" in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 12, after ("his") insert ("parent or") and leave out ("or person entitled to his custody").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The law supplies the definition. If a child has a parent the father is the guardian.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But the guardian may be the natural guardian or the guardian appointed under the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Not in this clause. It is not ambiguous there.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment standing in my name is, I think, quite right. A Roman Catholic ought not to be sent to a Roman Catholic institution if the institution is unsuitable for his needs. For instance, a feebleminded person might be sent to a home kept for idiots. That would never do, and we must not let that happen.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 19, after ("defective") insert ("and that the institution is one suitable to the case").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: This new clause which I move to insert after Clause 17 raises very much the same point as the Amendment which has just been inserted in the Bill. It is, I must admit, a little wider in one respect, because it allows the duly qualified practitioner to go and see the defective more often than merely at the end of the quinquennial periods. Still, it is a very proper and reasonable proposal, at any rate so far as the parents or guardians themselves are concerned. If the Government are not willing to allow me to insert this clause in respect of the medical practitioner, I hope they will at any rate allow some words to be put into the Bill to show that the parents or guardians have an inalienable right to go and see how their unfortunate relation is getting on. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will not tell me that this will be all provided for by Regulations. These things which are absolutely essential ought to be in the Bill. It ought to be laid down as an absolute right of the responsible relations of the defective to visit the defective from time to time.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause, viz.: Any duly qualified medical practitioner nominated for the purpose by a defective, or his parent or guardian, or by any relative or friend of the defective may visit the defective at any institution or approved home or certified house for the purpose of the medical examination of the defective at such times and on such conditions as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State; provided that the regulations shall permit a defective to be so visited at intervals not exceeding six months.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should wish to see what is to be in the clause before I gave a promise. For instance, take a case of lunacy. In certain cases it may be very detrimental to the wellbeing of the lunatic that he should be visited by any one; and in some cases it might aggravate his condition very much. In every case where it could be done consistent with the well-being of the defectives the parents or guardians should be able to see them. We only want to, keep it discretionary. I should like to see the suggested words of the noble Marquess.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The words as drafted in the noble Marquess's clause on the Paper are "on such conditions as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is absolutely necessary to keep it discretionary. If the noble Earl had had the constant communications that I have had in connection with the Lunacy Commissioners upon these subjects he would know how serious the other side is.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 18 to 23 agreed to.
Clause 21:
General powers and duties of Commissioners.
24.—(1) Subject to regulations made by the Secretary of State the Board shall—

(a) exercise general supervision, protection, and control over defectives;

(b) supervise the administration by local authorities of their powers and duties under this Act;

(c) certify, approve, supervise, and inspect institutions, houses, and homes for defectives, and all arrangements made for the care, training, and control of defectives therein;

(d) visit, either through one or more Commissioners or through their inspectors, defectives in institutions and certified houses and approved homes, or under guardianship, or (with a view to their certification) elsewhere, and persons who have been placed under the care of any person as being defectives;

(e) provide and maintain institutions for defectives of criminal, dangerous, or violent propensities;

(f) to take such steps as may be necessary for ensuring suitable treatment of cases of mental deficiency;

(g) make annual reports and such special reports as the Secretary of State may from time to time require;

(h) administer, in accordance with this Act, grants made out of money provided by Parliament under this Act.

(2) Without prejudice to their powers and duties under any regulations which the Secretary of State may make for further or more frequent inspection and visitation, it shall be the duty of the Board, through one or more Commissioners to inspect every certified institution, certified house, and approved home at least once in each year, and either through themselves or their inspectors to inspect every certified institution, certified house, and approved home one additional time in each year and every defective under guardianship, at least twice in every year, and any Commissioner shall have power to discharge at any time any person detained in a certified institution or certified house or under guardianship under this Act:
Provided that a Commissioner shall not exercise such power of discharge without the consent of the Secretary of State in the case of a person sent to such an institution by order of the Secretary of State from a prison, criminal lunatic asylum, place of detention, reformatory or industrial school, or inebriate reformatory, so long as the term for which he was committed to the prison or other place from which he was transferred remains unexpired.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: This clause says that subject to regulations made by the Secretary of State the Board shall visit, either through one or more Commissioners or through their inspectors, defectives in institutions and certified houses, and so forth; and it goes on to say "or (with a view to their certification) elsewhere." We do not know what the words "with a view to their certification" mean, and I have put down an Amendment to leave them out.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 31, leave out ("with a view to their certification").—(The Marquess of Salisburry.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The reason for these words was to introduce a reference to the motive why there should be such visits. The Amendment, if accepted, would remove a limitation on the power of visitation by the Commissioners. The words would only cause persons not in an institution or under guardianship to be visited if the Commissioners thought they ought to be certificated. Why should the Commissioners visit them if they were not under guardianship unless the Commissioners had reason to think they ought to be certificated? That is the difficulty about it. I think the words as they stand introduce rather a useful limitation on the powers of the Commissioners.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Are the Commissioners supposed to go about and visit defectives anywhere with a view to their certification?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Commissioners will carry out the powers of the Board of Control, and what you do not want is that the Commissioners should rove about with no reason for roving about. The provision is really to enable them to find the defectives and certify them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 38, after the first ("reports") insert ("to be presented to Parliament") —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26:
Local authorities.
26. The local authority for the purposes of this Act shall, as respects a county, be the council of the county, and, as respects a county borough, be the council of the borough.
THE MARQUESS OF BATH: The Amendment which I have on the Paper is designed to give the control of the mentally deficient in their area to the Corporation of the City of London. I may remind your Lordships that the City already has an asylum winch bears the highest reputation for its management and is absolutely in the forefront. It may be urged, of course; that the residential population in the City is small, but on the other hand there is a large floating population which will come under this Bill. There is a precedent for this in the Children Act of 1908, where the Corporation have this clause. I would also remind the House that there is no desire on the part of the Corporation of the City of London to in any way avoid financial responsibility in this matter. They would be perfectly ready, as it is provided already, to bear their full share of the expenses with regard to the mentally deficient throughout the whole area of the county of London. Powers such as this have been repeatedly given to the City; the separate position of the City has been recognised in the Police Act, the Lunacy Acts, the Housing of the Working Classes Act, the Public Health Acts, the Employment of Children Act, the Infant Life Protection Act, the Explosives Act, the

1809
Lighting of Vehicles Act, and so on. And not only that, but in every County Council Bill the position of the City has been recognised. I therefore venture to recommend this Amendment to your Lordships, and to express the hope that the noble and learned Viscount will be able to see his way to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 28, leave out ("and"); and in line 29, after the second ("borough") insert ("and, as respects the City of London, be the Common Council").—(The Marquess of Bath.)
LORD MONK BRETTON: I hope His Majesty's Government will not accept this Amendment. In the first place, the mentally deficient service is a county service in London at the present time. In the second place, as the noble Marquess has suggested, there are very few mental deficients in the City. I think that is very natural. Sir Frederick Banbury, in another place, when reminded that there were very few mental defectives in the City and that consequently it was unreasonable that the City should have a separate service, said the City were prepared to take in paying patients in the home which they would provide. We on the London County Council object to the City having these powers. It is quite true that the City is the lunacy authority for its district, very much to the disadvantage of the general ratepayers of London; because if the City were in the London County Council area they would pay in rates under this head exactly three times as much as they do at the present time. Consequently the ordinary ratepayer outside the City area would very much prefer not only to have the care of the mentally deficient but also to have the care of the City lunatics. But we do object to this Amendment in this connection. The Royal Commission on the Feeble Minded say in their Report that "There is in London a division of authority and want of administrative accord which is fatal to any successful treatment of the problem." And the Commission went on to say that several of the witnesses strongly advocated the abolition of such division of authority. The noble Marquess quoted several Acts in which separate powers have been given to the City. I could quote others in the opposite sense. But I chiefly rely on the principle of fairness with regard to the rates, and the quotation I have made from the Report of the Royal Commission.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I understand the noble Lord who has just sat clown to intimate that the London County Council do not agree to this Amendment?
LORD MONK BRETTON: That is so.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Government went into this matter with a desire to hold the scales, and the following considerations impressed them against the City. First of all, there are very few defectives in the City. Not a great many people sleep there in proportion to the population and the number of defectives is very small. Secondly—and this is very important—the Common Council of the City is not an education authority, and the, education authorities and this Bill stand in very close relation. Thirdly, the City is represented on the London County Council for the purpose. Fourthly, when this was moved in the House of Commons it was discussed, and then dropped. Therefore to put this Amendment in now would probably lead to a great deal of controversy. I therefore think the noble Marquess will be well advised not to press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clauses 27 and 28 agreed to.
Clause 29:
General powers and duties of local authorities.
29. The local authority are hereby empowered, and it shall be their duty, subject to the provisions of this Act and to regulations made by the Secretary of State—

(a) to ascertain what persons within their area are defectives subject to be dealt with under this Act otherwise than at the instance of their parents or guardians;

(b) to provide suitable supervision for such persons, or if such supervision affords insufficient protection, to take steps for securing that they shall be dealt with by being sent to institutions or placed under guardianship in accordance with this Act;

(c) to provide suitable and sufficient accommodation for such persons when sent to certified institutions by orders under this Act, and for their maintenance therein, and for the conveyance of such persons to and from such institutions;

(d) to make provision for the guardianship of such persons when placed under guardianship by orders under this Act;

1811

(e) if they think fit, to maintain in an institution or approved home or contribute towards the expenses of maintenance in an institution or approved home or the expenses of guardianship of a defective;

(f) if they think fit, to provide for the burial of such persons dying in an institution or when placed under guardianship in accordance with this Act;

(g) to appoint or employ sufficient officers and other persons to assist them in the performance of their duties under this Act;

(h) to make to the Board annual reports and such other reports as the Board may require:

Provided that—

(i) nothing in this Act shall be construed as imposing any obligation on a local authority to perform the duties mentioned in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (g) aforesaid where the contribution out of moneys provided by Parliament under this Act towards the cost on income account of performing such duties is less than one half of the net amount (as approved by the Board) of such cost;

(ii) nothing in this Act shall affect the powers and duties of poor law authorities under the Acts relating to the relief of the poor, with respect to any defectives who may be dealt with tinder those Acts; nor the right of poor law authorities to receive the same grant for a defective who has been, or may be, sent to an institution, that they would have received if the Idiots Act, 1886, had not been repealed; nor shall local authorities under this Act have any duties with respect to defectives who for the time being are being provided for by such authorities as aforesaid, except to such extent as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State with the concurrence of the Local Government Board;

(iii) nothing in this Act shall affect the powers and duties of local authorities under the Lunacy Acts, 1890 to 1911, with respect to any defectives who may be dealt with under those Acts, nor shall local authorities under this Act have any duties or powers with respect to defectives who for the time being are, or who might be, provided for by such authorities as aforesaid except to such extent as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor;

(iv) nothing in this Act shall affect the duties or powers of local education authorities under the Education Acts; and the duty of ascertaining what children over the age of seven and under the age of sixteen (herein-after referred to as defective children) are defectives shall rest with the local education authority as herein-after provided and not with the local authority under this Act; and such last mentioned authorities shall have no duties as respects defective children, except those whose names and addresses have been notified to them by the local education authority under the provisions of this Act.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: This Amendment in paragraph (a) is exactly the same Amendment as I moved, and the Government accepted, upon Clause 4. It is only a definition.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 32, leave out ("at the instance of their parents or guardians") and insert ("under paragraph (a) of subsection one of Section two of this Act").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The next is a substantial matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the Government. I ventured to refer to this on the Second Reading. I have no reason to doubt that the principle of providing for supervision for the defectives who are not bad enough to be shut up or put under guardianship may have a great deal to be said for it, but the expression is absolutely vague. I am now upon paragraph (b)—"to provide suitable supervision for such persons." The Amendment which I am proposing is to insert, after "such persons," the words "with their consent or the consent of their parent or guardian." I ventured on Second Reading to ask the noble and learned Viscount —it was not convenient for him to reply to me then—to tell us what this supervision meant, and what the effect of the words "to provide suitable supervision" would be, because "supervision" is very vague. It is not defined in the Bill. It is a new thing to say that without any process of law at all, without any decision of any Law Court or judicial authority, certain persons should have the right to supervise other persons. At present if a person attempts to supervise an ordinary man be is told "Mind your own business." That is the ordinary reply if people interfere with him, unless they do it by process of some legal right acquired on a decision of a Court of Law. But this supervision arises without any decision of a Court of Law at all, simply apparently upon the motion of the local authority, who are empowered under this section to provide supervision for such persons, or, if such supervision affords insufficient protection, to take steps for securing greater powers of restraint. What does this supervision amount to? Does it mean that they are

1813
to pay the persons to supervise, or to appoint them? Or are they granted additional powers they do not possess at present?—for instance, rights of entry; calling upon the civil power to assist them; rights to interview the alleged defective, whether the alleged defective likes or no? All those questions are undetermined in the clause; it is perfectly vague. I have tried to restrict it in one particular to draw from the Government how far they really intend to go. The way I propose to restrict it is by putting in the words, "with their consent or the consent of their parent or guardian," so as to make it quite clear that this supervision cannot be exercised over one against one's will, or against the will of the parent or guardian, until there has been some legal process under which the matter may become legitimate. These appear to be limiting words which will lead the Government to explain exactly what they mean by "supervision."
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 33, after ("persons") insert ("with their consent or the consent of their parent or guardian").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The governing purpose of the clause is this. The authority, subject to proper regulations, are first of all to ascertain the number of defectives within the areas, and to there and then provide suitable supervision for such persons. That does not, of course, mean that the authority is straight off to determine who is to supervise, or to settle upon the person to whom the guardianship is to be committed. That is a matter for the judicial authorities when the time comes. All that is done here is to define the duty of the local authority. The local authority is to see that these persons have suitable supervision, or, if the supervision is insufficient protection, to take steps of a further kind. The noble Marquess proposes to put in after "persons" the words "with their consent or the consent of their parent or guardian." Now suppose the case of a parent or guardian being in default; suppose the case of a child who is in a home where the parents are drunkards. Such a parent, or such a guardian, is very likely to be obstinate and to refuse. What the authority has to do is to take steps to provide certain supervision, it may be through the judicial authority or other-
1814
wise. But it would never do to make the consent of the existing parent or guardian a condition, because the parent or guardian may be the very person from whom it is essential to get the custody of the child.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I follow what the noble and learned Viscount says and am impressed with it. But will he tell us what powers the supervisor would have in the case of a reluctant parent?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is to provide suitable supervision for such persons. The authority will, if possible, replace it with such other person temporarily, and if that cannot be done take other steps. It is on the other steps that the legal protection will come in.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The point of my next Amendment is this. I do not think paragraph (d) can be read with the rest of the Bill. The guardian is appointed by the judicial authority. That is quite clear. Then what is meant by the words "to make provision for the guardianship"? The words seem to cover the same ground, so that the local authority is to have jurisdiction which overlaps, as it were, the authority of the judicial authority. The word "providing" is a very wide one. We speak of providing a school—that means the whole thing, the putting up of the school, the paying for it, and the determining of every circumstance about it. One would think that provision for the guardianship would be the same. But if the noble and learned Viscount says it is to pay for the guardianship, then I turn to Clause 37. There you will find that "A local authority may, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, contribute towards the expenses of the guardianship." So that where the local authority is directed in Clause 29 obligatorily to provide for the guardianship, in Clause 37 it has an optional power to contribute towards the very same thing. It is therefore evident from the reading of the Bill that the interpretation which the noble and learned Viscount would wish to put on the provision of the guardianship is not sound; otherwise you would not want

1815
power to contribute to the guardianship in a subsequent clause. That is why I say the paragraph does not read. I think the Government ought to bring up clearer words stating what they really mean. If they mean "pay for the guardianship" in Clause 29 they should say so and strike out the provision in Clause 37, because the two things are not consistent. If they mean more than pay for it, then they interfere with the appointment of the guardian which is assigned to the judicial authority by an earlier clause in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, lines 4 to 6, leave out paragraph (d).—(The Marquess al Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The guardian is appointed by the judicial authority, not by the local authority. Very well. The guardian, having been appointed by the judicial authority, then has to be looked after, and the local authority it is who finds out about him, and pays him, and so on. But although it is said in Clause 29 that it is the duty of the local authority to look after him, it is only said to be a duty subject to the provisions of the Bill and regulations made by the Secretary of State. In Clause 37, which is one of those clauses which relate to cases where they are not under a duty, as I have pointed out, it is expressed to be subject to the other provisions of the Bill, so there is no inconsistency. In most cases the local authority will look after the guardian. There may be cases, however, where they are not under an obligation to do so. The clause is useful as giving the power to make the contributions necessary. If there is any inconsistency it is in Clause 37, which, I agree with the noble Marquess, has almost more of an optional look about it than is desirable. I should be ready to see that go if any one draws attention to it; but I attach a good deal of importance to paragraph (d), and I should like to keep it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will move on Clause 37, then.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next is a purely drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 10, leave out ("a defective") and insert ("any defectives other than aforesaid").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is also purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 11, leave out ("such").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MONK BRETTON: The object of my Amendment is to cut out the duty of the local authority to provide accommodation for dangerous criminals. I understood from the noble and learned Viscount's statement on Second Reading that the State would pay the whole cost of such criminals. I do not know if that was so. But in any case the county councils object to having to pay for these criminals. Moreover, they do not want to be bothered with them or to have the responsibility of them at all. In the circumstances I hope these persons will go to the prisons which are more suitable.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 20, after ("Acts") insert:
(v) Nothing in this Act shall require a local authority to provide accommodation or' treatment for defectives of criminal, dangerous or violent propensities.—(Lord Monk Bretton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is nothing in the Bill which requires the local authority to provide accommodation for the treatment of criminals who are dangerous or who have violent propensities. The cost incurred in respect of persons who are sentenced and come under that head will be defrayed by the State.
LORD MONK BRETTON: Would that cover all persons of criminal propensities? A person of criminal propensities is a criminal, I take it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Persons who are dangerous are covered by this. Persons who have merely committed a theft, or are in a position of that kind, are not covered by it.
LORD MONK BRETTO.N: When the noble and learned Viscount says "covered by it" he means that the local authority will not be responsible for them, I suppose?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Take the case of a boy who has stolen an apple from an orchard—a small thing of that kind. It would not be right to put him in the category of persons whom the State should take charge of because of their criminal violence or propensities. Such a case as that it would be right to leave as the matter stands. But in all cases where the criminal is dangerous or has violent propensities he will be provided for by the State.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 30 to 32 agreed to.
Clause 33:
Special provisions as to Lancashire.
54 & 55 Vict. c. xx.
33.—(1) If the council of the county of Lancaster and the councils of the county boroughs represented on the Lancashire Asylums Board so agree, that Board shall be the local authority for the purposes of this Act for that county and those county boroughs, and the provisions of the Lancashire County (Lunatic Asylums and other Powers) Act, 1891, as to expenses, borrowing, accounts, and audit shall apply accordingly in substitution for the provisions as to the like matters contained in this Act.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Amendments to this clause are simply for the purpose of putting into order the provisions settled in the other House about the county of Lancaster. As your Lordships know, the county of Lancaster stands on a different footing from other counties in that it has so many boroughs, and so on. They are merely drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 23, line 26, leave out from the beginning of the clause to the second ("the") in line 27.
Page 23, line 28, leave out ("so agree, that Board shall") and insert ("shall as respects the county of Lancaster, and the county boroughs represented on the said Board").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 31 to 36 agreed to.
Clause 37:
Power of local authorities to establish or contribute to institutions, &c.
37.—(1) A local authority may, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State,—

(a) undertake or combine with any other local authority in undertaking, or contribute such sums of money upon such conditions as they may think fit towards, the establishment, building, alteration, enlargement, rebuilding, or management of institutions certified or intended to be certified under this Act or the purchase of any land required for the use of a certified institution or for the site of an institution intended to be certified under this Act; and

(b) contract with the managers of any certified institution for the reception and maintenance in the institution of persons for whose reception and maintenance the local authority are by this Act required or authorised to make provision;

(c) contribute towards the expenses of the guardianship of any person placed or ordered to be placed under guardianship.

(2) Where plans of any proposed alteration, enlargement, rebuilding, or building have been approved by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section they shall be carried out without any modifications (except such as the Secretary of State may approve), and no building or site which has been provided by a council or to which they have contributed under this section shall without the consent of the Secretary of State be used for any purpose other than that for which it has been approved.
(3) Land may be acquired by a local authority for the purposes of this, Act in the case of the council of a county under and in accordance with the Local Government Act, 1888, and in the case of the council of a county borough as for the purposes of the Public Health Acts.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In pursuance of the discussion we had just now, I move to leave out paragraph (c) of Clause 37.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, lines 12 to 14, leave out paragraph (c). —(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I accept that Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39:
Visitors of institutions.
39.—(1) The persons appointed under the Lunacy Acts, 1890 to 1911, to act as visitors of licensed houses, with the addition of one or more women appointed in like manner as such visitors, shall be the visitors of institutions for

1819
defectives under this Act, and the number of persons appointed to be visitors of licensed houses under those Acts shall be such as may be considered necessary to perform the duties of visitors of institutions for defectives under this Act as well as the duties of visitors of licensed houses under those Acts, and their duties under this Act shall he taken into consideration in determining the remuneration, if any, of the visitors and clerks to visitors.
(2) In all places where no persons are so appointed to act as visitors of licensed houses a sufficient number of persons, with the addition of one or more women, possessing the like qualifications as such visitors shall be appointed in like manner as such visitors to act as visitors of institutions for defectives, and a clerk to such visitors shall be appointed in like manner as in the case of the clerk to the visitors appointed under the Lunacy Acts, 1890 to 1911, and the expenses of visitors so appointed, including the remuneration, if any, of any visitors and clerks to visitors, shall be defrayed in like manner as the expenses of visitors under the Lunacy Acts, 1890 to 1911.
(3) The visitors of institutions for defectives shall perform such functions as are assigned to them by this Act and such further functions in connection with the visitation of institutions and of the patients therein, and with respect to the discharge of such patients and their after care and otherwise, as may be assigned to them by regulations of the Secretary of State under this Act.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: These are purely drafting Amendments to make sure that the women get in. I am putting them in the right place in the Bill.
Amendments moved—
Page 26, line 12, leave out ("with the addition of one or more women").
Page 26, line 13, after ("visitors") insert ("with the addition of one or more women").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think it would be useful to be able to ask the visitors to institutions to inspect these defectives. The addition I now propose is in the right direction.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 24, after ("therein") insert ("and of defectives under guardianship").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 23, leave out ("patients") and insert ("defectives").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 40 and 41 agreed to.
Clause 42:
Ascertainment of local authority responsible for providing accommodation, &c.
42.—(1) Where a person is ordered to be sent to a certified institution or to be placed under guardianship the local authority responsible for providing accommodation for that person or making provision for his guardianship as the case may be, shall be the council of the county or county borough in which he resided (to be specified in the order), and the duties of that council shall include, in the case of a person ordered to be sent to a certified institution, the duty to provide for his conveyance to, and reception and maintenance in, such an institution.
(2) An order that a person be sent to an institution or placed under guardianship shall not, where a council will by virtue of this Act become responsible for providing for the conveyance, reception and maintenance of that person in an institution, or making provision for his guardianship, as the case may be, be made unless that council have been given an opportunity of being heard, or, if the order is made by the Secretary of State, of making representations to him.
(3) The council responsible under this section for the maintenance of a person in a certified institution shall continue responsible for his maintenance in the event of his transfer to another such institution, and shall be responsible for his conveyance on his transfer from the one institution to the other; and the council responsible under this section for making provision for the guardianship of a person placed under guardianship shall, in the event of his being sent to a certified institution under an order varying the original order, be responsible for his conveyance to and his reception and maintenance in such an institution.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If a local authority has established an institution and there are vacant beds in that institution there ought to be no power to require that local authority to pay the expenses of defectives sent by another authority. That seems reasonable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 22, after ("him") insert ("and if room is available in an institution suitable for the defective provided by the responsible authority, an order shall not, without the consent of that authority, be made for sending the defective to any other institution").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MONK BRETTON: The Amendment which the noble and learned Viscount has just inserted covers my- proposed new subsection (4) on the Paper, but it does not cover my proposed subsection (5). The point is that where a council is responsible for a defective and that defective is not in their immediate institution, it is desirable and necessary that that council

1821
should be able, so to speak, to follow the defective and inspect him. In asking for such powers one can quote the analogy of boards of guardians, who have power to visit an asylum where they have a lunatic confined. Local authorities attach importance to having this power to visit.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new subsection:
(5) The council responsible for the maintenance of a person in an institution or under guardianship may cause the institution or guardian, as the case may be, to be visited.—(Lord Monk Bretton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The object is quite reasonable, but the Amendment is not necessary. I will undertake that this is provided for in the regulations. It is better that it should be so provided than in the clause. We have to make statutory regulations under the Bill which will be laid on the Table in Parliament, and we will provide for this in those regulations.
LORD MONK BRETTON: Boards of guardians have power to go into an asylum, not by regulations but by Act of Parliament. The local authorities dislike being under the heel of regulations made by the Civil Service in Whitehall, and would much prefer that this power should be inserted in the Bill. I cannot see what possible objection there is to doing so.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think it very much matters, but it is not quite appropriate. It will be said, Why are not things of equal importance put into the Bill? A number of matters must be provided for by the regulations which, as I have said, will be laid on the Table of Parliament.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendments to Clause 43 are drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 5, after ("prison") insert ("inebriate reformatory").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, lines 12 and 13, leave out ("an inebriate reformatory or") and insert ("a").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, lines 17 and 18, leave out ("inebriate reformatory or").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 44 and 45 agreed to.
Clause 46:
Contributions by the Treasury.
46. There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament such sums on such conditions as the Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, recommend towards the expenses of any persons detained in certified institutions or placed under guardianship, including the expenses of removal in the case of any such person ordered to be transferred from one such institution to another and towards other expenses incurred by local authorities under this Act:
Provided that, unless Parliament otherwise determines, the aggregate amount so paid in any financial year shall not exceed one hundred and fifty thousand pounds, but for the purpose of this limitation there shall be excluded all sums paid towards the expenses of persons sent to such institutions or placed under guardianship—

(a) by order of the Secretary of State;

(b) by order of a court or judicial authority after having been found guilty of an offence or having been ordered or found liable to be ordered to be sent to an industrial school.

LORD MONK BRETTON: I have put this Amendment down primarily for the purpose of obtaining information from His Majesty's Government with regard to the allocation of money. This is really the main question—How are the Government grants to be allocated? Is the money all to be spent amongst the larger authorities, or is it to be distributed throughout the country? And if there are districts which are not going to receive any money at all is it worth their while to register when the Act is going to be a dead letter in their districts? I do not wish to press this Amendment seriously, but I wish to ask for information on the subject.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 21, after ("school") insert ("and that the money provided by Parliament shall be allocated to the local authorities according to the number of persons within the area of each local authority ascertained by them to be defectives subject to be dealt with under this Act").— (Lord Monk Bretton.)
LORD STRACHIE: The objection to this Amendment is that the amount will not be reckoned by the number of defectives who happen to be living in one particular area, but the area is to receive money according to the number of defectives dealt with.
LORD MONK BRETTON: I quite understand the objection to my Amendment. But I put it down in the hope of getting some information with regard to the method of the allocation of the money.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It ought to be allocated according to the work done, rather than according to the number of heads. You do not want to give money to an area where the authority is not doing its duty. You cannot take the number of defectives merely, but the number of cases dealt with. That is the broad principle that underlies the allocation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46 agreed to.
Clauses 47 and 48 agreed to.
Clause 49:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I move a series of drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 32, line 25, leave out ("institution") and insert ("premises")
Page 32, line 30, leave out ("institution") and insert ("premises")
Page 32, line 31, leave out ("premises") and insert ("same")
Page 32, line 37, leave out ("an institution") and insert ("any premises")
Page 32, line 38, leave out ("is") and insert ("are").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 50 to 54 agreed to.
Clause 55:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: These are drafting Amendments.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 31, leave out ("either under this section or").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 5, leave out ("this section of this Act") and insert ("references to this section and the last foregoing section").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 56 to 63 agreed to.
Clause 61:
Transfer to Board of powers and duties of Lunacy Commissioners.
64.—(1) All the powers and duties of the Commissioners in Lunacy under the Lunacy Acts, 1890 to 1911, shall, as from the commencement of this Act, be transferred to the Board, and His Majesty may by Order in Council direct that anything which under those Acts is required or authorised to be done by, to, or in respect of any one or more Commissioners in Lunacy or any officer of those Commissioners shall, be done by, to, or in respect of one or more Commissioners under this Act, or the corresponding officer of the Board:
Provided that nothing in such Order in Council shall authorise anything by those Acts required to be clone by two Commissioners, one a medical practitioner and the other a barrister, to be done otherwise than by two Commissioners, one a medical and the other a legal Commissioner.
(2) As from the commencement of this Act the existing staff of the Commissioners in Lunacy shall be transferred to and become members of the staff of the Board, but without prejudice to the rights of any existing members of such staff.
(3) As from the commencement of this Act sections one hundred and fifty to one hundred and sixty-one of the Lunacy Act, 1890, shall be repealed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have an Amendment at the end of subsection (1). It is a useful provision because it enables us to pay the persons concerned, which cannot be done unless we have this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 2, after ("Commissioner") insert ("but the order may provide that in the case of the temporary illness or disability of a medical or legal Commissioner the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State (as the case may be) may appoint a person qualified to be a medical or legal Commissioner to act as substitute so long as the illness or disability continues").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 64, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 65 and 66 agreed to.
Clause 67:
Provisions as to regulations.
67. Regulations made under this Act shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Amendment gives rather stronger powers to Parliament, and I think it ought to go in.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 8, after ("and") insert ("if within thirty days after they have been so laid either House of Parliament presents an address to His Majesty praying that any such regulations may be annulled, His Majesty may, by Order in Council, annul the regulations, without prejudice, however, to anything done thereunder, and the regulations made under this Act").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 68 and 69 agreed to.
Clause 70:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is necessary to make it clear that the term "relative" includes the husband or wife of the defective.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 26, after ("means") insert ("the husband or wife, or").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 16, leave out ("an institution") and insert ("any premises").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedule:

POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE.
1. The supervision of the administration by local authorities of their power and duties under this Act.
2. The certification and approval of premises.
3. The provision and maintenance of State institutions.
4. The administration of grants made out of moneys provided by Parliament under this Act.
5. Such other powers and duties of the Board of an administrative nature as the Secretary of State or the Board may assign to the administrative committee.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not move the Amendment standing in my name to the Schedule.
LORD MONK BRETTON: I hope the noble and learned Viscount will move this Amendment. This is a matter of considerable importance, to which I referred on the Second Reading.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As the noble Lord desires site to do so, I will move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 18, after ("Board"), where it first appears in paragraph 5, insert ("under this Act").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
At the conclusion of the Committee stage, on the Motion to report the Bill as amended to the House.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE said: On this Motion I should like to say one or two words. I think the worst enemy of this House belonging to the Party opposite must be thoroughly satisfied with the proceedings of this Rouse this afternoon. Every one admits, whatever his opinion may be in the Second Chamber controversy, that revision is one of the functions of a Second Chamber. In the conditions under which we have to work revision is a farce. What we have done to-night is a transparent farce in the face of the whole country. It has been impossible for the Opposition to master this Bill or to do their duty by it, and it is perfectly clear that the Government know almost as little of the Bill as the Opposition. Not only that, but the Lord Chancellor puts down on the Paper many Amendments which he thinks obviously necessary improvements in the Bill, and he does not move them. Why? Only to enable the House of Commons to compass the Prorogation on Friday. It is hard indeed to be asked to take part in staging such a farce as this. The days of this House as at present composed are neatly numbered. When the new House comes into existence I devoutly hope that it will refuse to connive at a farce of this kind. I trust that it will arrange its adjournments solely with a view to its duty of revision, and not to suit the convenience either of His Majesty's Government, from whatever Party it is taken, or of the House of Commons.
The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 174.)

BANKRUPTCY BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power to prosecute offences summarily.
32 &33 Vict. c. 62.
1.—(1) Any offence under, or which may be dealt with as if it were an offence under, the Debtors Act, 1869, alleged to have been committed by a person who has been adjudged bankrupt, or in respect of whose estate a receiving order has been made, may be prosecuted summarily, and if so prosecuted references in the enactments creating those offences to the jury shall be construed as references to a court of summary jurisdiction:
Provided that—

(a) the maximum term of imprisonment, with or without hard labour, which may be awarded by a court of summary jurisdiction for any such offence shall be six months; and

(b) summary proceedings in respect of any such offence shall not be instituted after one year from the first discovery thereof either by the Official Receiver or by the trustee in the bankruptcy, nor in any case shall they be instituted after three years from the commission of the offence.

(2) Where the prosecution of a person for any such offence is ordered by the court, and the order of the court is made on the application of the Official Receiver and based on his report, the Board of Trade may, notwithstanding anything in section one hundred and sixty-six of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (herein-after referred to as "the principal Act"), themselves or through the Official Receiver institute the prosecution and carry on the proceedings, if or so long as those proceedings are conducted before a court of summary jurisdiction, unless in the course thereof circumstances arise which, in the opinion of such court or of the Board, render it desirable that the remainder of the proceedings should be carried on by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Paragraph (b), which I propose to amend, deals with the time limit. As the paragraph stands at the present moment it only refers to the Official Receiver or to the trustee in the bankruptcy, but there is yet a third party who occasionally does take proceedings, and that is the creditor. It is desirable that the limitation should apply to the creditor as well as the other parties concerned.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 22, after ("bankruptcy") insert ("or, in the case of proceedings instituted by a creditor, by the creditor").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Dealings with undischarged bankrupt.
11.—(1) All transactions by a bankrupt with any person dealing with him bonâfide and for value and without knowledge of his bankruptcy, in respect of property, whether real or personal, acquired by the bankrupt after the adjudication shall, if completed before any intervention by the trustee, be valid against the trustee, and any estate or interest in such property which by virtue of the enactments relating to bankruptcy is vested in the trustee shall determine and pass in such manner and to such extent as may be required for giving effect to any such transaction, and, where any such transaction is a transaction in the course of any trade or business carried on by the bankrupt, it shall be valid against the trustee, whether or not the person dealing with the bankrupt had knowledge of the bankruptcy. This subsection shall apply to transactions with respect to real property completed before the commencement of this Act in any case where there has not been any intervention by the trustee before that date. For the purposes of this subsection the receipt of any money, security, or negotiable instrument from, or by the order or direction of, a bankrupt by his banker, and any payment made to, or by the order or direction of, a bankrupt by his banker, shall be deemed to be a transaction by the bankrupt with such banker dealing with him for value.
(2) Where a banker has ascertained that a person having an account with him is an undischarged bankrupt then, unless the banker is satisfied that the account is on behalf of some other person, it shall be his duty forthwith to inform the trustee in bankruptcy or the Board of Trade of the existence of the account, and thereafter he shall not make any payments out of the account except under an order of the court or in accordance with instructions from the trustee in bankruptcy, unless by the expiration of one month from the date of giving the information no instructions have been received from the trustee.
(3) In the event of a second or subsequent receiving order being made against a bankrupt, any property acquired by him since he was last adjudged bankrupt which at the date when the subsequent petition was presented had not been distributed amongst the creditors in such last preceding bankruptcy, shall (subject to any disposition thereof made by the official receiver or trustee in that bankruptcy, without knowledge of the presentation of the subsequent petition and subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section) vest in the trustee in the subsequent bankruptcy, but any unsatisfied balance of the debts provable under the last preceding bankruptcy may be proved in the subsequent bankruptcy by the trustee in the last preceding bankruptcy.
(4) Where the trustee in any bankruptcy receives notice of a subsequent petition in bankruptcy against the bankrupt, he shall hold any property then in his possession which has been acquired by the bankrupt since he was adjudged bankrupt until the subsequent petition has been disposed of, and if on the subsequent petition an order of adjudication is made he shall transfer all such property or the proceeds thereof (after deducting his costs and expenses) to the trustee in the subsequent bankruptcy.
(5) Where a person has been adjudged bankrupt, nothing in any enactment relating to bankruptcy shall affect the rights of any person making title in good faith and for valuable consideration, and without knowledge of the trustee's title, through or under a person who has acquired from the bankrupt property which the bankrupt himself acquired after he was adjudged bankrupt.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved to omit from the beginning of subsection (1) the words "and without knowledge of his bankruptcy." The noble Earl said: This is rather a complicated point affecting the protection of persons who are dealing with an undischarged bankrupt. It Ls the result of a good many negotiations which were entered into with various interested parties; and inasmuch as the Amendment which I move will put the Bill in the form in which it was recommended by a Departmental Committee which went into this question, we venture to think it will probably meet with the approval of your Lordships' House. The Bill as originally proposed, and as originally introduced, did not protect persons dealing with the bankrupt if such persons had knowledge of the bankruptcy, unless the transactions were in the course of the bankrupts trade or business. During the Report stage in the other House it was urged that persons so dealing with a bankrupt ought to have protection whether they knew about it or not, and in the result it was decided that that view should be agreed to. The first Amendment gives the protection accordingly in such cases, and the second one is merely consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 9, leave out from ("value") to ("in") in line 10.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understand that these Amendments are additions to the Bill since your Lordships had it under consideration?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Yes; that is so.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved to omit from subsection (1) the words "and, where any such transaction is a transaction in the course of any trade or business carried on by the bankrupt, it shall be valid against the trustee, whether or not the person dealing with the bankrupt had knowledge of the bankruptcy."
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 16, leave out from ("transaction") to ("This") in line 20.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The next is a drafting Amendment suggested by the Institute of Bankers, to which we are glad to agree.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 2E, after ("payment"), where that word last occurs in subsection (1), insert ("and any delivery of any security or negotiable instrument").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: We propose to leave out subsection (5), which is consequential on the preceding Amendment. As the person dealing with a bankrupt will be protected by the Amendment to which your Lordships have already agreed, the subsection becomes unnecessary.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, lines 20 to 26, leave out subsection (5) —(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Protection, of sheriff, &c., selling goods under execution without notice of claim, by third party.
15. Where any goods in the possession of an execution debtor at the time of seizure by a sheriff, high bailiff, or other officer charged with the enforcement of a writ, warrant, or other process of execution, are sold by such sheriff, high bailiff, or other officer, without any claim having been made to the same, the purchaser of the goods so sold shall acquire a good title to the goods so sold, and no person shall be entitled to recover against the sheriff, high bailiff, or other officer, or anyone lawfully acting under the authority of either of them, except as provided by the Bankruptcy Acts, 1883 and 1890, for

1831
any sale of such goods or for paying over the proceeds thereof, prior to the receipt of a claim to the said goods: Provided that nothing in this section contained shall affect the right of any claimant who may prove that at the time of sale he had a title to any goods so seized and sold to any remedy to which he may be entitled against any person other than such sheriff, high bailiff, or other officer as aforesaid.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: This is really a drafting Amendment. It was never intended to protect the sheriff or other officer who acted negligently.
Amendment moved—
Clause 15, page 11, line 4, after ("goods"), immediately before the Proviso, insert ("unless it is proved that the person from whom recovery is sought had notice, or might by making reasonable inquiry have ascertained that the goods were not the property of the execution debtor"). —(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 27 agreed to.
Clause 28:
Application of Part I where receiving order made under s. 103 (5) of principal Act.
28. Where a receiving order is made against a debtor under subsection (5) of section one hundred and three of the principal Act, this Part of this Act shall apply as if for references to the presentation of a petition by or against a person there were substituted references to the making of such a receiving order.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Your Lordships will see that although I move to leave out Clause 28 I move to put in as a new clause after Clause 40 the words set out. As it stands at the present moment this clause would only apply to the first part of the Bill, but we are anxious that it should apply to the rest of the Bill as well.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, lines 21 to 25, leave out Clause 28.— (Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 29 to 34 agreed to.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I understand the new clause standing in my name is an agreed clause, but owing to a technicality could not be moved in the House of Commons. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 34, to insert the following new clause:
"Preferential payment to creditor an offence.
".If a trustee under a deed of arrangement pays to any creditor out of the debtor's property a sum larger in proportion to the creditor's claim than that paid to other creditors entitled to the benefit of the deed, then, unless the deed authorises him to do so, or unless such payments are either made to a creditor entitled to enforce his claim by distress or are such as would be lawful in a bankruptcy, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour." —(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 35 to 40 agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: This is the new clause to which I have already referred. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 40 insert as a new clause (to form part of Part III):
"Application of Act when receiving order made under 46 &47 Vict. c. 52, s. 103 (5).
" . When a receiving order is made against the debtor under subsection five of section one hundred and three of the principal Act, this Act shall apply as if for references to the presentation of a petition by or against a person there were substituted references to the making of such a receiving order."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 41:
Short title, commencement, and interpretation.
41.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Bankruptcy and Deeds of Arrangement Act, 1913, and Part I of this Act shall be construed with the Bankruptcy Acts, 1883 and 1890, and may be cited with those Acts as the Bankruptcy Acts, 1883 to 1913, and Part II of this Act shall be construed with the Deeds of Arrangement Act, 1887, and may be cited with that Act and the Deeds of Arrangement Amendment Act, 1890, as the Deeds of Arrangement Acts, 1887 to 1913:
Provided that, notwithstanding that Part II of this Act is to be construed with the Deeds of Arrangement Act, 1887, no part of this Act shall extend to Ireland.
(2) This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January nineteen hundred and fourteen.
(3) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the expression "the Debtors Act, 1869," means that Act as amended by the Bankruptcy Acts, 1883 to 1890, and any other enactment, including this Act.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: This Amendment is in order to give more time for making the necessary regulations, as there are a good many to be made.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 24, leave out ("January") in subsection (2) and insert ("April").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule:
EARL BEAUCHAMP: This is obviously a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 33, after ("shall") insert ("where those words last occur").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 175.)

FOREIGN JURISDICTION BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I need not take up much time in explaining this Bill, but as this is one of those cases which sometimes occur where the title conveys to the ordinary hearer a small notion of the contents of the Bill, I will explain very briefly what it does. Its effect is to give the power of applying to Protectorates under the Crown, by Order in Council, certain Acts of the Imperial Parliament which apply to Crown Colonies. The reason for the obscurity of the title is simply this. The original Foreign Jurisdiction Act of 1890 applied in the first place to countries with independent Governments of their own but within which the Crown had jurisdiction—such countries, for instance, as China. It was then found that it could conveniently be applied to Protectorates which are parts of the Empire not actually under the sovereignty
1834
of the Crown, but in which, by various arrangements, the Crown has jurisdiction. Under the Act of 1890 a number of important Statutes can be and have been applied thus to Protectorates, such as the Merchant Shipping Act, and others. The schedule to this Bill sets out other enactments which may be applied to countries in which His Majesty's Government has jurisdiction. There is the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act, 1869; the Colonial Probates Act; Section 20 of the Finance Act, 1891; the Colonial Solicitors Act of 1900, which enables solicitors in the Protectorates to practise in England; and three Sections of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908. I understand that this measure met with no kind of opposition in another place, and I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will agree to read it a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I understand from the noble Marquess that this Bill only increases the number of Acts which may be applied to the Protectorates as well as to foreign countries?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: That is what it really does. The application can be made in each case by an Order in Council. It does not follow that any particular Act is by the Bill so applied.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3aTo-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ADJUSTMENTS) BILL.
Amendment reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3aTo-morrow.
PUBLIC BUILDINGS EXPENSES BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3aTo-morrow.
BANKRUPTCY (SCOTLAND) CONSOLIDA TION BILL.
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (GLASGOW ELECTORAL DIVISIONS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bills reported without amendment, and to be read 3aTo-morrow.

POST OFFICE BILL.
Amendment reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (1911) AMENDMENT BILL.
Second Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off till To-morrow.
HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (MEDICAL SERVICE) BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2aTo-morrow. (No. 176.)

IRELAND (FINES IN FISHERY CASES).
Return respecting: Laid before the House (pursuant to Order of the 6th of February last), and to be printed. (No. 177.)
House adjourned at ten minutes before Eight o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Three o'clock.